ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C-248/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 – Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 – Animal by-products – Waste – Burial without prior treatment – Lack of official controls – Plants for the safe management of animal by-products – Operation – Lack of authorisation – Incineration of specified risk materials – No adequate process

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Action in respect of an administrative practice contrary to Community law – Whether permissible – Conditions (Arts 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 21-22, 26-28, 58)

2. Protection of public health – Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption – Member States obliged to provide the suitable infrastructure and to adopt all measures necessary in order to comply with those rules – Obligation of result (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1774/2002, Arts 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26) (see paras 34-37, 48-49, 56-59, 66, 68)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 4(2), 5(2), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1) – Burial of animal by-products without prior treatment – Lack of official controls.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not correctly applying and imposing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, in so far as it regards burial in landfills without prior treatment, lack of official controls, authorisation of plants for the management of animal by-products and incineration of specified risk materials, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation No 1774/2002;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 – Commission v Poland

(Case C‑545/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Electronic communications – Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC – High-speed internet access provider – Obligation to obtain authorisation for the access tariffs to high-speed internet services and to fix those tariffs on the basis of the costs of the provision of such services – No market analysis

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Exercise of that right not dependent on a specific interest in bringing an action (Art. 226 EC) (see para 30)

3. Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Electronic communications networks and services – Legislative background – Directive 2002/21 – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 – Transitional arrangements (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/21, Arts 16 and 27(1) and 2002/22, Arts 16 and 17) (see paras 46-50, 57-72, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) – Imposing on an operator a requirement to obtain authorisation for the tariff for providing retail access services to high-speed internet without a market analysis having been carried out.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. declares that, by regulating retail tariffs for access to high-speed internet without previously carrying out a market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16 in conjunction with 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive);
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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 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)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40).

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 Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/17;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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; Council Directive 85/337, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/35, Art. 10a) (see paras 12-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) – National legislation restricting public participation in decision‑making procedure in the environmental field.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the time‑limit prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Taxes on income – National legislation excluding the possibility of deducting the costs of university courses provided by private universities situated in another Member State – Not permissible – Possibility of deducting those costs up to the maximum amount set for the corresponding costs for similar courses provided at the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes – Permissible

(Art. 49 EC)

2. Citizenship of the European Union – Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States – Tax legislation – Taxes on income – National legislation excluding the possibility of deducting the costs of university courses provided by universities situated in another Member State – Not permissible – Possibility of deducting those costs up to the maximum amount set for the corresponding costs for similar courses provided at the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes – Permissible

(Art. 18 EC)

Summary

1. Article 49 EC must be interpreted as:

– precluding national legislation that allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax the costs of attending university courses provided by universities situated in that Member State but excludes generally that right as regards university tuition fees incurred at a private university established in another Member State;

– not precluding national legislation that allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax university tuition fees incurred at a private university established in another Member State up to the maximum amount set for the corresponding costs of attending similar courses at the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes.

(see para. 66, operative part 1)

2. Article 18 EC must be interpreted as:

– precluding national legislation that allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax the costs of attending university courses provided by universities situated in that Member State but excludes generally that right as regards university tuition fees incurred at a university established in another Member State;

– not precluding national legislation that allows taxpayers to deduct from gross tax university tuition fees incurred at a university established in another Member State up to the maximum amount set for the corresponding costs of attending similar courses at the national State university nearest to the taxpayer’s residence for fiscal purposes.

(see para. 78, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Customs union – External transit procedure

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 204(1)(a))

Summary

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 648/2005, is to be interpreted as not applying to a situation where an authorised consignor generated by mistake two external transit procedures for one and the same consignment of goods, because the goods covered by the extra procedure do not exist and, as a consequence, that procedure cannot entail the creation of a customs debt pursuant to the above provision.

In that regard, an error consisting in generating two transit procedures for one and the same consignment of goods is not by nature liable to undermine the objectives pursued by Article 204 of the Customs Code and justify the creation of a customs debt. In the first place, as regards the objective of preventing the risk of non-Community goods being introduced into the economic networks of the European Union, it is clear that, where an external transit customs procedure is generated for non-existent goods, there is no risk that the goods will end up forming part of those economic networks without having been cleared through customs, which might lead to unfair competition and the loss of tax revenue. In the second place, the objective of ensuring that the rules of the customs procedure in question are diligently applied cannot be undermined in the case of an external transit procedure which does not relate to existing goods: it is not possible to implement such a procedure correctly when it is applied to goods which do not exist. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the obligation to present the goods at the customs office of destination, in a case where the goods covered by the mistakenly generated transit procedure do not exist, would amount to imposing on the principal – contrary to the maxim ultra posse nemo obligatur – a duty which it cannot discharge.

(see paras 32-34, 37-38, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Reverse charge procedure – Taxable person liable for value added tax as the person to whom goods or services provided – Right to deduct

(Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 167, 168 and 178)

Summary

Articles 167, 168 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the retroactive application of national legislation which, in the context of a reverse charge regime, makes the deduction of value added tax relating to construction works conditional upon the amendment of invoices for those services and the submission of a supplementary, amending tax declaration, while the tax authority concerned has all the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply of services at issue, liable to value added tax, and to ascertain the amount of tax deductible.

The fact that a taxpayer opts to apply a new value added tax law rather than a previous one cannot of itself affect its right to deduct the input value added tax paid, which arises directly from Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112. The principle of fiscal neutrality also requires deduction of input tax to be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied, even if the taxable person has failed to comply with some of the formal requirements. Therefore, when the tax authority has the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is, as the recipient of the supply of services at issue, liable to value added tax, Articles 167, 168 and 178(f) of Directive 2006/112 preclude legislation which imposes, in relation to the right of that taxable person to deduct that tax, additional conditions which may have the effect of rendering that right ineffective for practical purposes. This could be the case when the substantive conditions in order to benefit from the right to deduct, laid down in Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112, have been fulfilled and, at the time the tax authority denies the taxpayer the right to deduct the value added tax, that authority has all the information necessary to establish that the taxpayer is liable to value added tax.

(see paras 36, 39-40, 42-43, 46, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/66) (see paras 9-12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, 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 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 – Designation of undertakings for the provision of the universal service – Obligation to use an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory designation procedure (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Arts 3(2) and 8(2)) (see paras 34-39, 42-49)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 37-38)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly into national law the provisions of European Union law governing the designation of universal service provider(s) and, in any event, by failing to ensure that those provisions are applied in practice, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(2) and 8(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive).

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Production of evidence showing failure – Incumbent on the Member State concerned to refute evidence (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 36-38)

2. 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. 39)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 1999/22, Art. 4(2) to (5)) (see paras 43-45)

4. Procedure – Costs – Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the opposite party (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5)) (see paras 46, 49-50)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (OJ 1999 L 94, p. 24).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary with respect to the zoos that are the subject of the present action in the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Asturias, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castile and Leon, Valencia, Extremadura and Galicia concerning the inspection, licensing and, if appropriate, the closure of those establishments in accordance with Article 4(2) to (5) of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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