ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Obligation – Duty to implement immediately and effectively the Commission’s decision (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 26-29, 31)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to fulfil the obligation to recover unlawful aid – Defences – Absolutely impossible to implement – Assessment criteria – Difficulties in implementing – Member State obliged to make genuine approaches to the undertakings concerned and to suggest alternative solutions to the Commission enabling those difficulties to be overcome – Difficulty in identifying the recipients not justifying non-implementation of the Commission’s decision (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 33-34, 39)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-implementation of a Commission decision concerning State aid – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take the measures necessary to implement Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005 L 74, p. 49) – Obligation to recover immediately the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to inform the Commission thereof.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to implement, within the prescribed period, Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen, by recovering from the recipients of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 4 of that decision;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-8/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/17/EC – Technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords



Keywords

Acts of the institutions

—

Directives

—

Implementation by Member States

—

Necessity of clear, precise transposition

—

Telecommunications sector

—

Electronic communications networks and services

—

Directives 2002/20 and 2002/21

—

Member States obliged to guarantee the granting of rights of way on, over or under public property on the basis of transparent procedures applied without discrimination and without delay (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/20, Art. 4(1), and 2002/21, Art. 11(1)) (see paras 41, 42, operative part

)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2009 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑13/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2006/86/EC – Traceability requirements – Notification of serious adverse reactions and events – Technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period

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

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32).

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 Commission Directive 2006/86/EC of 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-378/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/337/EEC – First, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – National legislation restricting the right of action against decisions in the environmental field – Failure to transpose within the time-limit prescribed

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; Council Directive 85/337, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/35, Art. 10a) (see paras 12-15)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) – National legislation restricting public participation in decision‑making procedure in the environmental field.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the time‑limit prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C-363/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/444/EEC – Plant protection products – Application for authorisation to place on the market – Data protection

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; Council Directive 91/414) (see paras 16-19)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) – Data accompanying the application – Data use and protection – Confidentiality.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 38 of Ley 43/2002 de sanidad vegetal (Law 43/2002 on plant health) of 20 November 2002, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2010 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑481/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Directive 2006/7/EC – Bathing water quality – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, (OJ 2006 L 64, p. 37).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
3

Article 1 of Directive 2003/49 provides: ‘ 1. Interest or royalty payments arising in a Member State shall be exempt from any taxes imposed on those payments in that State, whether by deduction at source or by assessment, provided that the beneficial owner of the interest or royalties is a company of another Member State or a permanent establishment situated in another Member State of a company of a Member State. 2. A payment made by a company of a Member State or by a permanent establishment situated in another Member State shall be deemed to arise in that Member State, hereafter referred to as the “ source State ” . … 4. A company of a Member State shall be treated as the beneficial owner of interest or royalties only if it receives those payments for its own benefit and not as an intermediary, such as an agent, trustee or authorised signatory, for some other person. … 7. This Article shall apply only if the company which is the payer, or the company whose permanent establishment is treated as the payer, of interest or royalties is an associated company of the company which is the beneficial owner, or whose permanent establishment is treated as the beneficial owner, of that interest or those royalties. … 10. A Member State shall have the option of not applying this Directive to a company of another Member State or to a permanent establishment of a company of another Member State in circumstances where the conditions set out in Article 3(b) have not been maintained for an uninterrupted period of at least two years. … ’
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 – Germany v Commission

(Case C-544/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Introduction of digital terrestrial television in the Berlin-Brandenburg region – Article 87(3)(c) EC – Market failure – Proportionality – Technological neutrality – Incentive effect

1. State aid – Compatibility of aid with the common market – Aid bringing about improvement in the financial situation of the recipient undertaking without being necessary in order for the aims laid down in Article 87(3) EC to be attained – None – Public funding of the move to terrestrial digital television – Assessment of the criterion of necessity (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 44, 46-48)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para. 63)

3. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation laid down in Article 87(3)(c) EC – Conditions – Transition from analogue to digital broadcasting – Condition of technological neutrality – Assessment (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission notice COM(2003) 541 final) (see paras 77, 79-81)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 in Case T-21/06 Germany v Commission by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the state aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14) – Infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
15

