ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 November 2007 –Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑34/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/109/EC – Third-country nationals who are long-term residents – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. 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. 12)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C‑259/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/51/EC – Public procurement – Procedure for the award of public contracts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 8-10, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C‑341/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Difficulties of interpretation pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, with corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

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 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 – Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM

(Case C‑108/07 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Application for Community word mark FERRO – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark FERRERO – Evidence of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-37)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57-59)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM and Cornu against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG mbh and Cornu SA Fontain – Interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Likelihood of confusion between two trade marks – Weak degree of similarity between the goods – Distinctiveness of the earlier mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 2006 in Case T‑310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM– Cornu (FERRO);

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002‑4);

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain to pay the costs of the appeal;

4. Orders Ferrero Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

5. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;
1.

Declares that, by adopting the first indent of the second paragraph of the single article of the fourteenth function of the National Energy Commission provided for in Supplementary Provision No 11, part 3, point 1, of Law 34/1998 of 7 October 1998 on the hydrocarbon sector (Ley 34/1998, del sector de hidrocarburos), as amended by Royal Decree-Law 4/2006 of 24 February 2006 (Real Decreto-Ley 4/2006), in order to make the acquisition of certain shareholdings in undertakings which carry on certain regulated activities in the energy sector and the acquisition of the assets necessary to carry on such activities subject to the prior approval of the National Energy Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC;
1.

Declares that by not making, for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) 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);
1.

Declares that, by extending, by Article 2(44) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2004) (legge n. 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004)), to 2002 the tax amnesty provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)), and consequently providing generally and indiscriminately that the assessment of taxable transactions effected in the 2002 tax period is to be discontinued, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a), (c) and (d) and Articles 193 to 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, which as from 1 January 2007 replaced Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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, and under Article 10 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑458/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Telecommunications – Directive 2002/22/EC – Universal service – Obligation to make available to end-users a comprehensive directory and telephone directory enquiry service

1. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Liability – Extent – Constitutionally independent institutions (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 19-20)

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. 22)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) 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) – Certain subscribers not included in the universal directory.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) 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), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to draw up and communicate, within the prescribed periods, the documents provided for in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, within the prescribed period, the programmes, inventories and annual projections for the year 2010 relating to the progressive reduction of its emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Road transport – Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Directive 1999/62 – Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

(European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/62, Art. 6(2)(b); Commission Decision 2005/449)

Summary

Decision 2005/449 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62 the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures cannot be relied on by an individual against the French Republic, to which that decision was addressed, in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption approved by that decision upon its notification or publication.

It is clear from Article 6(2)(b) of that directive that in spite of the part played by the Commission, the Member States have a broad discretion both as regards their decision to make use of the exemption provided for under that article and as regards the content of the measure envisaged, without the Commission’s approval of that measure making it in any way obligatory to use that possibility. Thus, the aim and effect of Decision 2005/449 is not to compel the French Republic to grant the exemption proposed in its request for authorisation, but to authorise it to make such an exemption if it so wishes.

The fact that Decision 2005/449 does not specify the date from which it first applies, but merely sets the expiry date for the approved exemption as 31 December 2009, does not affect the scope and the effects of that decision. Indeed, under the terms of Article 254(3) EC, Decision 2005/449 takes effect upon its notification to the addressee, in this case the French Republic. The fact remains that one such effect is to make possible an exemption – which, in the present case, does not yet exist and which cannot be implemented without a national legislative act – but in no way to impose such an exemption.

(see paras 15-19, 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. 8)

2. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification (Art. 226 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 648/2004, Arts 17(4), and 18) (see para. 10)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed period, dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, sanctions in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article.

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 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. 12)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible ( Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need to ensure that directives are effective (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 16)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments falling within Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that an external emergency plan is drawn up for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, 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

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Objectives

(Art. 33(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1788/2003)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk

(Arts 33(1) EC and 34(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1788/2003)

Summary

1. The fact that Regulation No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector does not take into account, for the purposes of determining the national reference quantity, the fact that the Member State concerned has a milk production deficit is not capable of affecting the compatibility of that regulation with the objectives laid down, in particular, in Article 33(1)(a) and (b) EC.

The regulation comes under the objective of stabilising the markets, which is expressly laid down in Article 33(1)(c) EC. The levy system provided for by the regulation aims, by limiting milk production, to re-establish the balance between supply and demand in the milk market, which is characterised by structural surpluses. That purpose therefore falls within the ambit of the objectives of rational development of milk production and, by contributing to a stabilisation of the income of the agricultural community affected, that of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community.

(see paras 47, 53, 57, operative part 1)

2. Even if Regulation No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, which applies to all recipients of reference quotas alike, did in fact place a heavier burden on small producers than on large producers, it must be held that the fact that a measure adopted within the framework of the common organisation of the market may affect producers in different ways, depending upon the particular nature of their production, does not constitute discrimination if that measure is determined on the basis of objective criteria which are adapted to meet the needs of the general common organisation of the market. That is true of the milk quota and levy system, which is arranged in such a way that national and individual reference quantities are set at such a level that their total does not exceed the overall guaranteed reference quantity for each Member State. It follows that, since the claimants in the main proceedings are not – as submitted – in a different position, an analysis of the regulation in the light of the principle of non-discrimination does not disclose any factor which might affect its validity.

In addition, Regulation No 1788/2003, whose main purpose is stabilising the market in milk and milk products and which comes under the objective of stabilising markets expressly laid down in Article 33(1)(c) EC, is also compatible with the objectives laid down in Article 33(1)(a) and (b) EC, and is not manifestly inappropriate for the purposes of pursuing the objective of stabilising markets. Nor does the analysis of the regulation therefore disclose any factor which might affect its validity in the light of the principle of proportionality.

(see paras 69-70, 77, 81-83, operative part 2-3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Importation free of customs duties

(Council Regulations No 918/83, Art. 27, and No 3357/91)

Summary

Article 27 of Regulation No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation No 3357/91, does not preclude grouped consignments of goods, with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold laid down in Article 27, but which are individually of negligible value, from being admitted free of import duties, provided that each parcel of the grouped consignment is addressed individually to a consignee within the European Community.

For the purposes of being granted relief, it is irrelevant that the parcels at issue, of an individual value less than the value threshold laid down in Article 27, are presented to customs as a group for the purpose of their dispatch in the Community, since, as soon as they leave the third country of dispatch, the consignee of each of those parcels is identified. It is also irrelevant that the contractual partner of those consignees is itself established in the European Community where the goods are dispatched directly from a third country to those consignees. The mere fact that the contractual partner is established in the Community does not make it possible, in itself, to find that the consignments of goods were placed under another customs procedure prior to their entry for free circulation in the Community, a circumstance which would allow them to be excluded from relief from customs duties in order to avoid any abuse thereof.

(see paras 38, 42-43, 49, 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 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28).

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 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Food additives other than colours and sweeteners – Directive 95/2

(European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2, Annex III, Part A)

Summary

The term ‘low-sugar jams’ in Part A of Annex III to Directive 95/2 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, as amended by Directive 98/72, covers jams described as ‘jam’ and ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content appreciably lower than the reference value of 60%. Products described as ‘extra jam’ which have a sugar content of 58% cannot be considered to be low‑sugar within the meaning of that provision.

(see para. 66, operative part)