ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2009 – Commission v Slovenia

(Case C‑402/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/35/EC – Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the 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. 11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

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 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2009 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑401/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/82/EC – Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – Article 11(1)(c) – Drawing up of external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the 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. 17)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) – Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up an external emergency plan for all establishments subject to the provisions of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that Directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑567/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑286/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directives 2006/12/EC and 91/689/EEC – Hazardous waste – Obligation to draw up and adopt a hazardous-waste management plan – Obligation to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste – Directive 1999/31/EC – Landfill of waste – Disposal of hazardous waste

1. Environment – Hazardous waste – Directives 91/689 and 2006/12 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Arts 7 and 9; Council Directive 91/689, Art. 6(1)) (see paras 43, 47)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Arts 4 and 5) (see paras 57-58, 72-74, 76)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and Articles 5(1) and (2), 7(1), 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) (formerly Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991) – Breach of Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Failure to draw up a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the Community legislation and to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste – Failure to fulfil obligations so far as concerns the management and landfill of waste.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by failing to draw up and adopt within a reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste characterised by the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health,

– by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste, compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste and Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, first, Articles 1(2) and 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, read in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and 7(1) of Directive 2006/12, second, Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689, read in conjunction with the provisions of Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12, and, third, Articles 3(1), 6 to 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a consent procedure and to an assessment of those effects, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, in conjunction with Annexes II and III to Directive 85/337, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 – Commission v Poland

(Case C-551/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/68/EC – Self-employed activity of reinsurance – Taking up and pursuit – National provisions prior to the directive – Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 15, 19)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 21, 23)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the 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 25, 27)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1).

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 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the text of the national provisions adopted in the field covered by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 64;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 February 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑523/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/71/EC – Specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the 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. 12)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Not permissible in the case of an express requirement that reference be made to a directive (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 13-14)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third‑country nationals for the purposes of scientific research (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, the legislation transposing Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds into Italian law not being quite consistent with that directive, and the system for transposing Article 9 of that directive failing to ensure that the derogations adopted by the competent Italian authorities satisfy the conditions and requirements referred to in that article, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 18 of the Directive;
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the 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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Protection of forests – Monitoring of forests and environmental interactions – Regulation No 2152/2003

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2152/2003, Art. 3(a) and (b))

Summary

Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2152/2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus), which define, for the purposes of that regulation, the terms ‘forest’ and ‘wooded land’, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which contain different definitions of those terms as regards actions which are not governed by the regulation.

While, in order to implement the forest monitoring scheme, the Community legislature sought to define the areas covered by that scheme, none of the provisions of Regulation No 2152/2003 indicates that the regulation was designed to establish common rules for governing other actions. Thus, Article 3 of the regulation did not have the aim and cannot have the effect of precluding any other definition of what constitutes the forests and wooded areas that the Member States would seek to make subject to any action programmes other than those governed by the regulation.

(see paras 25-26, 28, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the 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. 23

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply, in the Walloon Region, with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Existing installations liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution.

Operative part

Operative Part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations that do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time‑limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 28)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Duty of the Member States to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of – Obligation to achieve a result – Discretion of the Member States concerning the measures to be taken – Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 4) (see paras 35-39, 44)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Duties of the Member States in respect of holders of waste – Meaning of holder of waste – Holders of unauthorised waste-tips – Included (Art. 174(2), EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 8) (see paras 46-51, 53-55)

4. Approximation of laws – Protection of groundwater – Directive 80/68 – Scope – Actions leading to indirect discharges of substances in list II of the Directive – Included (Art. 174(2), EC; Council Directive 80/68, Arts 3 and 5) (see paras 64-66)

5. Approximation of laws – Protection of groundwater – Directive 80/68 – Duty of the Member States to limit the introduction into groundwater of substances in list II of the Directive – Obligation to make subject to prior investigation any direct discharge of those substances – Waste put into landfill although no technical precautions taken to avoid polluting that water – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 80/68, Arts 3(b), and 5) (see paras 74-78)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9), which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43) – Landfill of waste in disused quarries – ‘dos Limas, dos Linos e dos Barreiras’ quarries (Lourosa) – Lack of scrutiny.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary in connection with the management of waste illegally placed in the old quarries of Limas and Linos, situated in the commune of Lourosa, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8, respectively, of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste, which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission. Orders the Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of the 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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88) (see paras 7-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) and Article 18(a) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) maintained by Article 27(1) of Directive 2003/88, in conjunction with Annex I, Part B, of the same directive – Non-civilian personnel in public authorities.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in respect of non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(3) of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Application initiating proceedings – Statement of subject-matter and pleas in law – Formal requirements

(Art. 226 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c))

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Statute of the European Schools

(Art. 10 EC and 226 EC)

Summary

1. Under Articles 21(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice and 38(1) of the latter’s Rules of Procedure, in any application made under Article 226 EC, the Commission must indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is called upon to rule. These heads of claim must be set out unambiguously, so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or, indeed. fail to rule on a complaint.

(see paras 36-37)

2. The Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the action of the European Commission, brought on the basis of Article 226 EC, on the ground that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Establishment Agreement concluded on 12 October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European School and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC. Accordingly, as is apparent from Article 28 of the convention signed in Luxembourg on 12 April 1957 defining the Statute of the European School, the rules in that agreement have to be consistent with those laid down in the convention that the Court lacks jurisdiction to interpret inasmuch as, the links of that statute to the Community and the functioning of its institutions notwithstanding, it is an international agreement concluded by the Member States which does not form an integral part of Community law. This assessment is not to be restricted to the procedural context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, but likewise applies in the context of the proceedings provided for in Article 226 EC, the subject-matter of which can only be a failure by a Member State to fulfil one of its obligations under the treaty.

Furthermore, neither any consolidation of the acquis of the 1957 Convention by the convention concluded in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994, which is currently in force, nor the reference made by the latter to the establishment agreements, can retroactively modify the legal nature of the Establishment Agreement, which is an international agreement concluded between the Governing Body and the government of a single Member State. Finally, with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the arbitration clause appearing in Article 26 of the 1994 Convention, infringement proceedings, within the meaning of the EC Treaty and of the case-law of the Court, can be brought only on the basis of Article 226 EC.

(see paras 44-46, 51-53, operative part)