ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

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 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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 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. 7

)

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 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18).

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 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on difficulties in application – Unlawful (Art. 226 CE) (see para. 10)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (OJ 2003 L 178, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii (OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii , the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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 merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the period prescribed the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having adopted, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

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

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – More than one defendant

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that claims brought against a number of defendants have different legal bases does not preclude application of that provision.

Although the wording of that provision does not show that the conditions laid down for its application include a requirement that the actions brought against different defendants should have identical legal bases, it must however be ascertained whether, between various claims brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants, there is a connection of such a kind that it is expedient to determine those actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. For decisions to be regarded as contradictory, it is not sufficient for there to be a divergence in the outcome of the dispute.

In addition, that provision applies where claims brought against different defendants are connected when the proceedings are instituted, to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, without there being any further need to establish separately that the claims were not brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled.

(see paras 38-40, 47, 52, 54, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

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

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Directive 91/414)

Summary

A Member State may apply a simplified marketing authorisation procedure to the parallel import of a plant protection product from another Member State in which it already has the benefit of such an authorisation, where the importation is made by a farmer solely for the needs of his own farm, and the marketing authorisation thus granted is personal to each operator.

In order to protect the free movement of goods, however, the proportionality principle requires that the legislation on the marketing of plant protection products be applied within the limit of what is necessary in order to achieve the aim of protection of the environment and of human and animal health that is legitimately being pursued. It cannot, therefore, be made a condition of that authorisation that the imported product be named with the brand name belonging to the operator concerned where he is a farmer who is making the parallel importation solely for the needs of his own farm. Nor can that authorisation be subject to payment of a charge which bears no relation to the costs incurred by the control or the administrative steps needed for examination of the application. An appraisal of such costs as a fixed sum is, however, permissible provided the principle of proportionality is observed

(see paras 37, 50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

Summary

Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that a legal relationship under which a person has been granted the right to occupy and use, including exclusively, public property, namely areas of State maritime property, for a specified period and against payment, is covered by the concept of ‘leasing or letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that article. The fundamental characteristic of such a legal relationship, which it has in common with the leasing or letting of immovable property, consists in the provision of an area, that is, part of the State maritime property, in return for payment, together with the grant to the other contracting party of the right to occupy it or use it and to exclude all other persons from the enjoyment of that right. Consequently, observance of the principle of the neutrality of VAT and the requirement that the provisions of the Sixth Directive be applied consistently, in particular, those relating to exemptions, entail treating such a relationship in the same way as the leasing or letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of that directive.

(see paras 34-36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Pick-up type motor vehicle

Summary

Pick-ups which consist, on the one hand, of an enclosed cabin for use as a passenger compartment, there being, behind the driver’s seat, folding or removable seats with three-point safety belts, and, on the other hand, of a load space which is separated from the cabin, is not higher than 50 centimetres, can be opened only at the rear and has no facilities for attaching a load, which have a luxurious full-option interior (including electrically adjustable leather seats, electrically operated mirrors and windows and a stereo with a CD player), and which are equipped with an anti-lock braking system (ABS), an automatic, 4 to 8-litre, very high-consumption petrol engine, four-wheel drive and luxurious (sports) rims, must be classified, according to their general appearance and the entirety of their characteristics, under heading 87.03 of the Combined Nomenclature as set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Regulations Nos 3115/94, 3009/95, and 1734/96.

(see para. 43, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of capital

–

Restrictions

–

Company law

–

National legislation limiting the voting rights attaching to shares held by public bodies in national undertakings in the energy sector (Arts 56 EC and 58(1)(b) EC) (see paras 27, 53-54 and operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 56 EC – National provision which provides, in certain cases, for the limitation of voting rights in undertakings in the energy sector.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force measures such as those laid down in Supplementary Provision No 27 to Law 55/1999 of 29 December 1999 on fiscal, administrative and social measures, in the version of that provision laid down in Article 94 of Law 62/2003 of 30 December 2003, which limits the voting rights of shares held by public bodies in Spanish undertakings operating in the energy sector, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 23(1))

2. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing

(Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 23(1))

Summary

1. Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93 requires the Member States to recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence without there being any need for authority to do so under national law.

