ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. 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)

2. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

1. An appeal is inadmissible if, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the decision under appeal, it merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. By contrast, provided that the appellant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Court of First Instance, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose.

2. Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State, that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that regard, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent representation of that State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State.
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. 15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition – National provision placing all material for medical use into categories and setting a specific maximum price for each category – Provision forming part of a legislative framework which allows use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts in respect of whole groups of products of that nature which are not comparable.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by retaining in force Article 7(2) of Law 2955/2001 relating to the ‘Supplies of hospitals and other health units of regional health and pension schemes and other provisions’ and Joint Ministerial Decisions DY6a/oik.38611 and DY6a/oik.38609 of 12 April 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 and has infringed general principles of the Treaty, in particular equal treatment and the obligation of transparency;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

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

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 28 EC)

Summary

National rules which prohibit the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by a competent national authority or by a national voluntary self‑regulatory body for the purposes of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority or body indicating the age from which they may be viewed, does not constitute a selling arrangement which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially intra-Community trade, but a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC and is, in principle, incompatible with the obligations arising from that provision.

However, those rules may be compatible with that provision provided that they do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of protecting children pursued by the Member State concerned, as will be the case where the rules do not preclude all forms of marketing of unchecked image storage media and where it is permissible to import and sell such image storage media to adults, while ensuring that children do not have access to them. It could be otherwise only if it appears that the procedure for examining, classifying and labelling image storage media established by those rules is not easily accessible or cannot be completed within a reasonable period or that the decision of refusal cannot be open to challenge before the courts.

(see paras 29, 32, 35, 42, 47-48, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Right of Turkish nationals to an extension of their leave to remain

(EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision No 1/80, Art. 6(1))

Summary

The fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council. Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.

In order to determine whether Turkish nationals meet the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of the decision in question, no account is to be taken of the aim pursued in permitting the persons concerned to enter the Member State in question, since that article does not make recognition of the rights which it confers on Turkish workers subject to any condition connected with the reason for which the right to enter, work or reside was initially granted.

If those Turkish nationals succeed, objectively, in fulfilling the conditions laid down in the three indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, they cannot be deprived of the rights which that provision progressively grants them on the basis of the duration of their paid employment.

In those circumstances, it cannot be accepted that a student or au pair could circumvent the legislation of the host Member State, in order progressively to obtain an unlimited right of access to the labour market of that State, since they are merely exercising a right expressly provided for in Decision No 1/80. It would only be otherwise if they had fraudulently obtained a right of entry into the territory of a Member State by falsely claiming that they intended to study or act as an au pair. On the contrary, provided that (i) the genuineness of their intention is confirmed by their actual pursuit of a course of studies or by acting as an au pair, (ii) they obtain work lawfully in the host Member State, and (iii) they satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of the decision in question, the persons concerned can fully rely on the rights which that provision confers upon them.

(see paras 40, 45-46, 49, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Directive 92/85

(Council Directive 92/85, Art. 10(1))

2. Social policy – Male and female workers – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Directive 76/207

(Council Directive 76/207, Arts 2(1) and 5(1))

Summary

1. 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 and, in particular, the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers provided for in Article 10(1) of that directive must be interpreted as not extending to a female worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner’s sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but they have not yet been transferred into her uterus.

In that regard, the protection established by Article 10 of Directive 92/85 cannot, for reasons connected with the principle of legal certainty, be extended to such a worker. Before their transfer into the uterus of the woman concerned, those ova may, in certain Member States, be kept for an indeterminate period, with the national legislation in question in the case in question providing, in that regard, that the fertilised ova may be kept for a maximum period of 10 years. Therefore, applying the protection against dismissal laid down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 in favour of a female worker before the transfer of the fertilised ova could have the effect of granting the benefit of that protection even where that transfer is postponed, for whatever reason, for a number of years or even where such transfer is definitively abandoned, the in vitro fertilisation having been carried out merely by way of precaution.

(see paras 41-42, 53 and operative part)

2. 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, preclude the dismissal of a female worker who is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into her uterus, where it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.

While it is true that workers of both sexes can be temporarily prevented from carrying out their work on account of the medical treatment they must receive, the treatment, consisting of a follicular puncture and the transfer to the woman’s uterus of the ova removed by way of that follicular puncture immediately after their fertilisation, directly affects only women. It follows that the dismissal of a female worker essentially because she is undergoing that important stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex.

(see paras 50, 52, 54 and operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Combating of late payment in commercial transactions – Directive 2000/35

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 3(1)(c)(ii))

Summary

Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.

(see para. 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Citizenship of the European Union – Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States – Social advantages

(Art. 18 EC)

Summary

Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.

It is true that both the wish to limit the obligation of solidarity with civilian victims of war or repression solely to those who have a connection with the people of the State concerned by means of a residence condition, which is regarded as an expression of the extent to which such persons are connected with that society, and the necessity to verify that the recipients continue to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit constitute objective considerations of public interest which are capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant or payment of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of the citizens of that Member State.

However, although it is true that a residence condition constitutes a criterion capable of showing that there is such a connection, the fact remains that the circumstance that a person is a national of the Member State granting the benefit at issue and lived in that State for more than 20 years may be sufficient to establish a connection between that State and the recipient of the benefit. In those circumstances, the requirement of residence throughout the period of payment of the benefit concerned must be held to be disproportionate, since it goes beyond what is necessary to ensure that such a connection exists. Furthermore, as regards the necessity of verifying that the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit, a residence condition also goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and, therefore, fails to comply with the principle of proportionality.

(see paras 35, 37, 39-47, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Protection of animals during transport

(Art. 249 EC; Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Protection of animals during transport

(Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, Chapter VI of the Annex, section D, point 47)

Summary

1. National rules comprising figures for the animal compartment height in order that transporters may refer to more precise standards than those set out in Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, may fall within the margin of discretion conferred on the Member States by Article 249 EC, on condition that those rules, which comply with the objective pursued by that directive of protecting animals during transport, do not, contrary to the principle of proportionality, prevent attainment of the objectives, also pursued by that directive, of eliminating technical barriers to trade in live animals and allowing market organisations to operate smoothly. It is for the national court to establish whether those rules comply with those principles.

(see para. 46, operative part 1)

2. Section D of point 47 in Chapter VI of the Annex to Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to introduce national rules under which, in the case of transport operations of over eight hours’ duration, the available space per animal must be at least 0.50 m 2 per 100 kg of pig.

It is apparent from the wording of that provision that the Community legislature expressly laid down minimum standards for loading density for pigs of around 100 kg and, in particular, allowed the Member States to increase those standards by up to 20% depending on meteorological conditions and journey time.

(see paras 49, 51, operative part 2)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Dismisses the application for revision brought by Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ;

2. Orders Yedaș Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-78/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/49/EC – Assessment and management of environmental noise – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – Commission v United Kingdom

(Case C‑138/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/49/EC – Assessment and management of environmental noise – Non-transposition 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. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise – Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12).

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 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 – Commission v United Kingdom

(Case C‑155/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers from ionising radiation – Failure to transpose fully 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 paras 18-20)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 54 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) – Absence of provisions enabling the implementation of all appropriate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past or old practice or work activity.

Operative part:

By not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to allow for appropriate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation.