ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer – Directive 2002/74 amending Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, Art. 3, first para.)

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer – Directive 2002/74 amending Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74)

Summary

1. Where Directive 2002/74 amending 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 has not been transposed into national law by the deadline for its transposition, the possible direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 cannot be relied upon in relation to a state of insolvency which occurred before that date.

(see para. 30, operative part 1)

2. Where rules of national law fall within the scope of Directive 80/987, relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, the national courts are bound, as regards a state of insolvency occurring between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive into national law, to ensure that the application of those rules of national law is consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, as recognised by the Community legal order, in accordance with which comparable situations must not be treated differently unless such difference in treatment is objectively justified.

In that regard, workers who have been unfairly dismissed are in a comparable situation in so far as they are entitled to compensation in the event that they are not reinstated. Therefore, rules of national law which exclude from the responsibilities of the guarantee institutions claims corresponding to compensation for unfair dismissal established by conciliation procedure, are contrary to that principle of equal treatment, unless a difference in treatment for those claims as compared to claims for unfair dismissal, awarded by judgment, or administrative decision, may be objectively justified.

(see paras 36-37, 39, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12 – Force majeure within the meaning of Article 14(1) – Definition

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 14(1))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12 – ‘Losses inherent in the nature of the products’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) – Meaning

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 14(1))

Summary

1. ‘Force majeure’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Directive 94/74, refers to abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances extraneous to the authorised warehousekeeper, the consequences of which, despite the exercise by him of all due care, could not have been avoided. The requirement that the circumstances must be extraneous to the authorised warehousekeeper is not limited to those circumstances which are outside his control in a material or physical sense, but refers also to circumstances which are objectively outside the authorised warehousekeeper’s control or situated outside his sphere of responsibility.

(see paras 31, 33, 40, operative part 1)

2. Losses of part of petroleum products which escaped from a pipeline, caused by the fact that those products were in a liquid state and the type of soil they spilled on prevented their recovery, cannot be regarded as ‘inherent in the nature of the products’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 94/74. According to its wording, that provision applies only to losses inherent in the nature of the products occurring during particular operations which are set out in an exhaustive list, which includes transport. Whilst ‘losses inherent in the nature of the products’ may include losses which are termed ‘technical’, they cannot be extended to cover accidental losses. Moreover, since the exemption provided for such natural losses is separate from that provided for by the first sentence of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12 for losses which are attributable to ‘fortuitous events’ or ‘force majeure’, the first exemption cannot be interpreted broadly so as to cover situations where the conditions for claiming that exemption are not actually fulfilled.

(see paras 42-44, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences – Directive 97/13 – Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/13, Arts 6, 11, 22 and 25)

Summary

Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge corresponding to the amount previously demanded for that exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.

(see para. 45, operative part)
Case C-450/06

Varec SA

v

État belge

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium))

‛Public procurement — Review — Directive 89/665/EEC — Effective review — Meaning — Balance between the adversarial principle and the right to observance of business secrets — Protection, by the body responsible for the review, of the confidentiality of information provided by economic operators’

Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 25 October 2007 I - 583

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 14 February 2008 I - 601

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws — Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665 — Audi alteram partem rule — Reconciliation with the protection of business secrets — Bodies responsible for review procedures

(Council Directives 89/665, Art. 1(1) and 93/36, Art. 15(2))

Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 15(2) of Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, must be interpreted as meaning that the body responsible for the reviews provided for in Article 1(1) must ensure that confidentiality and business secrecy are safeguarded in respect of information contained in files communicated to that body by the parties to an action, particularly by the contracting authority, although it may apprise itself of such information and take it into consideration. In the context of a review of a decision taken by a contracting authority in relation to a contract award procedure, the adversarial principle does not mean that the parties are entitled to unlimited and absolute access to all of the information relating to the award procedure concerned which has been filed with the body responsible for the review. On the contrary, that right of access must be balanced against the right of other economic operators to the protection of their confidential information and their business secrets. It is for the body responsible for the review to decide to what extent and by what process it is appropriate to safeguard the confidentiality and secrecy of that information, having regard to the requirements of effective legal protection and the rights of defence of the parties to the dispute and, in the case of judicial review or a review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC, so as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial.

(see paras 51, 55, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Old-age and survivor’s insurance – Calculation of benefit

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 10 and 48(2))

Summary

Article 48(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 631/2004, requires the competent institution of the last Member State in which a worker who is a national of a Member State resided to take into account, in calculating the old‑age pension of that worker, who, when he submits his pension claim, is resident in a non-Member State, of the periods worked in another Member State under the same conditions as if that worker still resided in the Community.