(see para. 40, operative part 1)

2. The recovery of amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence must be carried out on the basis of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, and in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in national law, on condition that the application of that law does not hinder the application or the effectiveness of Community law and does not make it impossible in practice to recover the sums improperly granted. It is for the national court to ensure the full application of Community law by setting aside or, in so far as necessary, interpreting a national rule which prevents such application. The national court may apply the Community law principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations when assessing the conduct of both the recipients of the amounts lost and the administrative authority, on condition that full account is taken of the interests of the European Community. The fact that the recipient of the funds is a public-law person is irrelevant in that regard.

(see para. 59, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality

(Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

The fundamental rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services and the general principle of non-discrimination preclude national legislation which, with regard to contracts with a value below the threshold set by Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive 97/52, which are of certain cross-border interest, imposes an absolute duty on the contracting authorities, where the number of valid tenders is greater than five, automatically to exclude tenders considered to be abnormally low in relation to the goods, works or services according to a mathematical criterion laid down by that legislation without allowing those contracting authorities any possibility of verifying the constituent elements of those tenders by requesting the tenderers concerned to provide details of those elements. That would not be the case if national or local legislation or even the contracting authorities concerned were to set a reasonable threshold above which abnormally low tenders were automatically excluded on account of there being an unduly large number of tenders, which might oblige the contracting authorities to examine on an inter partes basis such a high number of bids that it would exceed their administrative capacity or might, due to the delay which such an examination would entail, jeopardise the implementation of the project.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) to (4) 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, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment that belong to the categories of projects covered by point 1(a) to (c) and (f) of Annex II to that directive are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Armacell Enterprise GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope

(Arts 87(1) EC and 253 EC)

2. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Criteria for assessment

(Art. 87(1) EC)

Summary

1. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted that measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to enable the Court to carry out its review. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

Applied to the classification of a measure as aid, that principle requires a statement of the reasons for which the Commission considers that the measure concerned falls within the scope of Article 87(1) EC. In that regard, even in cases where it is apparent from the circumstances in which it was granted that the aid is liable to affect trade between Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, the Commission must at least set out those circumstances in the statement of reasons for its decision.

(see paras 48-49)

2. For the purpose of categorising a national measure as State aid, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition. With regard more specifically to the condition that trade between Member States be affected, the grant of aid by a Member State, in the form of a tax relief, to some of its taxable persons must be regarded as likely to have an effect on trade and, consequently, as meeting that condition, where those taxable persons perform an economic activity in the field of such trade or it is conceivable that they are in competition with operators established in other Member States. Furthermore, when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as influenced by that aid. In that regard, the fact that an economic sector has been liberalised at Community level may serve to determine that the aid has a real or potential effect on competition and affects trade between Member States.

(see paras 50-53)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis

(Art. 95 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/24)

Summary

Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks had to be adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC.

The Community legislature may have recourse to Article 95 EC in particular where disparities exist between national rules which are such as to obstruct the fundamental freedoms or to create distortions of competition and thus have a direct effect on the functioning of the internal market.

It is apparent that the differences between the various national rules adopted on the retention of data relating to electronic communications were liable to have a direct impact on the functioning of the internal market and that it was foreseeable that that impact would become more serious with the passage of time. Such a situation justified the Community legislature in pursuing the objective of safeguarding the proper functioning of the internal market through the adoption of harmonised rules.

Furthermore, Directive 2006/24 regulates operations which are independent of the implementation of any police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It harmonises neither the issue of access to data by the competent national law-enforcement authorities nor that relating to the use and exchange of those data between those authorities. Those matters, which fall, in principle, within the area covered by Title VI of the EU Treaty, have been excluded from the provisions of that directive. It follows that the substantive content of Directive 2006/24 is directed essentially at the activities of service providers in the relevant sector of the internal market, to the exclusion of State activities coming under Title VI of the EU Treaty. In light of that substantive content, it must be held that that directive relates predominantly to the functioning of the internal market.

(see paras 63, 71-72, 83-85, 93)