ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay

(Art. 141 EC)

Summary

Article 141 EC is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the remuneration of civil servants which defines overtime, for both full-time civil servants and part-time civil servants, as hours worked over and above their normal working hours, and which remunerates those additional hours at a rate lower than the hourly rate applied to their normal working hours, so that part-time civil servants are less well paid than full-time civil servants in respect of hours which are worked over and above their normal working hours, but which are not sufficient to bring the number of hours worked overall above the level of normal working hours for full-time civil servants where:

– in the group of workers subject to that legislation, a considerably higher percentage of women is affected as compared with the percentage of men so affected,

and

– the difference in treatment is not justified by objective factors wholly unrelated to discrimination based on sex.

(see para. 44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Inheritance tax

(EC Treaty, Art. 73b(1)1, and 73d (now Arts 56(1)EC and 58 EC))

Summary

Article 73b(1) of the Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 73d of the Treaty (now Article 58 EC), must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of calculating the tax on an inheritance consisting of assets situated in that State and agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State,

– provides that account be taken of the fair market value of the assets in that other Member State, whereas a special valuation procedure exists for identical domestic assets, the results of which amount on average to only 10% of that fair market value, and

– reserves application of a tax-free amount to domestic agricultural land and forestry in relation to those assets and takes account of their remaining value in the amount of only 60% thereof.

Such provisions, in so far as they result in an inheritance consisting of agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State being subject, in the first Member State, to inheritance tax that is higher than that which would be payable if the assets inherited were situated exclusively within the territory of that State, have the effect of restricting the movement of capital by reducing the value of an inheritance consisting of such an asset situated outside national territory.

Such national legislation cannot be justified on the ground that it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable since the calculation of inheritance tax is, under that legislation, directly linked to the value of the assets included in the estate, and there is therefore objectively no difference in situation such as to justify unequal tax treatment so far as concerns the level of inheritance tax payable in relation to, respectively, an asset situated in the national territory and an asset situated in another Member State.

Furthermore, the objective of preventing the tax burden from jeopardising the continuation of the activities of agricultural and forestry holdings, and, thereby, the preservation of the social role of those holdings cannot justify the provisions in question, given that there is no evidence to support a finding that the holdings established in other Member States are not in a comparable situation to that of holdings situated in national territory.

The same is true of any difficulties encountered in determining the value of assets situated in the territory of another Member State under a special national procedure, since those difficulties cannot be sufficient to justify a categorical refusal to grant the tax advantage such as that arising under the legislation at issue, which, apart from that assessment procedure, also reserves the application of two other tax advantages to assets situated within the national territory.

(see paras 32, 43-44, 52, 54-55, 57, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Equal treatment – Childcare allowance

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 3(1))

Summary

Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.

The principle of non-discrimination, as laid down in Article 39(2) EC and implemented, as far as concerns social security for migrant workers, by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, prohibits not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result. Accordingly, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect essentially migrant workers or the great majority of those affected are migrant workers, where they are applicable without distinction but can more easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers, or where there is a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of the latter.

(see paras 17-18, 22, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with the obligation to recover aid granted – Grounds of defence – Absolute impossibility of implementation – Assessment criteria (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 39-40)

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 paras 44, 46, 48)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Grounds of defence – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissible (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC) (see para. 52)

4. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 53-55)

5. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions – Introduction of a procedure ensuring the immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision (Art. 88(2), second para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 58-59)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take measures to comply with Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 of 14 September 2005 on the recovery of aid granted to Olympic Airlines.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 September 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. Measures aimed at regulating the exercise of exclusive television broadcasting rights to events of major importance for society, adopted by a Member State and approved by a Commission decision finding them to be compatible with Community law, impose certain restrictions on television broadcasters. Since those restrictions are linked to the circumstances in which those broadcasters acquire the television broadcasting rights to designated events from the holder of the exclusive television rights, the effect of the measures adopted by that Member State and of the decision approving them is to subject the rights held by a company which has acquired the television broadcasting rights to new restrictions which did not exist when it acquired those rights and which render their exercise more difficult. Thus, such a Commission decision directly affects the legal situation of the holder of those rights. Moreover, the prejudice to that right-holder’s legal situation is due solely to the requirement to attain the result determined by those measures and the Commission decision, without the national authorities having any discretion, which could affect that situation, in the implementation of that decision.

(see paras 50-52, 59, 62-63)

2. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by such a decision. In that regard, where the decision affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons might be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of traders. That can be the case particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by the individual prior to its adoption.

