ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The obligation imposed by a local authority of a Member State on a future concessionaire of a concession for the collection and transport of waste to deliver certain types of waste collected on the territory of that municipality, namely either mixed municipal waste or industrial and building waste, to an undertaking established in the same Member State in order for it to be treated comes within the ambit of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, the aim of which is to provide a harmonised set of procedures whereby movements of waste can be limited in order to secure protection of the environment. It follows that it is not necessary to examine separately whether that obligation complies with Articles 34 TFEU to 36 TFEU.

The provisions of Regulation No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Article 16 of Directive 2008/98 on waste, must be interpreted as permitting a local authority to require the undertaking responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to transport mixed municipal waste collected from private households and, as applicable, from other producers, to the nearest appropriate treatment facility established in the same Member State as that authority.

It follows from those provisions that the Member States may adopt measures of general application restricting shipments of waste intended for disposal operations and mixed municipal waste between Member States, in the form of general or partial prohibitions of shipments, by way of implementation of the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency under Directive 2008/98.

The obligation imposed by a local authority on the undertaking responsible for the collection of waste on its territory to deliver certain types of waste to a treatment facility situated in the same Member State amounts to a measure of general application laying down a prohibition on shipments of the waste in question to other facilities, as provided for in Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation No 1013/2006, where the producers of that waste are themselves required to deliver the waste either to that undertaking or to that facility.

Accordingly, in the case of waste destined for disposal operations and mixed municipal waste collected from private households and, as applicable, other producers, a Member State may confer on local authorities, on the geographical scale it deems appropriate, powers to manage the waste produced on their territory in order to ensure compliance with its obligations under Article 16 of Directive 2008/98. Those authorities may, as part of the powers conferred upon them, provide that those types of waste will be treated in the nearest appropriate facility.

(see paras 56, 57, 63, 68, operative part 1)
Case C‑35/12 P

Plásticos Españoles SA (ASPLA)

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Single and continuous infringement’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 May 2014

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission — Body of evidence — Lawfulness (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2)

Appeal — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas in law during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Meaning — General nature of the heading of a plea put forward in the application — Development, at a later stage in the proceedings, of specific arguments — Need for a sufficiently close link with the arguments raised in the application (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2))

Appeal — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, on the transfer of part of the undertaking, permits the transferee to take over the employment relationship from the transferor if that part of the undertaking does not constitute a functionally autonomous economic entity existing before the transfer.

Although it is true that, should prove that the entity transferred did not, before the transfer, have sufficient functional autonomy, that transfer would not be covered by Directive 2001/23.

However, the mere lack of functional autonomy of the entity transferred cannot, in itself, prevent a Member State from ensuring in its national law for the safeguarding of employees’ rights after the change of employer.

That finding is supported by Article 8 of Directive 2001/23, which provides that the directive does not affect the right of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions which are more favourable to employees.

That directive is intended to achieve only partial harmonisation of the area in question and is not intended to establish a uniform level of protection throughout the European Union on the basis of common criteria, but to ensure that the employee is protected in his relations with the transferee to the same extent as he was in his relations with the transferor under the legal rules of the Member State concerned.

(see paras 35, 39-42, operative part 1)
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Wam Industriale v Commission

(Case C‑560/12 P)

‛Appeal — State aid — Establishing a company in certain third countries — Soft loans — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 42-44, 59, 60, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T‑303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission, in which the General Court rejected an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable time-limit.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Wam Industriale SpA to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Wam Industriale v Commission

(Case C‑560/12 P)

‛Appeal — State aid — Establishing a company in certain third countries — Soft loans — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court’

Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 42-44, 59, 60, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T‑303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission, in which the General Court rejected an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable time-limit.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the customs authorities, in the absence of any initiative by the holder of the intellectual property right, from initiating and conducting the proceedings referred to in that provision themselves, provided that the relevant decisions taken by those authorities may be subject to appeal ensuring that the rights derived by individuals from EU law and, in particular, from that regulation are safeguarded.

It does not appear either from Article 13(1) of any other provision of Regulation No 1383/2003 that the EU legislature intended to require the Member States to reserve the powers to give a decision on the merits of a case to certain authorities. By thus limiting itself to referring to the application of the law in force in the Member State concerned in order to determine whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right, the EU legislature has not, in principle, ruled out the possibility that an authority other than a judicial authority may be designated as the authority competent to give a decision on the merits of a case.

