ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23

(Council Directive 2001/23, Art. 4(2))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23

(Council Directive 2001/23, Art. 3(3))

Summary

1. Article 4(2) 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 of businesses, according to which if the contract of employment or the employment relationship is terminated because the transfer involves a substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee, the employer is to be regarded as having been responsible for termination of the contract of employment or the employment relationship, must be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where the termination of a contract of employment or an employment relationship is brought about because the conditions for the applicability of that provision have been met, independently of any failure on the part of the transferee employer to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Member States are not required to guarantee the employee a right to financial compensation, for which the transferee employer is liable, in accordance with the same conditions as the right upon which an employee can rely where the contract of employment or the employment relationship is unlawfully terminated by his employer. However, the national court is required, in a case within its jurisdiction, to ensure that, at the very least, the transferee employer in such a case bears the consequences that the applicable national law attaches to termination by an employer of the contract of employment or the employment relationship, such as the payment of the salary and other benefits relating, under that law, to the notice period with which an employer must comply .

(see paras 30, 35, operative part)

2. Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employee’s rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, which provides that after the transfer, the transferee must continue to observe the terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transfer, until the date of termination or the expiry of the collective agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement does not require the transferee to ensure that the working conditions agreed with the transferor are observed after the date of expiry of the collective agreement, even though that date coincides with the date on which the undertaking was transferred.

(see paras 34, 36, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action – Alteration of the objections after the issue of the reasoned opinion, on account of an amendment to the national legislation – Whether permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 21-24)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Time-limit – None – Exception – Excessive duration of the pre-litigation procedure prejudicial to the rights of the defence – Burden of proof (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

3. Member States – Obligations – Supervisory tasks assigned to the Commission – Duty of the Member States – Cooperation in inquiries into whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 28-29)

4. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Conditions (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 32-33)

5. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Concept of waste – Substance which is discarded – Criteria for assessment (Art. 174(2), EC; Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a), and Annex I) (see paras 40-48)

6. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Scope – Member States’ option to define different categories of waste – Limits (Art. 174 EC; Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Arts 1(a), and 2(1)) (see paras 49-53, 59-67)

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions such as:

– Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 47), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) – Refuse derived fuel (RDF) and scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities – Exclusion from the scope of the national implementing law.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Article 1(25) to (27) and (29)(a) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 delegating power to the government to reform, coordinate and supplement legislation in environmental matters and direct implementation measures, and

– Article 1(29)(b) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 and Articles 183(1)(s) and 229(2) of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006 laying down rules in environmental matters,

under which certain scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities and high-quality refuse-derived fuel (RDF-Q) respectively are excluded a priori from the scope of the Italian legislation on waste transposing Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of that directive;

2.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Council Regulation No 1552/89, Arts 2, 6(2) and 10) (see paras 61-64)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 65-66, 68)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 6(2), 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) – Refusal to pay default interest in the case of late payment of own resources under the ATA system – Accounting rules.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the default interest payable on account of the late payment of own resources under the ATA system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2) and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on animal health – Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat – Directive 85/73 – Special fee covering actual costs

(Council Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 97/79, Annex A, Chapter I, point 4(b))

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action – Adaptation because of a change in Community law – Lawfulness – Conditions

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. The fee provided for in point 4(b) of Chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662, 90/425, 90/675 and 91/496, as amended by Directive 97/79, must, first, not exceed the amount of the actual costs of the inspections and controls and, secondly, take into account all those costs, none of which may be excluded. It cannot therefore take the form of a ‘standard’ fee since a standard fee by its very nature exceeds the actual cost of the measures which it is intended to finance in certain cases and is lower than that cost in other cases.

On the other hand, the fact that a fee charged under that provision consists of various cost elements does not, in itself, render that fee incompatible with that provision.

The objective of transparency does not preclude such a fee from being levied, provided it shows clearly and in detail the nature of the various elements of which it consists, allowing the person liable to know the exact composition of the total fee.

In addition, in so far as such a fee does not cover cost elements other than those provided for in the Community legislation nor exceed the amount of the actual costs, it is not liable to prejudice the objective pursued by Directive 85/73 of taking action to counteract distortions of competition.

(see paras 32, 37, 41, 43)

2. In an action for failure to fulfil obligations, although the heads of claim set out in the originating application cannot in principle be extended beyond the failures to fulfil obligations alleged in the operative part of the reasoned opinion and in the letter of formal notice, it is none the less the case that the Commission has standing to seek a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil obligations which were created in the initial version of a Community measure, subsequently amended or repealed, and which were maintained in force under the new provisions. Conversely, the subject‑matter of the dispute cannot be extended to obligations arising under new provisions which do not correspond to those arising under the initial version of the measure in question, as otherwise it would constitute a breach of the essential procedural requirements governing infringement proceedings.

