ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 – Commission v Finland

(Case C‑10/08)

Taxation in Finland of second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States – Compatibility of national legislation with the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, the Sixth VAT Directive and Directive 2006/112/EC

1. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – System of taxation of imported second-hand cars (Art. 90, first para., EC) (see paras 26-32)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax (Art. 90, first para., EC; Council Directives 77/388, Art. 17(1) and (2), and 2006/112, Arts 167 and 168) (see paras 34-37)

3. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – System of taxation of imported second‑hand cars (Art. 90, first para., EC) (see paras 42-45)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), now Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – National legislation providing for value added tax on the tax on vehicles and a right to deduct the corresponding amount from output value added tax – Application of the same taxable value to vehicles under three months old and to new vehicles – Application of a level of depreciation of 0.8% per month to vehicles under six months old where there are no equivalent vehicles on the national market.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing the tax referred to in Article 5 of Law No 1482/1994 on vehicle tax (autoverolaki (1482/1994)) of 29 December 1994 to be deducted from value added tax, pursuant to Article 102(1)(4) of Law No 1501/1993 on value added tax (arvonlisäverolaki (1501/1993)) of 30 December 1993, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC and Article 17(1) and (2) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, reproduced in Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

2. Declares that, by retaining, when taxing vehicles, the same taxable value for vehicles under three months old as for new vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 90 EC.

3. Orders the action to be dismissed as to the remainder.

4. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay, apart from its own costs, three-quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 – Guigard v Commission

(Case C‑214/08 P)

Appeal – Action for damages – Conditions governing the incurral by the Community of contractual and non‑contractual liability – Articles 313(2)(k), 314 and 317(a) of the Fourth Convention of Lomé, as revised by the Agreement signed in Mauritius

Procedure – Actions for damages (Arts 225(1) EC, 235 EC, 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 39-43)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2008 in Case T‑301/05 Guigard v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action for damages for the loss which he allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s conduct with regard to the non‑renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical co‑operation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund – Conditions governing the incurral by the Community of non-contractual liability – Infringement of Articles 313(2)(k) and 314 of the Fourth Convention of Lomé (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 1), as revised by the Agreement signed in Mauritius (OJ 1998 L 156, p. 3) – Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the rights of the defence.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T‑301/05 Guigard v Commission inasmuch as it declared the action brought by Mr Guigard to be admissible;

2. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Guigard in Case T‑301/05;

3. Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal brought by Mr Guigard;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2009 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑422/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/35/EC – Environmental liability – Prevention and remedying of environmental damage – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑100/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC –Protection of species of wild fauna and flora – Legislation on the keeping and marketing of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States

1. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Meaning (Art. 28 EC) (see paras 81-82)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Regulation No 338/97; Commission Regulation No 865/2006) (see paras 84-88, 91-93, 96-103, 110-113)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Scope (Council Directive 79/409) (see para. 106)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 28 EC – Protection of species of wild fauna and flora – Prohibition of keeping certain birds legally placed on the market in other Member States.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States subject to restrictive conditions that require the market participants concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to satisfy the conditions specifically required by the Belgium legislation, and by failing to recognise the marking accepted in other Member States or certificates issued in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; and

– by denying traders the opportunity to obtain exemptions from the prohibition of keeping indigenous European birds legally placed on the market in other Member States,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2009 – Commission v Netherlands

(Case C‑232/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 – Article 29(2) – Restrictions on fishing for plaice – Maximum engine power of fishing vessels – Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 – Article 2(1) – Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 – Article 23 – Application of control and enforcement of the rules

Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Technical conservation measures – Restrictions on fishing for plaice (Council Regulations No 2847/93, Art. 2(1), No 850/98, Art. 29(2), and No 2371/2002, Art. 23) (see paras 41-54)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy – Fishing for plaice – Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities – Responsibility of the Member States.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2009 – SLG Carbon v Commission

(Case C-564/08 P)

Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices − Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement – Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products − Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Turnover and share of the relevant market – Value of ‘captive’ use – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of proportionality

1. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility – Appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance in the sphere of competition (see paras 22-23, 25, 31)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Turnover taken into account – Value of deliveries internal to the undertaking – Included (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2) (see para. 30)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Division of the undertakings in question into categories with a specific starting point – Whether permissible (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission notice 98/C 9/03, point 1 A) (see paras 43, 45, 49, 56)

4. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Challenge on grounds of fairness to the Court of First Instance’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Excluded – Review limited to ascertaining whether the General Court took into account all the factors essential to the assessment of the gravity of the infringement and all the arguments raised against the fine imposed (see paras 58-59)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-68/04 SGL Carbon v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application brought by the appellant for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products or, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant – Failure to take into consideration, by classifying it as a new and inadmissible complaint, the appellant’s argument concerning the taking into account of the value of the captive use in calculating the turnover and market shares of the undertakings concerned – Breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 – Commission v Germany

(Case C-505/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the specified time‑limit, the necessary provisions to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt and communicate to the European Commission all the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders 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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Variable refund

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 5(3))

Summary

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 1384/95, must be interpreted as meaning that damage to a consignment of beef in transit does not constitute force majeure within the meaning of that provision.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 in fact constitutes an exception to the normal export refund procedure and must, consequently, be interpreted strictly. The existence of force majeure being an essential condition in order to be able to to claim payment of refunds for exported goods that have not been released for consumption in the non‑member country of import, it follows that that term must be interpreted in such a way that the number of cases capable of benefiting from such payment remains limited. The risk of damage is particularly likely to be present when beef is exported, notably as a result of loading and unloading operations between the various means of transport employed, and as a result of long‑distance transportation. Consequently, when such damage occurs, it may be considered to be one of the business risks inherent in such operations, that is to say, as a circumstance that cannot be termed unusual or even improbable in the context of those business operations for a prudent businessman exercising all due care.

(see paras 46, 48, 50, 52, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Failure to fulfil obligations

–

Maintaining in force domestic legislation incompatible with Community law

–

Discriminatory system of rebates of and exemptions from harbour dues

–

Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Regulation No 4055/86, Art. 1) (see para. 18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement 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) – Ports of general interest – Subsidies and exemptions from harbour dues.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) of Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest, which establishes a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain 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 Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Prorogation of jurisdiction – Appearance of the defendant entered without the jurisdiction of the court seised being contested

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 24)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Grounds for refusal – Conflict with the rules on special jurisdiction under Article 35 – Scope

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 24 and 35)

Summary

1. Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the provisions in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation on rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.

The second sentence of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 delimits the scope of the general rule and, consequently, since it sets out the exceptions to the general rule on the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction, must be interpreted restrictively. It follows that that second sentence cannot be understood as enabling the application of the general rule set out in the first sentence of that article to be excluded in respect of disputes other than those to which it expressly refers, namely those which are subject to the rules on exclusive jurisdiction.

(see paras 22-24, 26, 33, operative part)

2. The provisions of Article 35 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which provide that a basis for non-recognition is conflict with the rules on special jurisdiction, concern non-recognition of judgments given by a court without jurisdiction which has not been seised in accordance with those rules. They are therefore not applicable where the judgment is given by a court with jurisdiction. That is true, inter alia, of a court seised, even though those rules on special jurisdiction are not complied with, before which the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction. Such a court in fact has jurisdiction on the basis of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001. Therefore, Article 35 of that regulation does not prevent the recognition of the judgment given by that court.

(see paras 28-29)