ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity

(Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC)

Summary

1. On the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, a local or regional entity may, to the extent that it has legal personality under national law, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to it or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to it. The condition that the decision forming the subject-matter of the proceedings must be of direct concern to a natural or legal person requires the contested Community measure to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules.

The designation of a regional or local entity as the authority responsible for the implementation of a project of the European Regional Development Fund does not imply that that entity is itself entitled to the financial assistance in question. The fact that, in the annex to the decision to grant that assistance, that regional entity is referred to as the authority responsible for the application for financial assistance is also irrelevant. The position of ‘authority responsible for the application’, to which the annex to the decision to grant refers, does not have the effect of putting that authority in a direct relationship with the Community assistance, which the same decision states moreover was applied for by the government of a Member State and granted to the latter.

(see paras 29, 31-32, 36)

2. Individuals are entitled to effective judicial protection of the rights they derive from the Community legal order. The judicial protection of natural or legal persons who are unable, by reason of the conditions for admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, directly to challenge Community measures must be guaranteed effectively by a right of action before national courts. Those are required, in accordance with the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down by Article 10 EC, so far as possible, to interpret and apply national procedural rules governing the exercise of rights of action in a way that enables those persons to challenge before the courts the legality of any decision or other national measure relative to the application to them of a Community act by pleading the invalidity of such an act and by asking them to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity.

(see para. 39)
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. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) – Laying down of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to lay down the sanctions for infringements of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Registration of a trade mark refused or trade mark declared invalid – Sign constituted by the shape of the product giving substantial value to the product

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(e) and (3))

Summary

The third indent of Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the shape of a product which gives substantial value to that product cannot constitute a trade mark under Article 3(3) of that directive where, prior to the application for registration, it acquired attractiveness as a result of its recognition as a distinctive sign following advertising campaigns presenting the specific characteristics of the product in question.

(see para. 28, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff

–

Tariff headings (see paras 27, 35, operative parts 1-2

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Interpretation of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1) – Product obtained from curdled milk and extraction of most of the serum containing not more than 2% of whey-albumin that has been broken down by the activity of an enzyme added during a drying process lasting 24 to 36 hours.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. Heading 0406 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be construed in such a way that it can accommodate the classification of a product, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, obtained from curdled milk from which a great deal of the serum has been extracted and the albumin content of which has been reduced, by the effect of an enzyme, to 2% of the total quantity of the albumins during a drying process lasting 24 to 36 hours and consisting of casein and more than 50% humidity.

2. Subheading 0406 20 90 of the Combined Nomenclature must be construed in such a way that it can accommodate a product, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which contains more than 50% humidity and less than 1% fat and is ground into regular granules of 2 to 4 mm in size and is intended for use in the manufacture of pizza toppings and in the preparation of cheese sauces.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43

(Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(3))

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora provides that the obligation to carry out an appropriate assessment of the impact of a plan or project on a protected site is conditional on the plan or project in question being likely to have a significant effect on that site. For that protection mechanism to come into operation, it is necessary for there to be a probability or a risk that a plan or project will have significant effects on the site concerned. The significant nature of the effect on a site of a plan or project must be linked to the site’s conservation objectives. Consequently, where a plan or project has an effect on that site but is not likely to undermine its conservation objectives, that plan or project cannot be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site. That risk must be assessed in the light, inter alia, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project.

(see paras 33-35)

2. In an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to establish the existence of the failure alleged. It is the Commission which must provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose. Moreover, the burden of proof borne by the Commission in such an action must be determined according to the types of obligations which directives impose on the Member States and therefore in the results which must be achieved by them.

Thus, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations which relates to the obligations laid down in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Commission cannot simply allege the mere existence of framework agreements for industrial construction projects within a special protection area, but must also provide sufficiently specific evidence to show that they are more than at the stage of preliminary administrative reflection and carry a degree of precision in the planning in question which calls for an environmental assessment of their effects. The Commission must also prove that, in the light of the characteristics and the specific environmental conditions of the site affected by a plan or project, that plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on that site, in the light of the conservation objectives fixed for the site.

(see paras 37-39, 41)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Electronic communications networks and services – Regulatory framework – Directive 2002/21 – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22

(European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/21, Art. 27, first para., and 2002/22, Art. 16(1)(a))

Summary

The first paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as meaning that a statutory requirement for the approval of tariffs for the supply of retail voice telephony services provided by undertakings with a dominant position in that market, enacted by national law and preceding the regulatory framework resulting from those directives, together with administrative measures confirming that requirement, must be temporarily maintained.

Those provisions are designed to achieve the same purpose, namely to ensure continuity, irrespective of the nature and basis of the obligations imposed on operators, between the former and new regulatory frameworks.

In that regard, the fact that it is for the national regulatory authority to decide when to bring the temporary situation to an end, as a result of carrying out the market analysis referred to in Article 16 of Directive 2002/21, does not alter that interpretation, as that authority does no more than implement the obligations imposed by the legislation in force, which stems from the new regulatory framework. It is that latter framework which determines the obligations which will be amended, maintained or withdrawn.