In those circumstances, the insolvency judge of the Tribunale di Cosenza decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘1. Are the criteria for determining the annual duty referred to in Article 18[1](b) of [Law No 580/1993], as provided for in Article 18(3), (4), (5) and (6) thereof, inconsistent with [Directive 2008/7], in so far as the duty cannot be covered by the exceptions provided for in Article 6[1](e) of that directive? 2. In particular: — Does the annual duty, which is to be determined by reference to “the budgetary resources needed in order for the chambers of commerce system to be able to carry out the services which it is under a duty to provide throughout the national territory”, constitute a duty paid by way of fees or dues? — Does the provision for a “balancing fund”, which is intended to harmonise throughout the national territory the performance of all the “administrative functions” entrusted by law to the chambers of commerce, preclude the possibility that the annual duty is a duty paid by way of fees or dues? — Is the power conferred on the individual chambers of commerce to increase the amount of the annual duty by up to 20% for the purposes of cofinancing initiatives aimed at increasing production and improving the economic conditions of the territorial unit under their responsibility consistent with that annual duty being a duty paid by way of fees or dues? — Does the fact that no methods have been specified for determining the total budgetary requirements for the maintaining and the updating by the chambers of commerce of registrations and notes in the register of companies mean that the annual duty cannot be a duty paid by way of fees or dues? — Is the fact that the annual duty is determined on a flat-rate basis, with no provision for checking at “regular intervals” that it appropriately reflects the average cost of the service, consistent with the annual duty being a duty paid by way of fees or dues?’
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. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/118) (see paras 9-12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, or to communicate within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;

2. Orders the Czech 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. 258 TFEU) (see paras 29-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect and incomplete transposition of Articles 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3) and of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by its incorrect and incomplete transposition of First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 2002/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 March 2002, and Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under, in particular, Articles 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of Directive 73/129, as amended by Directive 2002/13, and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Directive 92/49;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Scope

(Council Directive 98/59, Arts 1 to 3)

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Obligations to inform and consult with workers – Obligation to notify the competent authority – Employer’s obligations – Decision to dissolve and wind up an establishment

(Council Directive 98/59, Arts 2 and 3)

Summary

1. Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as applying to a termination of the activities of an employing establishment as a result of a judicial decision ordering its dissolution and winding up on grounds of insolvency, even though, in the event of such a termination, national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect.

(see para. 49, operative part 1)

2. Until the legal personality of an establishment whose dissolution and winding up have been ordered has ceased to exist, the obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be fulfilled. The employer’s obligations pursuant to those provisions must be carried out by the management of the establishment in question, where it is still in place, even with limited powers of management over that establishment, or by its liquidator, where that establishment’s management has been taken over in its entirety by the liquidator.

If there is no person with responsibility for the obligations under Directive 98/59, the national court is required to interpret national law, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the objectives of Directive 98/59, so that the obligations set out in Articles 2 and 3 of that directive may be properly fulfilled and carried out.

(see paras 57-58, operative part 2)
Case C-184/10

Mathilde Grasser

v

Freistaat Bayern

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Driving licence issued by a Member State in disregard of the residence condition — Refusal of recognition by the host Member State based solely on disregard of the residence condition’

Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 31 March 2011 I - 4059

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 19 May 2011 I - 4069

Summary of the Judgment

Transport — Road transport — Driving licence — Directive 91/439 — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal by a host Member State to recognise a licence issued by another Member State — Refusal based solely on the holder’s not having residence in that other Member State when the licence was issued

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Directive 2008/65, Arts 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4))

Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Directive 2008/65, must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State from refusing to recognise in its territory a driving licence issued by another Member State, where it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in that licence, that the normal residence condition, laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive, has not been observed. The fact that the host Member State has not applied any measure under Article 8(2) of that directive to the licence holder is irrelevant in that regard.

Directive 91/439 makes no distinction, with regard to the residence condition of an applicant for a driving licence, between the first issue of a driving licence and the issue of a driving licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence. In both cases, the issue of the driving licence is subject to normal residence in the territory of the Member State issuing the licence, or to evidence of having been studying there for at least six months.

The residence condition assumes special importance in the case of the first issue of a driving licence too. If that condition is not met in such a case, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the competent authorities of the Member State of issue to establish whether the other conditions imposed by Directive 91/439 have been met. In the absence of any such verification, it is possible that the holder of the licence thus issued does not possess, inter alia, the knowledge and skills required for driving and, therefore, constitutes a threat to road safety. Moreover, there is a risk that the principle according to which no person may hold more than one driving licence, as stated in Article 7(5) of that directive, would also be undermined.

(see paras 29-31, 33, operative part)