ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Commission v Germany

(Case C‑39/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Subsidies for investment and employment – Obligation to recover – Non-compliance – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non‑existent measure (Arts 88(2), second para., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 18-20)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Commission’s power to leave the calculation of the exact amount to be repaid to the national authorities (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 37)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 249 EC and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (notified under document number C(2003) 1520; Aid No C-62/00, ex NN 142/99) (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12) – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover aid which was declared incompatible with the common market.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to recover certain aid declared incompatible with the common market by Article 1(2)(d) and (g) of the Commission Decision of 30 October 2002, as it appears in Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of that decision;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑305/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Combined transport of goods between the Member States – Directive 92/106/EEC – Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation – Nearest suitable railway station

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 41)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Application initiating proceedings – Statement of subject-matter and pleas in law – Formal requirements – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Art. 226 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see para. 47)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38) – Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation – Requirement of a Greek road transport authorisation.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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. 9)

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

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components (OJ 1998 L 91, p. 25).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Czech Republic 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. 7)

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

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 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

Operative part

Operative part

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

2. The Kingdom of Belgium 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. 9)

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

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 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 114).

Operative part

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 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations under that directive;

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. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period of the provision necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

2. The French Republic 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. 14)

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

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Scope of Directive 89/48

(Arts 43, second para., and 47(3) EC; Council Directive 89/48)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Recognition of diplomas and formal qualifications

(Art. 47(3) EC)

Summary

1. A Member State which fails to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

The right to recognition of diplomas is guaranteed as an expression of the fundamental right to freedom of establishment by the second paragraph of Article 43 EC. Directive 89/48, which lays down a ‘method of recognition’ of the diplomas which it covers, establishes a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas enabling the holder to gain access to a regulated profession and thus to exercise a right enshrined in the Treaty.

Article 47(3) EC cannot be interpreted as precluding a directive designed to implement such a system from being applied to the health professions. Such an interpretation would result not only in a failure to apply Directive 89/48 but more generally in precluding the right of Community nationals to recognition of diplomas of specialisations in pharmacy, even though that right stems from the second paragraph of Article 43 EC.

Accordingly, the recognition of diplomas giving access to the profession of hospital pharmacist falls within the scope of Directive 89/48 and the Member States must provide for a system allowing for that recognition, under the conditions laid down in that directive.

(see paras 37-39, 43-44, operative part)

2. The objective of Article 47(3) EC is not to restrict the scope of the right to recognition of diplomas, but to avoid the implementation of a system for the automatic recognition of diplomas giving access to the health professions in the absence of coordination of the provisions governing the exercise of those professions. That provision of the Treaty therefore concerns a system which must be designed in such a way as to correspond with the progressive harmonisation of the provisions on the exercise of those professions.

(see para. 42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Minimum standards for the protection of calves – Directive 91/629

(Council Directive 91/629)

Summary

1. Community provisions must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all European Community languages.

The wording used in one language version of a Community provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement of the uniform application of Community law.

Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

(see paras 22-24)

2. A calf is tethered within the meaning of Directive 91/629, laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Decision 97/182, where it is tied by a rope, irrespective of the material, length and purpose of that rope.

(see para. 26, 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. 20)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Scope of Directive 89/48 (Council Directive 89/48) (see paras 18, 22, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) in relation to the profession of pharmacist specialising in medical biology.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 14 May 2001, in relation to the profession of pharmacist specialising in medical biology, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic 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 – Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) – Failure to communicate the list, referred to in Article 80(2) of the regulation, of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not communicating to the Commission of the European Communities the list of Community design courts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Combating late payments in commercial transactions – Directive 2000/35 – Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 5)

Summary

Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title in respect of an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the authority.

Directive 2000/35 on combating late payments in commercial transactions harmonises only the period within which an enforceable title can be obtained, but does not govern forced execution procedures, which remain subject to the national law of the Member States.

(see paras 18, 24, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas and qualifications

(Council Directives 89/48 and 92/51)

Summary

Where a Member State does not adopt a system for the recognition of the profession of air traffic controller, it fails to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration and Directive 92/51 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48.

Such a profession must be classified as a regulated profession within the meaning of those directives and thus falls within their scope where the pursuit of the activity of air traffic controller is effectively governed by legislative provisions creating a system under which that professional activity is expressly reserved to those who fulfil certain conditions and access to it is prohibited to those who do not fulfil them. That conclusion cannot be called into question by the fact that there is no training leading to a single diploma which gives the right to pursue the profession in question. As access to the profession of air traffic controller is subject to possession of a ‘diploma’ as defined by Directive 89/48, it follows that the Member State concerned must ensure provision for the recognition of diplomas which fall either within the definition contained in Directive 89/48, or within that contained in Directive 92/51.

As the directives do not establish a system of automatic recognition, the specific or local character of certain ratings which a person wishing to pursue the profession of air traffic controller in the host Member State is required to have does not preclude the comparison of, first, the skills attested to by the diplomas or the professional education and training acquired in a Member State other than the host Member State with the objective of pursuing that profession and, second, the knowledge and the ratings required for the pursuit of that profession in the Kingdom of Spain.

(see paras 38-40, 45, 47, 53, 55, 57, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Exclusive jurisdiction – Disputes involving companies and legal persons

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22, point 2)

Summary

Point 2 of Article 22 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings in the context of which one of the parties alleges that a decision adopted by an organ of a company has infringed rights that it claims under that company’s Articles of Association do not concern the validity of the decisions of the organs of a company within the meaning of that provision.

In order for point 2 of Article 22 of Regulation No 44/2001 to apply, it is not sufficient that a legal action involve some link with a decision adopted by an organ of a company. The essential objective pursued by the exception to the general rule of jurisdiction established by that provision, whereby exclusive jurisdiction is attributed to the courts of the Member State in which a company has its seat, is one of centralising jurisdiction in order to avoid conflicting judgments being given as regards the existence of a company or as regards the validity of the decisions of its organs. If all disputes involving a decision by an organ of a company were to come within the scope of that article, that would mean that all legal actions brought against a company – whether in matters relating to a contract, or to tort or delict, or any other matter – would almost always come within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the company has it seat.

Moreover, such an interpretation would make the exceptional jurisdiction established by point 2 of Article 22 applicable in the case of disputes which would not give rise to conflicting judgments as regards the validity of the decisions of the organs of a company and also in the case of disputes which do not require any examination of the publication formalities applicable to a company. Such an interpretation would thus have the effect of extending the scope of point 2 of Article 22 of Regulation No 44/2001 beyond what is required by its objective. It follows that the scope of application of that provision covers only disputes in which a party is challenging the validity of a decision of an organ of a company under the company law applicable or under the provisions governing the functioning of its organs, as laid down in its Articles of Association.

(see paras 19-20, 22-26, operative part)