(see paras 44, 46, 47, 53, operative part)
Directive 91/676 seeks to create the instruments needed to ensure that waters in the European Union are protected against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

In order to achieve those objectives, Member States are obliged, as laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 91/676, to draw up and implement action programmes for designated vulnerable zones.

According to the eleventh recital in the preamble to the directive, the action programmes should include measures to limit the land application of all nitrogen-containing fertilisers and, in particular, to set specific limits for the application of livestock manure.

Under Article 5(4)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/676, those action programmes, for the implementation of which Member States are responsible, must, more specifically, contain certain mandatory measures listed in Annexes II and III to that directive.

Under Article 5(3)(a) and (b) of Directive 91/676, and Annex II.A, point 1, thereto, those action programmes are to take into account the best available scientific and technical data and the physical, geological and climatic conditions of each region.

Further, although the directive allows the Member States a certain latitude as regards the precise methods of implementing the requirements of Directive 91/676, they are, in all circumstances, obliged to ensure that the objectives of that Directive, and consequently the objectives of European Union policy in the area of the environment, are achieved, in accordance with the requirements of Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU.

Further, in relation to a directive which, like Directive 91/676, contains technical rules in the area of the environment, the Member States are under a particular duty, in order to satisfy fully the requirement of legal certainty, to ensure that their legislation intended to transpose that directive is clear and precise.

(see paras 25-31)
The adoption by the Commission of a decision on financial corrections is subject, as from 2000, to the observance of a certain time-limit. The length of the time-limit granted to the Commission to adopt its decisions varies depending on the applicable rules.

It is apparent from Article 100(1) and (5) of Regulation No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund that, where the Member State does not accept the provisional conclusions of the Commission, the latter is required to send a letter of invitation to a hearing and to hold a hearing in order to satisfy the procedural requirements in matters relating to financial corrections; those two steps constitute the starting point for the calculation of the time-limit within which the Commission must adopt a decision by which it makes such a correction. Moreover, it is in the interests both of the Member State concerned and of the Commission that the length of the procedure for financial corrections be predictable, which implies the setting of a predetermined time-limit for adopting the final decision. Failure to comply with the time-limit laid down for adopting such a decision is not compatible with the general principle of sound administration. In those circumstances, the Commission cannot free itself of its obligation to adopt decisions on the basis of which it makes financial corrections within a predetermined time-limit by omitting to undertake the steps which constitute the starting point for the calculation of that time-limit. Therefore, failure on the part of the Commission to have adopted a decision on corrections to financial assistance from those funds within the time-limit prescribed by the EU legislature constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements and failure on the part of the Court to take full account thereof constitutes an error of law.

(see paras 81, 83, 87, 89, 90, 92, 98, 99, 103)
39

The interpretation adopted is likewise not, contrary to what the EIB contends in its written observations, invalidated by Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041, in which the Court accepted that the European Parliament was entitled to bring an action for annulment before it, even though under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty (which became Article 173 EC, which in turn became, after amendment, Article 230 EC) the European Parliament did not have the right to bring such an action for annulment. In that case, the two-month time-limit set by that article for bringing an action had necessarily to apply equally strictly both to the Parliament and to the other institutions mentioned. By contrast, in this case, where Article 41 of the EIB Staff Regulations does not set a time-limit for bringing an action but merely establishes the jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union in disputes between the EIB and its members of staff, the Courts of the European Union are, those regulations being silent on the point, required to apply the concept of a reasonable period. That concept, which requires that account is taken of all the circumstances of the case, cannot therefore be regarded as a specific limitation period. Consequently, the period of three months laid down in Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations cannot be applied by analogy as a limitation period to the members of staff of the EIB when they bring an action for annulment of an EIB measure adversely affecting them.
18

