ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the period prescribed, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Not allowed – Block exemption – Agreements in the motor industry – Regulation No 1400/2002 – Agreement containing an express termination clause

(Art. 81(3) EC; Commission Regulation No 1400/2002, Arts 2(1) and 3(6))

Summary

There is no no provision in Regulation No 1400/2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector which prohibits the parties to an agreement falling within the scope of that regulation from providing for an express termination clause under which such an agreement can be terminated by the supplier as of right and without notice in the event of a breach by the distributor of one of the contractual obligations referred to in that clause, with the result that the validity of such a clause is governed in principle not by the regulation but by national law alone.

Where a supplier terminates a motor vehicle distribution agreement under an express termination clause, compliance with the conditions for application of the block exemption introduced by Regulation No 1400/2002 requires not only that that supplier indicate in writing the reasons for termination but also that the independent expert, arbitrator or national court to whom the distributor has the right, under Article 3(6) of that regulation, to refer a challenge to the validity of that termination should be in a position to exercise an effective review of those reasons.

In the absence of Community legislation on the question whether the intervention of an independent expert, arbitrator or a national court should precede termination or whether the effects of that termination should be suspended pending a decision as to its validity, since there is no provision in Regulation No 1400/2002 containing such a requirement, it is for the legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

Consequently, Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1400/2002 is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that an agreement falling within the scope of that regulation contains an express termination clause, under which such an agreement can be terminated by the supplier as of right and without notice in the event of a breach by the distributor of one of the contractual obligations referred to in that clause, does not have the effect of rendering the block exemption provided for in Article 2(1) of that regulation inapplicable to that agreement.

(see paras 27-28, 30, 34, 37, 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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1).

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 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Origin of goods – Determination – Substantial process or operation – Assembly operation

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 24 and 249; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Annex 11)

Summary

The operation of assembling various parts amounts to a substantial working or processing operation, capable of being regarded as conferring origin, where it represents, from a technical point of view and having regard to the definition of the goods in question, the decisive production stage during which the use to which the component parts are to be put becomes definite and the goods in question are given their specific qualities.

However, in view of the variety of operations which may be described as assembly, there are situations where consideration on the basis of technical criteria may not be decisive in determining the origin of goods. In such cases it is necessary to take account of the value added by the assembly as an ancillary criterion.

In that regard, the onus is on the Commission, within the framework of its discretion to adopt the measures required for the implementation of the Community Customs Code and in particular those relating to the origin of goods, to adopt provisions of a general nature which, with a view to ensuring legal certainty, take into account the overall situation of an industrial sector on a long‑term basis and which, consequently, will not be called into question by the specific situation at a given time of one particular undertaking within that sector.

Thus, the account taken by the Commission of the wide variety of operations covered by the concept of assembly throughout the industrial sector concerned may justify reliance being placed on the criterion of added value.

(see paras 26-27, 36-37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Medical devices – Directive 93/42

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

2. Approximation of laws – Medical devices – Directive 93/42

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

Summary

1. The principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency preclude a contracting authority, which has issued an invitation to tender for the supply of medical devices to a public hospital and specified that those devices must comply with the European Pharmacopoeia and bear the CE marking, from rejecting, directly and without following the safeguard procedure provided for in Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, on grounds of protection of public health, the materials proposed, if they comply with the stated technical requirement. If the contracting authority considers that those materials may jeopardise public health, it is required to inform the competent national authority with a view to setting that safeguard procedure in motion.

(see para. 55, operative part 1)

2. A contracting authority, which has referred a matter to the competent national authority with a view to setting in motion the safeguard procedure provided for by Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42 concerning medical devices bearing the CE marking, is required to suspend the tendering procedure until the end of that safeguard procedure, the outcome of that procedure being binding on the contracting authority. If the implementation of such a safeguard procedure gives rise to delays liable to jeopardise the operation of a public hospital and thereby public health, the contracting authority is entitled to take all interim measures required to enable it to procure the materials necessary for the smooth running of that hospital, subject to compliance with the principle of proportionality.

