ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83

(Directive 2001/83 of the Parliament and of the Council)

2. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83

(Directive 2001/83 of the Parliament and of the Council, Art. 90(c) and (j))

3. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83

(Directive 2001/83 of the Parliament and of the Council, Arts 87(3), 88(6) and 96(1))

Summary

1. Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27, brought about complete harmonisation in the field of advertising of medicinal products and lists expressly the cases in which Member States are authorised to adopt provisions departing from the rules laid down by that directive. The directive must therefore be interpreted to the effect that a Member State may not provide, in its national legislation, for an absolute and unconditional prohibition, in the advertising of medicinal products to the general public, on the use of statements from third parties, whilst their use can be limited, under that same directive, only by reason of their specific content or the type of person making the statement.

(see para. 39, operative part 1)

2. Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27, requires Member States to provide, in their national legislation, for a prohibition on the use, in the advertising of medicinal products to the general public, of statements from third parties where those refer, in improper, alarming or misleading terms, to claims of recovery within the meaning of Article 90(j) of Directive 2001/83, the term ‘claims of recovery’ having thus to be interpreted as not including references to the reinforcement of a person’s well‑being where the therapeutic efficacy of the medicinal product in terms of the elimination of a particular illness is not referred to. Article 90(c) of Directive 2001/83 also requires Member States to provide, in their national legislation, for a prohibition on the use, in the advertising of medicinal products to the general public, of statements from third parties where they give the impression that the use of the medicinal product contributes to the reinforcement of general well‑being.

(see para. 52, operative part 2(a))

3. Articles 87(3), 88(6) and 96(1) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27, prohibit the advertising of a medicinal product by means of a prize draw announced on the internet, inasmuch as it encourages the irrational use of that medicinal product and leads to its direct distribution to the general public and to the presentation of free samples.

(see para. 59, operative part 2(b))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC)

2. 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

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1. Under Article 225(1) EC, an appeal lies on a point of law only. The Court of First Instance thus has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to appraise the evidence, save where those facts and that evidence have been distorted.

(see para. 49)

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1), first subparagraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

(see para. 55)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis – Article 5(1), second subparagraph – Scope

(Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, Arts 4 and 5(1), second subpara.)

2. Visas, asylum, immigration – Crossing of the external borders of the Member States – Common rules on standards and procedures for border controls

(Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, Art. 5(1), first subpara.; Council Regulation No 2252/2004, second and third recitals and Arts 1, 2, and 4(3))

Summary

1. The second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union must be interpreted as being applicable only to proposals and initiatives to build upon an area of the Schengen acquis which the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have been authorised to take part in pursuant to Article 4 of that protocol.

(see para. 50)

2. Checks on persons at the external borders of the Member States and consequently the effective implementation of the common rules on standards and procedures for those checks must be regarded as constituting elements of the Schengen acquis for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union.

In so far as the verification of the authenticity of passports and other travel documents constitutes the main element of checks on persons at external borders, measures which make it possible to establish that authenticity and the identity of the holder of the document in question more easily and more reliably must be regarded as capable of guaranteeing and improving the effectiveness of those checks and thereby of the integrated management of external borders established by the Schengen acquis.

Having regard to its purpose and content, Regulation No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States must be regarded as constituting such a measure. It is apparent from recitals 2 and 3 in the preamble to that regulation and from Article 4(3) thereof that it is intended to combat falsification and fraudulent use of passports and other travel documents issued by the Member States. In order to achieve that objective, as is apparent from Articles 1 and 2 thereof, the said regulation harmonises and improves the minimum security standards with which passports and travel documents issued by the Member States must comply, and provides for a number of biometric features relating to the holders of such documents to be inserted in those documents.