(see para. 50)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts – Directive 97/7

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/7, second sentence of Art. 6(1), and Art. 6(2)

Summary

The provisions of the second sentence of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides in general that, in the case of withdrawal by a consumer within the withdrawal period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods acquired under a distance contract. If the consumer were required to pay such compensation merely because he had the opportunity to use the goods while they were in his possession, he would be able to exercise his right of withdrawal only against payment of that compensation. Such an outcome would be clearly at variance with the wording and purpose of the second sentence of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7 and would, in particular, deprive the consumer of the opportunity to make completely free and independent use of the period for reflection granted to him by that directive. Likewise, the efficiency and effectiveness of the right of withdrawal would be impaired if the consumer were obliged to pay compensation simply because he had examined and tested the goods. To the extent to which the right of withdrawal is intended precisely to give the consumer that opportunity, the fact of having made use of it cannot have the consequence that the consumer is able to exercise that right only if he pays compensation.

However, those provisions do not prevent the consumer from being required to pay compensation for the use of the goods in the case where he has made use of those goods in a manner incompatible with the principles of civil law, such as those of good faith or unjust enrichment, on condition that the purpose of that directive and, in particular, the efficiency and effectiveness and efficacy of the right of withdrawal are not adversely affected, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

(see paras 23-24, 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271

(Art. 174(2), EC; Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3(1), second para., and 5(2))

2. Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271

(Council Directive 91/271, Art. 5(2) and (3), and Annexes I.B(3) and II.A(a), second para.)

3. Environment – Treatment of urban waste water – Directive 91/271

(Council Directive 91/271, Art. 5(5))

Summary

1. It is apparent from Article 5(2) of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Directive 98/15, that all urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent which discharges into a sensitive area was to be subject, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, to more stringent treatment than that referred to in Article 4 of that directive. In this respect, it does not matter whether the waste water discharges directly or indirectly into a sensitive area. This is in keeping with the high level of protection provided for by Community policy on the environment under Article 174(2) EC.

(see paras 28-29)

2. Under Article 5(3), in conjunction with Annex I.B(3), of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste‑water treatment, as amended by Directive 98/15, the treatment provided for in Article 5(2) of that directive is more stringent than that described in Article 4 of that directive and covers urban waste water entering collecting systems and from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent. That treatment means, inter alia, that discharges into areas sensitive to eutrophication must satisfy the requirements shown in Table 2 of that annex, subject, however, to the provisions of the second paragraph of Annex II.A(a) to that directive, which provide that, as regards large agglomerations, the removal of phosphorus and/or nitrogen should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication.

(see paras 32-33)

3. In accordance with Article 5(5) of Directive 91/271 concerning urban waste‑water treatment, as amended by Directive 98/15, the obligation to reduce the nitrogen load depends on the extent to which discharges from urban waste water treatment plants situated in the catchment areas of sensitive areas contribute to the pollution of those areas. Furthermore, whether direct or indirect, discharges from urban waste water treatment plants situated in the same catchment area of a sensitive area are subject, by reason of Article 5(5) of that directive, to the requirements applicable to sensitive areas only to the extent that those discharges contribute to the pollution of that area. Thus, there must be a causal link between those discharges and the pollution of the sensitive areas.

(see paras 40-44, 88)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑93/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/35/EC – Environment – Public participation in certain projects and programmes – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 7)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

Operative part

By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council set up by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision on the free movement of workers – Family reunification

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Article 7(1), first indent)

Summary

The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council must be interpreted as follows:

- that provision precludes legislation of a Member State under which a family member properly authorised to join a Turkish migrant worker already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that State loses the enjoyment of the rights based on family reunification under that provision for the reason only that, having attained majority, he or she marries, even when he or she continues to live with that worker during the first three years of his or her residence in the host Member State;

- a Turkish national who comes within that provision may validly claim a right of residence in the host Member State on the basis thereof, notwithstanding the fact that he or she married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, when, during that whole period, he or she actually lived under the same roof as the Turkish migrant worker through whom he or she was admitted to the territory of that State on the ground of family reunification.

It follows both from the primacy of European Union law and from the direct effect of a provision such as the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 that Member States are not permitted to modify unilaterally the scope of the system of gradually integrating Turkish nationals in the host Member State and do not have the power to adopt measures which may jeopardise the legal status expressly conferred on those nationals by the law governing the EEC-Turkey Association. Thus, members of a Turkish worker’s family who fulfil the conditions laid down in the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 can lose the rights conferred on them by that provision only in two cases, namely, when the presence of the Turkish migrant in the host Member State constitutes, on account of his or her own conduct, a genuine and serious threat to public policy, public security or public health, in accordance with Article 14(1) of that decision, or when the person concerned has left the territory of that State for a significant length of time without legitimate reason.

(see paras 56, 62, 66, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg

Case C‑244/07

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/50/EC – Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and of the trans-European conventional rail system – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 9)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Objective nature (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 114).

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 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑59/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/109/EC – Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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

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

Re:

Failure of the Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long‑term residents, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v France

(Case C‑147/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC – Quality of water intended for human consumption – Maximum concentrations of nitrates and pesticides – Incorrect application

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. 14)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 18-19)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32) – Failure, in certain départements , to remain within the chemical parameters laid down in Annex I, Part B, to Directive 98/83 – Nitrates and pesticides.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;