(see para. 62, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Ne bis in idem principle

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Art. 54)

2. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Ne bis in idem principle

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Arts 58 and 71)

Summary

1. Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that:

– the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected;

– different acts consisting, in particular, first, in holding in one Contracting State the proceeds of drug trafficking and, second, in the exchanging at exchange bureaux in another Contracting State of sums of money also originating from such trafficking should not be regarded as ‘the same acts’ within the meaning of that article merely because the competent national court finds that those acts are linked together by the same criminal intention;

– it is for that national court to assess whether the degree of identity and connection between all the facts to be compared is such that it is possible, in the light of the said relevant abovementioned criterion, to find that they are ‘the same acts’ within the meaning of the said Article 54.

(see para. 36, operative part)

2. It is apparent from Article 58 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) that the Contracting States are entitled to apply broader national provisions on the ne bis in idem principle with regard to judicial decisions taken abroad. However, that article does not in any way authorise a Contracting State to refrain from trying a drugs offence, in breach of its obligations under Article 71 of the CISA, read in conjunction with Article 36 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, concluded in New York on 30 March 1961 under the aegis of the United Nations, on the sole ground that the person charged has already been convicted in another Contracting State in respect of other offences motivated by the same criminal intention. On the other hand, those provisions do not mean that in national law the competent courts before which a second set of proceedings is brought are precluded from taking account, when fixing the sentence, of penalties which may have already been imposed in the first set of proceedings.

(see paras 33-35)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions

(Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

Summary

The fact that costs relating to proceedings before the European Ombudsman are not recoverable under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance is in principle irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether such costs may give rise to a claim for compensation under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. Article 91 is applicable only to costs incurred in proceedings before the Court of First Instance, to the exclusion of any prior stage. The right to recover the costs of proceedings and the right to damages are, in principle, subject to different rules and are independent of each other.

With regard to the causal link required, both the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and those of the Court of First Instance provide that the costs of proceedings incurred by the parties are recoverable only if they were necessary for the purposes of the proceedings. On the other hand, the causal link required under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is established where the damage is the direct consequence of the wrongful act in question.

Reference to the European Ombudsman results from the free choice of the parties concerned. The costs thus freely incurred by the complainant cannot therefore be regarded as damage caused by the institution in question.

(see paras 22-23, 27)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 28 EC; Council Directive 1999/37, Arts 2(b) and 4)

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

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

1. Intra-Community trade is not capable of being hindered, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, by national legislation which: (1) requires a vehicle to be identified before it is registered; (2) requires, pursuant to Articles 2(b) and 4 of Directive 1999/37, that such identification be carried out, where a vehicle previously registered in another Member State is imported, by means of the registration certificate issued by that other Member State; and (3) includes the obligation to present the vehicle to a control body, thereby allowing verification as to whether the vehicle is actually present in the territory of the Member State of importation and corresponds to the data in the registration certificate issued by the other Member State. Since that is a simple administrative formality, which does not introduce any additional check, but which is integral to the actual processing of the registration application and also to the conduct of the associated procedure, the manner in which the tests are carried out is not capable of having any deterrent effect whatsoever on the import of a vehicle into that Member State or of making such importation less attractive.

(see paras 53-55, 58, 63)

2. A Member State which, generally and systematically, submits all vehicles which are more than three years old and have previously been registered in other Member States for testing as to their physical condition prior to registration in that State, without taking any account whatsoever of tests that may have already been carried out in other Member States, fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. Such a control procedure, which may deter some persons concerned from importing into the Member State in question vehicles which are more than three years old and which have previously been registered in other Member States, cannot be justified on the ground that it safeguards road safety and the protection of the environment where the Member State in question does not specifically show that the restriction on the free movement of goods at issue is proportionate to the objective pursued.