(see paras 58-60, 65-66)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Art. 43 EC)

2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits

(Art. 234 EC)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Taxes on income

(Arts 43 EC and 56 EC)

Summary

1. The acquisition by one or more natural persons residing in a Member State of all the shares in a company registered in another Member State, conferring on those persons definite influence over the company’s decisions and allowing them to determine its activities, is covered by the Treaty provisions on the freedom of establishment. Those provisions thus apply to a situation in which all shares in the company are held, either directly or indirectly, by members of one family who pursue the same interests, take decisions concerning the company by agreement through the same representative at its general meeting and decide on its activities.

(see paras 30-32)

2. The Court has no jurisdiction, under Article 234 EC, to rules on the possible infringement by a contracting Member State of the provisions of bilateral conventions designed to eliminate or to mitigate the effects of double taxation. The Court may not examine the relationship between a national measure and the provisions of a double taxation convention, since that question does not fall within the scope of Community law.

(see paras 46-47)

3. Articles 43 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State under which the income of a resident national derived from capital invested in an establishment which has its registered office in another Member State is, notwithstanding the existence of a double taxation convention concluded with the Member State in which the establishment has its registered office, not exempted from national income tax but is subject to national taxation against which the tax levied in the other Member State is set off.

In the current state of harmonisation of Community tax law, Member States enjoy a certain autonomy. It follows from that tax competence that the freedom of companies and partnerships to choose, for the purposes of establishment, between different Member States in no way means that the latter are obliged to adapt their own tax systems to the different systems of tax of the other Member States in order to guarantee that a company or partnership that has chosen to establish itself in a given Member State is taxed, at national level, in the same way as a company or partnership that has chosen to establish itself in another Member State. That fiscal autonomy also means that the Member States are at liberty to determine the conditions and the level of taxation for different types of establishments chosen by national companies or partnerships operating abroad, on condition that those companies or partnerships are not treated in a manner that is discriminatory in comparison with comparable national establishments.

(see paras 43, 45, 51, 53, 57, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition – Community rules – Obligations of the Member States

(Arts 3(1)(g) EC, 10 EC and 81 EC)

Summary

Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, does not preclude a national law which prohibits any person or dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care sector. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC are infringed where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC or reinforces their effects, or where it divests its own rules of the character of legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere. Such a law does not fall within any of the situations for the combined application of Articles 10 EC and 81 EC.

(see paras 20-21, 24, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 – Commission v Germany

(Case C‑43/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Failure to transpose 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. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as far as concerns discrimination based on religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Commission v France

(Case C-179/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 – Control system in the fisheries sector – Information on catches and fishing effort

Member States – Obligations under Community law – Failure to fulfil obligations – National legal system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) – Failure to provide the prescribed information

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to provide the information required under the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 of 18 December 1997, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;
1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure transposition by the Åland Islands of Article 8a of Directive 89/622/EEC of 13 November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products, as amended by Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15 May 1992 and replicated in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, and observance on vessels registered in Finland of the prohibition on placing on the market of snuff laid down by that provision, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Directive 2001/37;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

21 June 2007

Case C-424/05 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Sonja Hosman-Chevalier

(Appeals – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

Appeal: brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-72/04 Hosman-Chevalier v Commission [2005] ECR II-3265 seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held : Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

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

The concept of ‘State’ for the purposes of the last sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations necessarily includes the permanent representation of a Member State to the European Union. Therefore, the members of the staff of such a permanent representation, including its administrative and technical staff, must, since they are part of the structures of that representation, be considered to be working for the Member State concerned and, consequently, to be in a situation of ‘expatriation’ within the meaning of the above provision, regardless of the particular and specific functions carried out within that body, since entitlement to the expatriation allowance is not conditional upon the existence of a direct legal tie linking the person concerned and the State at issue. Such an interpretation is, moreover, consistent with the autonomy enjoyed by the Member States in the internal organisation of their permanent representations. It is for each Member State to determine which bodies will form part of its permanent representation and to identify the public interests which the various bodies coexisting with the permanent representation must promote in relations with the Community institutions.
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. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
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. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. By failing to adopt within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.
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. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57).

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 Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
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. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ 2004 L 146, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the internal order – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

2. Action 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)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, within the period prescribed, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.