(see paras 22, 36, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Lawfulness – Limits (Arts 21(2) and (3), EC and 225 EC) (see paras 22-27)

2. Citizens of the European Union – Rights of the citizen (Art. 21(2) and (3), EC) (see paras 35-37)

3. 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; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 40-46)

4. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national initiatives (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 52)

5. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment (see para. 57)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T‑42/04), in which the Court dismissed as unfounded an application for compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Commission’s treatment of their complaint concerning Community financing of a biological sewage treatment plant in Preveza in Greece.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T‑42/04), in so far as the Court failed to rule on the plea alleging breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Dismisses the application before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in so far as it is based on a breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

4. Orders Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis to pay the costs at first instance. The costs of the proceedings at first instance leading to the order of the Court of First of the European Communities of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v Commission (T-42/04), shall be borne in the manner set out in paragraph 2 of the operative part of that order.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment – Financial penalties

(Art. 228(2) EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment – Financial penalties – Periodic penalty payment

(Art. 228(2) EC)

Summary

1. Under the procedure laid down in Article 228(2) EC, it is for the Court to assess in each case, in the light of the circumstances of the case, the financial penalties to be imposed. In that regard, the Commission’s suggestions cannot bind the Court and merely constitute a useful point of reference. Similarly, guidelines such as those contained in the communications of the Commission are not binding on the Court but contribute to ensuring that that institution’s actions are transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty. The order imposing a penalty payment and/or a lump sum is intended to place a defaulting Member State under economic pressure which induces it to put an end to the breach established. The financial penalties imposed must therefore be decided upon according to the degree of persuasion needed in order for the Member State in question to alter its conduct.

(see paras 31, 34-35)

2. Where a penalty payment is to be imposed on a Member State to penalise a failure to implement a judgment establishing a failure to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Court, in exercising its discretion, to set the penalty payment so that it is appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate both to the breach that has been established and to the ability to pay of the Member State concerned. In that light, the basic criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that penalty payments have coercive force and Community law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, its degree of seriousness and the ability of the Member State to pay. In applying those criteria, regard should be had in particular to the effects of failure to comply on private and public interests and to the urgency of inducing the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations.

(see paras 38-39)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 15(2))

Summary

Article 15(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting an exemption from value added tax on the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the European Community, where the conditions for such an exemption are not met, but the taxable person was not able to recognise – even by exercising due commercial care – that they were not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.

The objective of preventing tax evasion referred to in Article 15 of the Sixth Directive sometimes justifies stringent requirements as regards the obligations of suppliers as persons liable to payment of value added tax. However, any sharing of the risk between the supplier and the tax authorities, following fraud committed by a third party, must be compatible with the principle of proportionality. That will not be the case if a tax regime imposes the entire responsibility for the payment of value added tax on suppliers, regardless of whether or not they were involved in the fraud committed by the purchaser. It would clearly be disproportionate to hold a taxable person liable for the shortfall in tax caused by fraudulent acts of third parties over which he has no influence whatsoever.

On the other hand, it is not contrary to Community law to require the supplier to take every step which could reasonably be required of him to satisfy himself that the transaction which he is effecting does not result in his participation in tax evasion. Accordingly, the fact that the supplier acted in good faith, that he took every reasonable measure in his power and that his participation in fraud is excluded are important points in deciding whether that supplier can be obliged to account for the value added tax after the event.

Likewise, it would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty if a Member State which has laid down the conditions for the application of the exemption of supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community by prescribing, among other things, a list of the documents to be presented to the competent authorities, and which has accepted, initially, the documents presented by the supplier as evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption, could subsequently require that supplier to account for the value added tax on that supply, where it transpires that, because of the purchaser’s fraud, of which the supplier had and could have had no knowledge, the conditions for the exemption were in fact not met.

(see paras 21-26, 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Taxable person simultaneously carrying out economic activities and non-economic activities

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2(1))

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Taxable person simultaneously carrying out economic activities and non-economic activities

(Council Directive 77/388)

Summary

1. Where a taxpayer simultaneously carries out economic activities, taxed or exempt, and non-economic activities outside the scope of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, deduction of the value added tax relating to expenditure connected with the issue of shares and atypical silent partnerships is allowed only to the extent that that expenditure is attributable to the taxpayer’s economic activity within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive.

(see para. 31, operative part 1)

2. The determination of the methods and criteria for apportioning input value added tax between economic and non-economic activities within the meaning of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is in the discretion of the Member States who, when exercising that discretion, must have regard to the aims and broad logic of that directive and, on that basis, provide for a method of calculation which objectively reflects the part of the input expenditure actually to be attributed, respectively, to those two types of activity.

The Member States have the right to apply, as necessary, an investment formula or a transaction formula or any other appropriate formula, without being required to restrict themselves to only one of those methods.

(see paras 38-39, operative part 2)
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. 26)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Right of entry and residence of nationals of Member States – Directives 68/360, 90/364 and 90/365 – Conditions for the issuing of a residence permit (Council Directives 68/360, Art. 9(1) and (3), 90/364 and 90/365) (see paras 29, 31, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the Community rules on the residence of citizens of the Union – National legislation and administrative practice requiring that, in order to obtain a residence permit, non‑active and pensioned persons must have adequate personal resources.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force national provisions under which, in order to obtain a residence permit, nationals of the European Union and of the European Economic Area who are non-active and retired must prove that they have sustainable resources, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence and Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.