(see paras 73-74, 77-78, 80, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment –Directive 85/337

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Arts 2(1) and 4(1), and Annex I)

2. Environment – Waste – Incineration – Directive 2000/76

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 12(1))

Summary

1. A Member State which, pursuant to national legislation allowing projects for the recovery of hazardous waste and of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day which are covered by Annex I to Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11, and are subject to a simplified procedure for the purposes of Article 11 of Directive 75/442, to avoid the environmental impact assessment procedure laid down by Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Directive 85/337, fails, before granting building authorisation, to apply to a project for an installation for the incineration of waste falling within the category of installations for the incineration or chemical treatment of non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day as referred to in point 10 of Annex I to Directive 85/337, the environmental impact assessment procedure laid down by Articles 5 to 10 of Directive 85/337, fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Directive 85/337.

(see paras 50-53, operative part 1)

2. A Member State which does not make accessible to the public, a sufficient time in advance, at one or more locations accessible to the public, to enable the public to comment before the competent authority reaches a decision, a declaration in respect of the commencement of the operations of a project for an installation for the incineration of waste which may be assimilated to an application for a new permit within the meaning of Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste, and does not make the decisions relating to that declaration, including a copy of the authorisation, available to the public, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1) of that directive.

(see para. 64, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Grant of financial assistance

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, Art. 21(3), second subpara.)

Summary

The second subparagraph of Article 21(3) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, must be interpreted as not precluding a national tax provision which includes grants paid by the Community Structural Funds in the assessment of taxable income. Deductions or retentions which have the effect of reducing the amount of the Community grants received by the beneficiary which do not have a direct and inseparable link with the latter, do not obstruct the effective application of the mechanism established by Regulation No 4253/88.

Moreover, the differences which exist between the beneficiaries of the Structural Funds, by reason of the different rates of taxation imposed in the Member States on amounts received by way of Community assistance, cannot be regarded as likely to infringe the principle of equal treatment. For that to be the position, it would be necessary for the situations of the beneficiaries of Community aid to be comparable. That cannot be the case since those beneficiaries receive that aid in a socio-economic context specific to each Member State and, in the absence of Community harmonisation on the assessment of taxable income, objective disparities between the rules in Member States still exist in that field, thereby inevitably creating such differences between those beneficiaries.

(see paras 18-21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation – Directive 77/799

(Council Directive 77/799, Art. 1(2) and (3))

2. Approximation of laws – Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation – Directive 77/799

(Council Directive 77/799, Art. 8(1))

3. Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax on the commercial value of immovable property owned by legal persons

(EC Treaty, Art. 73b (now Art. 56 EC))

Summary

1. A tax by a Member State on the commercial value of immovable property owned in that Member State by legal persons is a tax which is similar in nature to those taxes referred to in Article 1(3) of Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, which is levied on elements of capital within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive.

(see para. 37, operative part 1)

2. Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, and in particular Article 8(1) thereof, does not preclude two Member States from binding themselves by means of an international convention, with the intention of avoiding double taxation and establishing rules for reciprocal administrative assistance in the area of taxes on income and capital, which excludes from its scope, in respect of one Member State, one category of taxpayers subject to a tax covered by that directive, if the competent authority of the Member State which should furnish information is prevented by its laws or administrative practices from collecting or using such information for that State’s own purposes, that being a matter which it is for the national court to verify.

(see para. 55, operative part 2)

3. Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which exempts companies established in that Member State from the tax on the commercial value of immovable property owned there by legal persons, when, in respect of companies established in another Member State, it makes that exemption subject either to the existence of a convention on administrative assistance between the Member State concerned and that other State for the purposes of combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the effect that those companies cannot be more heavily taxed than companies established in the first Member State, and which does not allow the company established in another Member State to supply evidence to establish the identity of the natural persons who are its shareholders.

(see para. 102, operative part 3)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Revision of a judgment

–

Conditions for the admissibility thereof

–

New fact

–

Meaning

–

Fact known before delivery of the judgment

–

Not included

–

Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44) (see paras 15-18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application of revision concerning the Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case C-12/05 P.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for revision brought by Mr Meister is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. Mr Meister and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) are each ordered to bear their own costs.