ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 – Komninou and Others v Commission

(Case C‑167/06 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Complaint under Article 226 EC – Treatment of complainants by the Commission – Principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations and legal certainty – Scope – Article 21 EC – Right of complaint – Scope of the Ombudsman’s findings

1. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Lawfulness – Limits (Arts 21(2) and (3), EC and 225 EC) (see paras 22-27)

2. Citizens of the European Union – Rights of the citizen (Art. 21(2) and (3), EC) (see paras 35-37)

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 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 40-46)

4. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national initiatives (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 52)

5. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment (see para. 57)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T‑42/04), in which the Court dismissed as unfounded an application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Commission’s treatment of their complaint concerning Community financing of a biological sewage treatment plant in Preveza in Greece.

Operative part

The Court:

Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T‑42/04), in so far as the Court failed to rule on the plea alleging breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

Dismisses the application before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in so far as it is based on a breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 – Spain v Council

(Case C‑184/06)

Fisheries – Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 – Allocation of catch quotas among Member States – Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain – End of the transitional period – Requirement of relative stability – Principle of non-discrimination – New fishing opportunities

1. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality (Act of Accession of 1985; Council Regulation No 51/2006) (see paras 32-37)

2. Accession of new Member States of the European Communities – Spain – Fisheries (Act of Accession of 1985, Arts 156 to 164; Council Regulation No 51/2006) (see paras 44, 46-48)

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2006 L 16, p. 1) – Discrimination – Application of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2008 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑504/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/57/EEC –Implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites – Article 3(1) – Incorrect transposition

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 paras 24-25)

2. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 92/57 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (Council Directive 92/57, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 35-36)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 38)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (Eighth Individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6) – Appointment of health and safety coordinators for a construction site where a number of undertakings are operating.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose in Italian law Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (Eighth Individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Directive not sufficiently transposed without legislative action (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2003/110, Art. 5(2) (see paras 6-7)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implemention by the Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 11)

3. 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. 13)

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 Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, with the exception of Article 5(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.

2. The action is dismissed in respect of the failure to transpose Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/110.

3. The Kingdom of Belgium 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. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to communicate within the prescribed period the report containing the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol – Information on national projections of greenhouse gas emissions and measures taken to limit and/or reduce such emissions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

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. 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)

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 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

Operative part

The Court:

1. 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;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 19)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of the 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).

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Operative part

Declares that, by failing to adopt 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 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 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)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its 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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt 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 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 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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p 32).

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 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, 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 – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States –Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 10)

3. 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)

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 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76).

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 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, 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

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Carriage by air – Regulation No 261/2004 – Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 3(1)(a))

Summary

The concept of ‘flight’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights must be interpreted as consisting essentially in an air transport operation, being as it were a ‘unit’ of such transport, performed by an air carrier which fixes its itinerary. It follows that a journey out and back cannot be regarded as a single flight. Consequently, Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, which provides that the regulation is to apply to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, must be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport located in a non-member country. The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking has no effect on the interpretation of that provision.

(see paras 40, 47, 53, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

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;

2. Orders the Republic of Poland 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. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with the obligation to stock petroleum products under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 586), as amended and then codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8) – Nature and extent of the obligation to stock – Discrepancy between the figures transmitted by the Member State concerned and the data provided by Eurostat – Method of calculating stocks of petroleum products and the level of internal consumption of those products.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2 of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/74, Art. 8a)

Summary

Article 8a of Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an undertaking established in a Member State to be regarded as having activities in the territory of another Member State, that undertaking does not need to have a branch or fixed establishment in that other State. The undertaking must, however, have a stable economic presence in the latter State, featuring human resources which enable it to perform activities there. In the case of a transport undertaking established in a Member State, the mere fact that a worker employed by it in that State delivers goods between that State and another Member State cannot demonstrate that the undertaking has a stable economic presence in another Member State.

(see para. 36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2) and 62(1))

2. Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68)

Summary

1. Notification by express courier does not constitute notification by registered letter with advice of delivery within the meaning of Rule 62(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

(see paras 20-22)

2. Where the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is unable to prove that a document has been duly notified, or if provisions relating to its notification have not been observed, but that document has reached the addressee, it follows from Rule 68 of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark that the Office may produce proof of the date of receipt and that the document is deemed to have been notified on that date.

(see para. 23)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Motor vehicles – Community type-approval procedure – Directives 92/97 and 93/59 – Scope (Council Directives 92/97 and 93/59) (see paras 45-47)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 49-52, 56-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC – National rules making the registration of imported used vehicles previously registered in other Member States contingent upon compliance with certain technical requirements, although used vehicles already on the national market and having the same characteristics are not subject to such requirements in cases of re-registration.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by requiring, for the purposes of their first registration in Austria, that motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States which have not undergone, because of their age, a Community type-approval procedure, comply with limit values in respect of pollutant emissions and noise which are stricter than those they initially had to comply with, in particular, the values laid down in Council Directive 93/59/EEC of 28 June 1993 amending Directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and Council Directive 92/97/EEC of 10 November 1992 amending Directive 70/157/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, although vehicles having the same characteristics and which are already authorised to use the roads in Austria are not subject to that requirement in cases of their re-registration in that Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC ;

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