ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea put forward for the first time at the stage of the appeal - Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 42(2), first para.)

2. Appeals - Pleas in law - Incorrect assessment of the facts - Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

$$1. In an appeal the Court's jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance.

( see para. 39 )

2. According to Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal is to be limited to points of law. By contrast, the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. That appraisal thus does not, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings.

Examination of the plausibility of the explanations provided by the Commission in the course of the proceedings forms part of the appraisal of the facts and is consequently not subject to review by the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings.

( see paras 44, 46-47 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods — Customs duties — Charges having equivalent effect — Shipments of waste — Mandatory contribution to a solidarity fund for the return of waste — Incompatibility with the Treaty — (Arts 23 EC and 25 EC)

Summary

By subjecting shipments of waste to other Member States to a mandatory contribution to the solidarity fund for the return of waste, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC and 25 EC.

Such a contribution cannot be considered as payment for a service actually provided specifically to the economic operators in question, since compliance by that Member State with an obligation which Community law imposes on all the Member States in pursuit of protection of health and the environment does not confer on exporters of waste established in its territory any specific or definite benefit.

Moreover, the contribution to the solidarity fund cannot be viewed as a lawful charge in the form of compensation for a measure imposed by Community law with a view to promoting the free movement of goods, since it has not been established that the contribution collected when each shipment of waste is carried out is in any way related to the actual costs that operation is likely to generate for the State in the event that it becomes necessary to return the waste shipped and to dispose of or recover it.

see paras 35, 37-38, 45, 51, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Obstacles resulting from national provisions regulating selling arrangements in a non-discriminatory way — Concept — Requirement of specific packaging in respect of a given product — Not included — (EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC))

2. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Legislation requiring, prior to its sale, packaging of imported pre-baked bread after completion of final baking in the Member State of import — Whether permissible — Condition — Measure which applies without distinction and which does not constitute discrimination against imported products — Assessment by the national court — Possible justification — Protection of public health — Excluded — (EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 28 EC and 30 EC))

3. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Treaty provisions — Direct effect — Obligations of national courts — Non-application of national provisions which are incompatible with those provisions — (EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC))

Summary

1. Legislation of a Member State which prohibits a product that is lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State from being put on sale in the first Member State without being subjected to new packaging of a specific type that complies with the requirements of that legislation cannot be held to concern selling arrangements that are not likely to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States. The need to alter the packaging or the labelling of imported products prevents such requirements from constituting selling arrangements.

see paras 29-30

2. The requirement for prior packaging imposed by the law of a Member State on the sale of bread obtained by completing, in that Member State, the baking of partly baked bread, whether deep-frozen or not, that has been imported from another Member State does not constitute a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), provided that it applies without distinction to both national and imported products and that it does not in reality constitute discrimination against imported products.

If the national court, in examining these measures, finds that that requirement results in an obstacle to imports, then it cannot be justified by reasons relating to the protection of the health and life of humans within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC).

see para. 42, operative part 1

3. National courts have an obligation to ensure the full effect of Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) by disapplying on their own initiative domestic provisions which do not comply with that article.

see para. 45, operative part 2
23

In those circumstances, being uncertain of the interpretation to be given to Directive 92/50 in view, in particular, of the judgments in Case C-331/92 Gestión Hotelera Internacional [1994] ECR I-1329 and Case C-76/97 Tögel [1998] ECR I-5357, the Bundesvergabeamt decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Must a service which serves a single purpose, but which could be subdivided into part services, be classified as a single service consisting of a main service and accessory, supporting services in accordance with the scheme of Directive 92/50/EEC, and in particular the types of services contained in Annex I A and I B, and treated as a service listed in Annex I A or I B to the directive according to its main object, or must each part service instead be considered separately in order to establish whether the service is subject to the directive in full as a priority service or only to individual provisions thereof as a non-priority service? (2) How far may a service which describes a specific type of service (e.g. transport services) be broken down into individual services in accordance with the scheme of Directive 92/50/EEC without infringing the provisions on the award of service contracts or undermining the effet utile of the directive on services? (3) Must the services referred to in this case (having regard to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/EEC) be regarded as services falling within Annex I A to Directive 92/50/EEC (Category 2, Land transport services) so that contracts which have as their object such services are to be awarded in accordance with the provisions of Titles III to VI of the directive, or must they be classified as services falling within Annex I B to Directive 92/50/EEC (Category 20, Supporting and auxiliary transport services, and Category 27, Other services) so that contracts which have as their object such services are to be awarded in accordance with Articles 14 and 16, and under which CPC reference number must they be subsumed? (4) In the event that consideration of the part services leads to the conclusion that a part service falling within Annex I A to the directive which, in principle, is subject in full to the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC is, by way of an exception, not subject in full to the provisions of the directive on account of the principle of predominance laid down in Article 10 thereof, is there an obligation on the contracting authority to split off non-priority part services and to award contracts for them separately in order to respect the priority nature of the service?’
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

12 December 2002

((Free movement of workers – Tax convention – Netherlands rules on the avoidance of double taxation))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mr de Groot, represented by R. van der Jagt, advocaat, the Netherlands Government, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent, and the Commission, represented by H. Michard and H.M.H. Speyart, at the hearing on 18 April 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 June 2002,
Case C-373/00





Adolf Truley GmbH

v

Bestattung Wien GmbH





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien)

«(Directive 93/36/EEC – Public supply contracts – Concept of contracting authority – Public-law body – Funeral undertaking)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 21 March 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Obviously irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions in a context which precludes any useful answer – Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings

(Art. 234 EC)

2.. Community law – Interpretation – Principle of uniform interpretation

3.. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Contracting authorities – Body governed by public law – Needs in the general interest – Meaning – Needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character – To be determined by the national court – Account taken of all the relevant legal and factual circumstances

(Council Directive 93/36, Art. 1(b))

4.. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Contracting authorities – Body governed by public law – Criterion of management supervision by public authorities – Mere review insufficient

(Council Directive 93/36, third indent of Art. 1(b))

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

16 January 2003

((Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Letting of immovable property – Prefabricated building which can be dismantled and reassembled))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mr Maierhofer, represented by C. Theil, of the German Government, represented by B. Muttelsee-Schön and F. Huschens, acting as Agent, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by P. Whipple, Barrister, and of the Commission, represented by K. Gross, assisted by A. Böhlke, at the hearing on 7 February 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 June 2002,
Case C-282/00





Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA (RAR)

v

Sociedade de Indústrias Agricolas Açoreanas SA (Sinaga)





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Ponta Delgada)

«(Sugar – Decision 91/315/EEC – Poseima Programme – Specific measures in favour of the Azores and Madeira – Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 – Shipment to the rest of the Community of white sugar produced in the Azores from sugarbeet harvested there or from raw beet sugar imported exempt from levies and/or customs duties – Meaning of processing of products – Meaning of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 16 May 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation No 1600/92 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products – Second paragraph of Article 8 – Meaning of processing of products – Refining of raw beet sugar into white sugar – Whether included

(Council Regulation No 1600/92, Art. 8, second para.)

2.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation No 1600/92 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products – Second paragraph of Article 8 – Meaning of traditional shipment to the rest of the Community

(Council Regulation No 1600/92, Art. 8, second para.)

3.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation No 1600/92 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products – White sugar produced in the Azores from sugarbeet harvested in the Azores and which receives Community aid provided for in Article 25 – Shipment to mainland Portugal – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1600/92, Art. 25)

4.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation No 1600/92 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products – White sugar produced in the Azores from raw beet sugar imported under the specific supply arrangements provided for under Title I – Shipment to mainland Portugal – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1600/92, Title I, Art. 8, second para.)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-187/00





Helga-Kutz-Bauer

v

Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg)

«(Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women – Scheme of part-time work for older employees – Directive 76/207/EEC – Indirect discrimination – Objective justification)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 5 February 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 20 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Possibility for public-sector employees, on reaching a certain age, to take advantage of a scheme of part-time work – Exclusion from part-time work of employees entitled to a retirement pension at the full rate – Exclusion applying at the age of 60 years almost exclusively to women, as in most cases men are not affected until the age of 65 years – Indirect discrimination – Not permitted in the absence of objective justification

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

2.. Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Directive 76/207 – Article 5(1) – Direct effect – Obligations and powers of the national court – Non-application of national provisions to the contrary

(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 5(1))

1.

2.
Case C-331/00





Hellenic Republic

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Financial years 1996, 1997 and 1998 – Arable crops – Beef – Aid for early retirement)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 6 February 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 18 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Power of Commission to review validity of expenditure – Where reasonable doubt arises – Burden of proof on the Member State

2.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Additional premium in order to deal with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis – Definition of execution of payments

(Council Regulation No 1357/96, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 1663/95)

1.

