ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences

(Arts 88(2) second subpara., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences

(Art. 88(2) EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Non-implementation of the decision

(Art. 88(2) EC)

Summary

1. The system of remedies set up by the Treaty distinguishes between the remedies provided for in Articles 226 EC and 227 EC, which permit a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations, and those contained in Articles 230 EC and 232 EC, which permit judicial review of the lawfulness of measures adopted by the Community institutions, or the failure to adopt such measures. Those remedies have different objectives and are subject to different rules. In the absence of a provision of the Treaty expressly permitting it to do so, a Member State cannot, therefore, properly plead the unlawfulness of a decision addressed to it as a defence in an action for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its obligations arising out of its failure to implement that decision. The position could be different only if the measure in question contained such particularly serious and manifest defects that it could be deemed non-existent. That also applies in an action for failure to fulfil obligations based on the second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC.

In an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought under the second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC, and except for the case of the non-existence of the act, a Member State is not entitled to raise the defence of the unlawfulness of a negative decision of the Commission when a direct action against that decision is pending before the Community Courts.

(see paras 30-32, 37)

2. The only defence available to a Member State in opposing an application by the Commission under Article 88(2) EC for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision.

(see para. 46)

3. In an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission under Article 88(2) EC, the Court does not need to examine the form of order sought against a Member State for failing to notify the Commission of the measures implementing a decision declaring a system of aid incompatible with the common market and requiring it to be withdrawn, with suspension of aid not yet paid and recovery of aid already paid, where that Member State did not in fact implement the decision within the prescribed period.

(see paras 53-54)
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. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all 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 in the legislation of the Länder of Styria and Salzburg, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative 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, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant, nursing or breastfeeding workers – Directive 92/85 – Prohibition of dismissal – Scope

(Council Directive 92/85, Art. 10)

2. Social policy – Male and female workers – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Discriminatory dismissal

(Council Directives 76/207, Arts 2(1), 5(1) and 6, and 92/85, Arts 10 and 12)

Summary

1. Article 10 of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding must be interpreted as prohibiting not only the notification of a decision to dismiss on the grounds of pregnancy and/or of the birth of a child during the period of protection set down in paragraph 1 of that article but also the taking of preparatory steps for such a decision, such as searching for and finding a permanent replacement for the relevant employee, before the end of that period.

(see paras 33, 38, operative part 1)

2. A decision to dismiss on the grounds of pregnancy and/or child birth is contrary to Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions irrespective of the moment when that decision to dismiss is notified and even if it is notified after the end of the period of protection set down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. Since such a decision to dismiss is contrary to both Article 10 of Directive 92/85 and Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207, the measure chosen by a Member State under Article 6 of that latter directive to sanction the infringement of those provisions must be at least equivalent to the sanction set down in national law implementing Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 92/85.

(see paras 42, 54, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Admissibility – Decisions capable of forming the subject-matter of an appeal (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.) (see paras 21-22)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 34-36, 60)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Inoperative plea (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 51)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Party requesting an expert report after the closure of the oral procedure (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 62) (see paras 69-71)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2005 in Case T‑415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council in which the Court dismissed the action for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Council’s authorisation of the transfer to the French Republic of part of the quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic.

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Operative part

Dismisses the principal appeal, brought by Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council .

2. Dismisses the cross appeal brought by the Council of the European Union.

3. Orders Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council , and the Council of the European Union, to bear their own costs.

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 857/84) (see paras 41-43)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk (Council Regulation No 857/84) (see paras 48-49, 51)

3. 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 CE; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 58)

4. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (see para. 70)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Regulations No 2187/93 and No 2330/98) (see paras 50-51, 79-80, 92, 94, 104)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council and Commission by which the Court dismissed an application for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s being prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Blom to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 50-53, 59-60, 65-66)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Insufficient or contradictory statement of reasons (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first para.) (see paras 75-76)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 Italy v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Appeal dismissed;

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities.
Case C-436/06

Per Grønfeldt and Tatiana Grønfeldt

v

Finanzamt Hamburg — Am Tierpark

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg

‛Free movement of capital — Taxation — Income tax — National legislation concerning the taxation of profits made from the sale of shareholdings (shares) in limited companies’

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 18 December 2007 I-12359

Summary of the Judgment

Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Income tax

(Art 56 EC)

Article 56 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State by which the profits from a sale of shares in a limited company established in another Member State are immediately taxable in a given year where the seller had held, either directly or indirectly, a share of at least 1% of the company's capital within the previous five years, whereas the profits from the sale of shares in the same circumstances, in a limited company established in that first Member State subject to unlimited corporation tax were subject to tax in that given year only in the case of a substantial shareholding of at least 10%.

Such a difference in treatment on the basis of the place of investment of the capital has the effect of discouraging a shareholder from investing his capital in a company established in another State and also has a restrictive effect on companies established in other States in that it constitutes an obstacle to their raising capital in the Member State concerned. It is insignificant, in that regard, that the difference in treatment existed only for a limited period of time, since that fact alone does not preclude the difference in treatment from having significant effects or, therefore, from giving rise to a genuine obstacle to the free movement of capital.

Such a difference in treatment cannot be justified by the need to ensure full taxation, which is similar to the need to maintain the coherence of the tax system, since there is no direct link, for a shareholder, between the tax advantage concerned and the offsetting of that advantage by a particular tax levy. Nor does that difference in treatment appear to be justified by the margin of discretion claimed by Member States in the setting up of a provisional system in order, in the long term, to bring the national corporate tax system into line with Community law and to remove any possible discrimination. That margin of discretion must always be limited by compliance with fundamental freedoms, and in particular the free movement of capital. Even if a provisional system may, in respect of the taxation of profits from the sale of shares in resident companies, be understood as a legitimate concern to ensure a smooth transition from the old to the new system, such a factor does not, by itself, justify the said difference to the detriment of the taxation of the profits made from sales of shares in non-resident companies.

(see paras 14, 15, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 28 EC; Council Directive 91/414)

Summary

A Member State which restricts the simplified authorisation procedure for the parallel importation of plant protection products only to cases where the imported product and the reference product have a common origin, in the sense that they have been manufactured according to the same formulation by the same company or by an associated undertaking or under licence does not fail to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

A plant protection product introduced into the territory of a Member State as a parallel import cannot, automatically or absolutely and unconditionally, have the benefit of a marketing authorisation issued to a plant protection product already on the market of that State. Therefore, it is for the competent authorities of the Member State of importation to ascertain whether the product has indeed been imported in parallel and whether it may have the benefit of the marketing authorisation issued in favour of a plant protection product already on the market of that State. To that end, the notion of common origin allows parallel imports to be distinguished from other situations in which the importer of a product authorised in another Member State seeks to benefit from a marketing authorisation already granted in the Member State of importation. Furthermore, a common origin constitutes an important indication that the products at issue are identical, which would show that the marketing authorisation for the reference product may be used for the imported product.

(see paras 30, 36-38, 43, 45)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Award of contracts

(Council Directive 92/50, Arts 23(1), 32 and 36(1))

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Award of contracts

(Council Directive 92/50, Art. 36(2))

Summary

1. In a tendering procedure, a contracting authority is precluded by Articles 23(1), 32 and 36(1) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, from taking into account as ‘award criteria’ rather than as ‘qualitative selection criteria’ the tenderers’ experience, manpower and equipment and their ability to perform the contract by the anticipated deadline.

While that directive does not in theory preclude the examination of the tenderers’ suitability and the award of the contract from taking place simultaneously, the two procedures are nevertheless distinct and are governed by different rules. The suitability of tenderers is to be checked in accordance with the criteria of economic and financial standing and of technical capability referred to in Articles 31 and 32 of the directive, whereas the award of contracts is to be based on the criteria set out in Article 36(1), namely, the lowest price or the economically most advantageous tender.

(see paras 26-28, 32)

2. Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the ensuing obligation of transparency, Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, precludes the contracting authority in a tendering procedure from stipulating at a later date the weighting factors and sub-criteria to be applied to the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice. Article 36(2) requires that potential tenderers should be aware of all the elements to be taken into account by the contracting authority in identifying the economically most advantageous offer, and their relative importance, when they prepare their tenders. Therefore, a contracting authority cannot apply weighting rules or sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria which it has not previously brought to the tenderers’ attention.

(see paras 36, 38, 45, operative part)
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. 19

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) – Articles 16(5) and 17(1) – Failure to adopt measures defining the minimum qualification requirements for personnel responsible for recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances referred to in Article 2 of the regulation and contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump equipment, fire protection systems and fire extinguishers – Failure to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and absence of checks on the possible presence of leakages.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that:

– by failing to define the minimum qualification requirements for certain members of personnel working in recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances in accordance with Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and

– in respect of the Walloon Region, by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and by failing to carry out annual checks to establish the presence of leakages in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 2037/2000,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that regulation;

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

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Community postal services – Directive 97/67 – Services reserved to universal postal service providers

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/67, Art. 12, fifth indent)

Summary

The fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39, which imposes on Member States the obligation to take steps to ensure that the tariffs for each of the services forming part of the provision of the universal service comply with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, and provides that those tariffs are, together with the associated conditions, to apply equally both as between different third parties and as between third parties and universal service providers supplying equivalent services, must be interpreted as precluding refusal to apply to businesses which consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders the special tariffs which the national universal postal service provider grants, within the scope of its exclusive licence, to business customers for the deposit of minimum quantities of pre-sorted mail at its sorting offices.

An activity such as the collection by intermediaries at the premises of various senders of postal items, their pre-sorting and transport to access points does not fall within the field which may be reserved to the universal postal service provider under Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67, with the consequence that that provision cannot be relied upon to justify treatment of the intermediaries concerned which is different from that enjoyed by the business customers of that company.

Moreover, while it is true that the fifth indent of Article 12 of that directive is not intended to determine the question of principle whether a universal postal service provider is or is not obliged to grant access to the postal chain under conditions and at points different from those which apply to the traditional service for letter post, it nevertheless follows from the wording of that provision that it imposes on the Member States a strict obligation to apply the principles of transparency and non-discrimination where such access to special tariffs is in fact granted by that provider.

(see paras 27-28, 31, 35, 41, 44, operative part)