(see paras 70-72)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48

(Council Directive 89/48, Art. 4(1)(b), third subpara.)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48

(Council Directive 89/48, Arts 3 and 4)

Summary

1. As regards professions ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law and in respect of which the provision of advice and/or assistance concerning national law is an essential and constant aspect of the professional activity’, the host Member State may, by derogation from the principle laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher‑education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, stipulate either an adaptation period or an aptitude test. The content of the education and training required by a Member State which regulates a profession is a criterion which is especially relevant in order to establish the requirements connected to the practice thereof. Consequently, a profession which is open to persons who have not received significant education and training in law cannot be considered to be one ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law’.

(see paras 36, 38)

2. Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance, on its territory, of certain activities falling within the scope of the regulated profession of estate agent by a service provider established in another Member State who has concluded a cooperation agreement with an estate agent who is duly authorised in the host Member State, subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional upon success in an aptitude test in law.

Where it is proven, which it is for the national court to verify, that, following the conclusion of such a cooperation agreement, the service provider does not exercise all the aspects of the regulated profession of estate agent, as it is defined in the host Member State, but only certain of the professional activities which constitute that profession, without being involved in the legal aspects of sales, the requirement imposed on him to comply with compensatory measures relating to his knowledge of the law of the Member State in question goes manifestly beyond what is necessary in order to protect the recipients of services against the risk of inadequate assistance with regard to the legal aspects of the sale.

(see paras 40-41, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4))

2. Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2) and 8(2) and (4))

Summary

1. On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.

In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.

(see para. 73, operative part 1)

2. It is contrary to Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, for a Member State bound, in accordance with that directive, to recognise the right to drive stemming from a driving licence issued by another Member State, to suspend that right temporarily while the latter Member State investigates the procedure followed in the issuing of that licence. In contrast, in that same context, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to decide to suspend that right if it is clear from entries in that licence or from other incontestable information supplied by that other Member State that the condition of residence imposed in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive was not satisfied at the moment when that licence was issued.

(see para. 86, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Legislation applicable – Legislation of the Member State of employment

(Art. 42 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, Art. 13(2)(a))

Summary

Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, under which a person employed in the territory of one Member State is to be subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State, must be interpreted in the light of Article 42 EC which aims to facilitate freedom of movement for workers and entails, in particular, that migrant workers must not lose their right to social security benefits or have the amount of those benefits reduced because they have exercised the right to freedom of movement conferred on them by the Treaty.

Therefore that article does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.

It is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.

(see paras 29, 33, 37, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48

(Council Directive 89/48, Art. 1(a))

Summary

The provisions of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration cannot be relied on, for the purpose of gaining access to a regulated profession in a host Member State, by the holder of a certificate issued by an authority of another Member State which does not attest any education or training covered by the education system of that Member State and is not based on either an examination taken or professional experience acquired in that Member State.

Directive 89/48 seeks to remove obstacles to the pursuit of a profession in a Member State other than that which issued the diploma establishing the professional qualifications concerned. It is clear from the first, third and fifth recitals in the preamble to that directive that a certificate attesting professional qualifications cannot be treated in the same way as a ‘diploma’ for the purposes of that directive unless those qualifications were acquired, wholly or in part, under the education system of the Member State which issued the certificate in question. Furthermore, a diploma facilitates the taking-up or pursuit of a profession in so far as it proves the possession of an additional qualification.

To accept, in the case where homologation obtained in another Member State which does not provide evidence of any additional qualification and where neither homologation nor enrolment in the register of a professional body in that Member State was based on an examination of the qualifications or professional experience acquired by an applicant, that Directive 89/48 may be relied on in order to secure access to a regulated profession in the State of origin would be tantamount to allowing a person who has merely obtained a qualification awarded by that Member State which does not in itself provide access to that regulated profession none the less to gain access to that profession, without the homologation certificate obtained in the other Member State providing evidence that the holder has acquired an additional qualification or professional experience. Such a result would be contrary to the principle enshrined by Directive 89/48 and set out in the fifth recital in its preamble, according to which Member States reserve the option of fixing the minimum level of qualification necessary to guarantee the quality of services provided in their territory.

(see paras 55-57, 59, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 – Commission v Finland

(Case C-152/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/95/EC – Hazardous substances – Electrical and electronic equipment – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 6-9 and operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to ensure the transposition within the prescribed period, with regard to the autonomous province of Åland, of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2003 L 37, p. 19).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, with regard to the Åland Islands, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑264/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 16(3) – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Measures necessary)

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 adopt the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) – Adoption of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 July 2007 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑340/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/4/EC – Public access to environmental information – 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. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

Operative part:

By not adopting within the period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.