2.
Case C-233/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 90/313/EEC – Freedom of access to information on the environment – Incomplete or incorrect transposition)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 14 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 26 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Environment – Freedom of access to information – Directive 90/313 – Information relating to the environment – Definition – Documents which are not related to carrying out a public service – Whether included

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 2(a))

2.. Environment – Freedom of access to information – Directive 90/313 – Grounds which may justify a refusal to supply information relating to the environment – Exceptions – Strict interpretation

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 3(2) and (3))

3.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Absence of adverse effects of alleged failure – Irrelevant

(Art. 226 EC)

4.. Environment – Freedom of access to information – Directive 90/313 – Member States allowed to refuse to grant a request for information in certain specified cases – Transposition without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of a general legal context ensuring full implementation of the directive

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 3(3))

5.. Environment – Freedom of access to information – Directive 90/313 – Implied decision refusing a request for information relating to the environment – Obligation of public authority automatically to provide the reasons for refusal – Time-limit

(Council Directive 90/313, Art. 3(4))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-127/00





Hässle AB

v

Ratiopharm GmbH





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany))

«(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 – Medicinal products – Supplementary protection certificate – Articles 15 and 19 – Validity of Article 19 – First authorisation to place ... on the market ... in the Community – Legal effects of non-compliance with the reference date referred to in Article 19)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 26 February 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 11 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Grant pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Article 19 of Regulation No 1768/92 – Condition – First authorisation to place on the market in the Community obtained after a fixed reference date – Different dates for different Member States – Whether the principle of equality of treatment or the obligation to state reasons has been infringed – No such infringement

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 19)

2.. Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Grant pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Article 19 of Regulation No 1768/92 – Condition – First authorisation to place on the market in the Community – Definition

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 19)

3.. Approximation of laws – Uniform laws – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Grant pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Article 19 of Regulation No 1768/92 – First authorisation to place on the market in the Community prior to the reference date fixed – Invalidity of the certificate

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Arts 15 and 19)

1.

2.

3.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of the merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into account - Situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by the Member States — Need to ensure that directives are effective — Directive 92/43 — Obligation for Member States, when carrying out a project which could damage the environment, to inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted — Obligation not complied with in the absence of a provision in national law laying down adequate detailed rules — (Directive 92/43, Article 6(4), first subpara.)

Summary

Each of the Member States to which a directive is addressed is obliged to adopt, within the framework of its national legal system, all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective it pursues. The requirement that the Member State, in accordance with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted when a project which could damage the environment is carried out is intended to enable the Commission to consider whether those measures are such as to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected and, depending on the circumstances, to draw the appropriate conclusions. In the absence of a provision in national law which lays down adequate detailed rules concerning information on the compensatory measures, it is not possible to ensure that the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the Directive has full effect and attains its objective. Uncertainty at the domestic level concerning the procedure to be followed in order to comply with the obligation to inform is likely to hinder compliance with that obligation and, consequently, the attainment of its objective.

see paras 18-21
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Patent agents — Requirement to elect domicile with an approved agent — Not permissible — (Art. 49 EC)

2. Community law — Principles — Legal certainty and protection of individuals — National legislation in a field governed by Community law — Need for unequivocal wording

3. Member States — Obligations — Supervisory role of the Commission — Duty of the Member States — Cooperation in investigations into alleged infringements by Member States — (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC)

Summary

1. A Member State which maintains in force legislation making the supply of services by patent agents subject to a requirement to elect domicile with an approved agent has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

see paras 19, 27, operative part

2. The principles of legal certainty and the protection of individuals require, in areas covered by Community law, that the Member States ' legal rules should be worded unequivocally so as to give the persons concerned a clear and precise understanding of their rights and obligations and enable national courts to ensure that those rights and obligations are observed.

see para. 20

3. Article 10 EC makes it clear that the Member States are required to cooperate in good faith with the enquiries of the Commission pursuant to Article 226 EC, and to provide the Commission with all the information requested for that purpose. A Member State which fails to supply, during the pre-litigation procedure, the information requested by the Commission, concerning the precise conditions for the application of provisions of national law raising questions of compatibility with Community law, has failed to fulfil that duty of cooperation.

see paras 24-25, 27, operative part