The procedure for granting stability support to an ESM Member is described in Article 13 the ESM Treaty as follows: ‘1. An ESM Member may address a request for stability support to the Chairperson of the Board of Governors. Such a request shall indicate the financial assistance instrument(s) to be considered. On receipt of such a request, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission, in liaison with the ECB, with the following tasks: (a) to assess the existence of a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole or of its Member States, unless the ECB has already submitted an analysis under Article 18(2); (b) to assess whether public debt is sustainable. Wherever appropriate and possible, such an assessment is expected to be conducted together with the [International Monetary Fund (IMF)]; (c) to assess the actual or potential financing needs of the ESM Member concerned. 2. On the basis of the request of the ESM Member and the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the Board of Governors may decide to grant, in principle, stability support to the ESM Member concerned in the form of a financial assistance facility. 3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission – in liaison with the ECB and, wherever possible, together with the IMF – with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an “MoU”) detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors. The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the [FEU Treaty], in particular with any act of European Union law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned. 4. The European Commission shall sign the MoU on behalf of the ESM, subject to prior compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 and approval by the Board of Governors.’ 5. The Board of Directors shall approve the financial assistance facility agreement detailing the financial aspects of the stability support to be granted and, where applicable, the disbursement of the first tranche of the assistance. 6. The ESM shall establish an appropriate warning system to ensure that it receives any repayments due by the ESM Member under the stability support in a timely manner. 7. The European Commission – in liaison with the ECB and, wherever possible, together with the IMF – shall be entrusted with monitoring compliance with the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility.’
8

Article 34 of Directive 2005/36 which concerns basic dental training provides: ‘1. Admission to basic dental training presupposes possession of a diploma or certificate giving access, for the studies in question, to universities or higher institutes of a level recognised as equivalent, in a Member State. 2. Basic dental training shall comprise a total of at least five years of full-time theoretical and practical study, comprising at least the programme described in Annex V, point 5.3.1 and given in a university, in a higher institute providing training recognised as being of an equivalent level or under the supervision of a university. ... 3. Basic dental training shall provide an assurance that the person in question has acquired the following knowledge and skills: (a) adequate knowledge of the sciences on which dentistry is based and a good understanding of scientific methods, including the principles of measuring biological functions, the evaluation of scientifically established facts and the analysis of data; (b) adequate knowledge of the constitution, physiology and behaviour of healthy and sick persons as well as the influence of the natural and social environment on the state of health of the human being, in so far as these factors affect dentistry; (c) adequate knowledge of the structure and function of the teeth, mouth, jaws and associated tissues, both healthy and diseased, and their relationship to the general state of health and to the physical and social well-being of the patient; (d) adequate knowledge of clinical disciplines and methods, providing the dentist with a coherent picture of anomalies, lesions and diseases of the teeth, mouth, jaws and associated tissues and of preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic dentistry; (e) suitable clinical experience under appropriate supervision. This training shall provide him with the skills necessary for carrying out all activities involving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of anomalies and diseases of the teeth, mouth, jaws and associated tissues.’
6

Article 21 of that directive, entitled ‘Claims representative’, provides: ‘1. Each Member State shall take all measures necessary to ensure that all insurance undertakings covering the risks classified in class 10 of point A of the Annex to Directive 73/239/EEC, other than carrier’s liability, appoint a claims representative in each Member State other than that in which they have received their official authorisation. The claims representative shall be responsible for handling and settling claims arising from an accident in the cases referred to in Article 20(1). The claims representative shall be resident or established in the Member State where he is appointed. ... 4. The claims representative shall, in relation to such claims, collect all information necessary in connection with the settlement of the claims and shall take the measures necessary to negotiate a settlement of claims. The requirement of appointing a claims representative shall not preclude the right of the injured party or his insurance undertaking to institute proceedings directly against the person who caused the accident or his insurance undertaking. 5. Claims representatives shall possess sufficient powers to represent the insurance undertaking in relation to injured parties in the cases referred to in Article 20(1) and to meet their claims in full. They must be capable of examining cases in the official language(s) of the Member State of residence of the injured party. ...’
3

Recitals 2, 11, 12 and 15 in the preamble to the Regulation state: ‘(2) Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market. Provisions to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and to simplify the formalities with a view to rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments from Member States bound by this Regulation are essential; … (11) The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant's domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the litigation or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different linking factor. The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. (12) In addition to the defendant's domicile, there should be alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close link between the court and the action or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice. … (15) In the interests of the harmonious administration of justice it is necessary to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in two Member States. There must be a clear and effective mechanism for resolving cases of lis pendens and related actions and for obviating problems flowing from national differences as to the determination of the time when a case is regarded as pending. For the purposes of this Regulation that time should be defined autonomously.’