ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑115/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2004/27/EC – Proprietary medicinal products – Medicinal products for human use – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).

Operative part

The Court:

By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑26/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/80/EC – Compensation to crime victims – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑294/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Failure to transpose into national law 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. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda – OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑112/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/80/EC –Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Compensation to crime victims –Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).

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 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

31 January 2008

Case C-103/07 P

Angel Angelidis

v

European Parliament

(Appeal – Officials – Staff report – Single assessor – Conditions – Consultation of preceding immediate superior – Lack of change in post – Reasoning – Annulment – Damages)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-317 and II-A-2-1607, in which the Court rejected the applicant’s application, first, for the annulment of his staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001 and, second, for compensation for the harm he suffered by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Angelidis is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Drawing up – System put in place by the Parliament

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Commission v Poland

(Case C‑170/07)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Internal taxation – Requirement for imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Directive 96/96/EC – Recognition of roadworthiness tests carried out in other Member States

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Directive 96/96, Art. 3(1) and (2)) (see paras 42-52, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 28 EC – National legislation requiring imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test prior to their registration, whereas domestic vehicles with the same characteristics are not subject to such a requirement.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by subjecting imported second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑559/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Social policy – Article 141 EC – Equal pay for male and female workers – National civil and military pension regime – Different treatment with regard to retirement age and minimum required service – Justification – None

1. Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Article 141 EC – Effects of a judgment of the Court finding there to be discrimination (Art. 141 EC) (see para. 26)

2. Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Remuneration –Meaning – Pensions regime for officials and civil servants (Art. 141 EC) (see paras 42, 44, 46-47, 49-50, 55, 60)

3. Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Pensions regime for officials and civil servants (Art. 141 EC) (see paras 62, 66-68)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 141 EC – Infringement of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers – National civil and military retirement pensions regime prescribing a retirement age that can vary according to sex.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions which provide for differences between male and female workers with regard to retirement age and minimum required service under the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code instituted by Presidential Decree No 166/2000 of 3 July 2000, in the version applicable to the present case, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2009 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑516/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – Framework for Community action in the field of water policy – Designation of competent authorities for hydrographic districts

1. Environment – Community action in the field of water policy – Directive 2000/60 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/60, Arts 2, para. 15, and 3(2), (7) and (8)) (see paras 31-32, 39, 43, 48, 54, 62, 64)

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 paras 36, 49, 56, 61)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Article 3(2), (7) and (8) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to designate the competent authorities for the application of the provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy concerning the Autonomous Communities of Galicia, the Basque Country, Andalusia, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2), (7) and (8) of that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑564/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 49 EC – Freedom to provide services – Patent lawyers – Obligation to take out professional indemnity insurance – Obligation to appoint an approved agent in the Member State in which the services are to be performed

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. 23)

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Art. 49 EC) (see paras 31-32, 35-37, 47-53, 55, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 49 EC – Requirements imposed by national legislation on patent lawyers lawfully established in other Member States in relation to the performance of services, on a temporary basis, in the Member State concerned – Obligation to enrol in the national register, to hold for those purposes professional indemnity insurance, to agree to be bound by all the national disciplinary rules other than those related to professional qualifications and to act in cooperation with a local agent.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by obliging patent lawyers lawfully established in another Member State who wish temporarily to perform services in Austria to appoint an approved agent resident in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
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 measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141).

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 Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

2. Orders the French 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. 15)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with 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 (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

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 comply with 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 French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
Article 17(2) and (6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national legislation which, in the case of acquisition of goods subsidised by public funds, allows the deduction of related VAT only up to the limit of the non-subsidised part of the costs of that acquisition.

Such national legislation introduces, with regard to the purchase of goods or services financed by a subsidy, a restriction which is not permissible under Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive. It is true that the principle of the right to deduct VAT is none the less subject to the derogation set out in the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Directive. However, the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive must be read in the light of the first subparagraph of the same provision, which confers on the Council the power to determine, on a proposal from the Commission, what expenditure is not to be eligible for a deduction of the tax, and which specifies that, in no circumstances, is expenditure to be deductible which is not strictly business expenditure, such as that on luxuries, amusements or entertainment. Consequently, and in view of the strict interpretation which it must be given as a derogation, the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive cannot be regarded as permitting a Member State to maintain a restriction of the right to deduct value added tax which may also apply in a general manner to any expenditure related to the acquisition of goods, irrespective of its nature or purpose. That interpretation is also obvious in the light of the history of that provision, which demonstrates a continuing intention on the part of the Community legislature to authorise only the exclusion of certain goods or services from the deduction system, and not to authorise general exclusions from that system.

(see paras 20, 21, 27-30, operative part 1)
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. 10)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania – Directive 2006/100 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/100) (see paras 9-12, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141).

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 comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive.

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons – Bodies governed by public law – Treatment as non-taxable persons in respect of activities in which they engage as public authorities

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), fourth para.)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons – Bodies governed by public law – Treatment as non-taxable persons in respect of activities in which they engage as public authorities

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), second para.)

Summary

1. The Member States must lay down an express provision in order to be able to rely on the option provided for in the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, according to which specific activities of bodies governed by public law exempt under Article 13 or Article 28 of that directive are considered to be activities of public authorities.

The Member States may choose the legislative technique which they regard as the most appropriate. Thus they may, for example, merely incorporate into national law the form of words used in the Sixth Directive or an equivalent expression or they may draw up a list of activities of bodies governed by public law exempted under Article 13 or Article 28 of the Sixth Directive which are considered to be activities of the public authority. An executive authority may be authorised by a legal provision to specify the activities of bodies governed by public law exempted under Article 13 or Article 28 of the Sixth Directive which are considered to be activities of public authorities, provided that its decisions of application have an unquestionable binding force, comply with the requirements that they be specific, precise and clear so as to guarantee legal certainty and may be reviewed by the national courts.

(see paras 56-58, operative part 1)

2. The second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that bodies governed by public law are to be considered taxable persons in respect of activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities not only where their treatment as non-taxable persons under the first or fourth subparagraphs of that provision would lead to significant distortions of competition to the detriment of their private competitors, but also where it would lead to such distortions to their own detriment.

(see para. 76, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

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 paras 14-16)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third‑country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain 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, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

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 comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(1) of that directive;

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