However, the detailed arrangements for paying such an old-age pension remain subject to the provisions of the national law of the Member State of the institution responsible for paying the pension. While Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71 introduces a binding right to have a pension paid in any Member State, neither that regulation nor any provision of Community law requires Member States to pay pensions in non-Member States.

(see paras 38-39, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions

–

Tax legislation

–

Corporation tax (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 31 and 36) (see paras 25, 42-43, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 43 EC, 48 EC and 49 EC and Articles 31 EEA and 36 EEA – Rules for deducting costs for research and development and technological innovation incurred abroad more rigorous than those applicable to costs incurred in Spain.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force rules for the deduction of costs relating to research and development and technological innovation which are less favourable in respect of costs incurred abroad than costs incurred in Spain – such rules deriving from Article 35 of the Law on corporation tax, as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 – the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the corresponding articles in the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 36 of that Agreement;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non‑existent measure (Arts 88(2), second para., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 18-20)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Commission’s power to leave the calculation of the exact amount to be repaid to the national authorities (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 249 EC and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (notified under document number C(2003) 1520; Aid No C-62/00, ex NN 142/99) (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12) – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover aid which was declared incompatible with the common market.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to recover certain aid declared incompatible with the common market by Article 1(2)(d) and (g) of the Commission Decision of 30 October 2002, as it appears in Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of that decision;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods – Customs duties – Charges having equivalent effect – Internal taxation

(Arts 25 EC and 90 EC)

2. State aid – Meaning

(Art. 87(1) EC)

Summary

1. Article 25 EC is to be construed as precluding a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to their net operator a price surcharge, constituting a charge, on the amounts of domestic and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company designated by the legislature, with that company being the joint subsidiary of domestic generating undertakings and having previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and imported, and where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to pay non-market-compatible costs for which that company is personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity transmitted. The same applies where the national electricity generating undertakings are required to bear those costs and where, by reason of existing agreements, by the payment of a purchase price for electricity produced in the Member State, by the payment of dividends to the various domestic electricity generating undertakings of which the designated company is the subsidiary or by any other means, the advantage which that price surcharge constitutes could be passed on in its entirety by the designated company to the domestic electricity generating undertakings.

Article 90 EC is to be construed as meaning that it precludes such a rule where the revenue from the charge levied on the electricity transmitted is used only in part to pay non-market-compatible costs, that is to say where the amount levied by the designated company only partly offsets the burden borne by the national electricity transmitted.

(see paras 47, 57, operative part 1)

2. In the context of a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to their net operator an amount of money as a result of a price surcharge, constituting a charge, on the amounts of domestic and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company designated by the legislature, with that company being the joint subsidiary of domestic generating undertakings and having previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and imported, and where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to pay non-market-compatible costs for which that company is personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity transmitted, Article 87 EC must be construed as meaning that the amounts paid to that company constitute ‘State aid’ for the purposes of that provision in so far as they represent an economic advantage and not compensation for the services provided by the designated company in order to discharge public service obligations.

(see paras 47, 57, 96, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Scope

(Council Directive 92/50, Art. 1)

Summary

A contract which forms both the basis and the legal framework for the future construction and operation of a facility intended to perform a public service, namely thermal incineration of waste, in so far as it was concluded solely by public authorities, without the participation of any private party, and does not provide for or prejudice the award of any contracts that may be necessary in respect of the construction and operation of the waste treatment facility does not fall within the scope of application of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.

A public authority has the possibility of performing the public interest tasks conferred on it either by using its own resources or in cooperation with other public authorities, without being obliged to call on outside entities not forming part of its own departments. In that connection, first, Community law does not require public authorities to use any particular legal form in order to carry out jointly their public service tasks. Secondly, such cooperation between public authorities does not undermine the principal objective of the Community rules on public procurement, that is, the free movement of services and the opening-up of undistorted competition in all the Member States, where implementation of that cooperation is governed solely by considerations and requirements relating to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest and the principle of equal treatment of the persons concerned, referred to in Directive 92/50, is respected, so that no private undertaking is placed in a position of advantage vis-à-vis competitors.

(see paras 44-45, 47)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 – Commission v Austria

(Case C-102/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/9/EC – Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States – Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit

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. 8)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification imputing the failure to decentralised authorities – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures 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

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt 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 Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to comply with Directives 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (OJ 2003 L 137, p. 24) and 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 106).
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑203/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/16/EEC – Doctors – Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications – 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 transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 May 2007 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑407/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2003/105/EC – Protection of workers – Major accident hazards involving dangerous substances – 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 its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;