ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Development cooperation – Financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, developing countries – Regulation No 443/92

(Art. 202, third indent, EC; Council Regulation No 443/92, Arts 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15)

Summary

Within the framework of the implementing powers conferred by the Council on the Commission in accordance with the third indent of Article 202 EC, the limits of which must be determined by reference amongst other things to the essential general aims of the legislation in question, the Commission is authorised to adopt all the measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to it.

Under the terms of Article 15 of Regulation No 443/92 on financial and technical assistance to, and economic cooperation with, the developing countries in Asia and Latin America, the Council conferred upon the Commission the power to administer the financial and technical assistance as well as the economic cooperation with those developing countries. It is under that implementing power that the Commission adopted a decision approving a project relating to border security in the Republic of the Philippines, seeking to enhance the security and management of its borders in accordance with Resolution 1373 (2001) of the United Nations Security Council, which seeks to combat terrorism and international crime.

However, Regulation No 443/92 contains no express mention of the fight against terrorism and international crime. Moreover, as to whether such a project falls within the scope of the said regulation because it contributes to strengthening the capacity of the institutions of the country concerned, that area of action being expressly mentioned both in Articles 5 and 6 of that regulation, relating to financial and technical assistance, and in Articles 7 and 8, relating to economic cooperation, it should be noted that, so far as concerns financial and technical assistance, support for the national institutions of developing countries does not constitute an end in itself, but an instrument for strengthening their capacity to administer development policies and projects in the fields stated, which do not include the fight against terrorism and international crime, and that institutional strengthening must, to be eligible as economic cooperation, show a direct connection with the aim assigned to it by the regulation of strengthening investment and development, which is not demonstrated by anything in the decision in question.

That decision thus pursues an objective concerning the fight against terrorism and international crime which falls outside the framework of the development cooperation policy pursued by Regulation No 443/92, so that the Commission exceeded the implementing powers conferred by the Council in Article 15 of that regulation.

(see paras 51-53, 59-62, 66-68)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Requirement to act within a reasonable time (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7(6)) (see paras 48-50)

2. State aid – Administrative procedure – Right of the parties concerned to submit their comments – Amendment during the procedure of the applicable Community guidelines (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 68, 78, 81)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea unsupported by legal argument – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 99)

4. 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(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 127)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 November 2004 in Case T‑176/01 Ferriere Nord v Commission , dismissing an action for, first, the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/829/EC, ECSC of 28 March 2001 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Ferriere Nord SpA (OJ 2001 L 310, p. 22), declaring incompatible with the common market aid notified as environmental aid which the autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) is planning to grant to the applicant in the form of a financial contribution to investments in new plant for the production of electrowelded wire mesh to reduce noise and eliminate waste in the form of iron oxide, and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following adoption of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-161/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 –Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy – Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish – Failure to notify

1. 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)

2. Member States – Obligations under Community law – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) – Failure to notify the data concerning the species and quantities of fish caught.

Operative part

1. By failing to notify the data referred to in Articles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy for 1999 and 2000, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 – Commission v Germany

(Case C-264/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/19/EC – Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications – Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period, Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the complete transposition of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Commission v UnitedKingdom

(Case C-37/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Consents granted without assessment

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 2(1) and 4 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 of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) – Consents granted without assessment

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to correctly transpose Articles 2(1) and 4 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, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 January 2007 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑269/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 – Maritime transport – Harbour dues levied on passenger vessels or cargo vessels – Harbour dues levied on vehicles aboard ferries – Discrimination

1. 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. 23)

2. Transport – Maritime transport – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Council Regulation No 4055/86, Art. 1) (see paras 24-30)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1) – Harbour dues levied on passenger vessels or cargo vessels – Lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within national territory – Harbour dues levied on vehicles aboard ferries – Dues not levied on vehicles travelling between ports in national territory.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by maintaining in force:

– the harbour dues levied on passenger vessels (including cruise ships) or on cargo vessels when they enter into harbour, berth and anchor in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, applying a lower level of dues when transport is between two ports within Greece as compared with cases where transport is to a destination outside Greece,

– harbour dues for the benefit of the harbour funds of the Port Authorities AE, set up by Law No 2932/2001, and of the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki, which are levied on vehicles aboard ferries on international routes, while similar dues are not levied on routes between Greek ports,

– the right to levy dues on vehicles aboard vehicle ferries with a foreign port destination for the benefit of municipalities and communities,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-71/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/30/EC – Air transport – Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 12-13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40).

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 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, by failing to submit to the Commission, by 31 December 2001, a report with information on the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed and by failing to take all the preventive measures necessary to ensure that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg is checked annually for leakages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2007 – Commission v Denmark

(Case C‑327/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/374/EEC – Liability for defective products – Liability of the supplier for a defective product

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) – National legislation under which the distributor of a defective product may incur liability in the same way as the manufacturer.

Operative part:

By adopting and maintaining in force provisions which make intermediaries in the distribution chain liable under the same conditions as a manufacturer, contrary to Article 3(3) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
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 take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 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 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 – Justification based on internal order – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement within the prescribed period, with regard to the autonomous province of Åland, Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Republic of Finland has failed, with regard to the autonomous region of the Åland islands, to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland 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 its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible (see paras 22-24)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-41)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 January 2005 in Case T-147/03 Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc v OHIM annulling, upon application by the proprietor of the national figurative mark QUANTIEME for goods in Classes 14 and 18, Decision R 109/2002-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the figurative Community trade mark QUANTUM for goods in Class 14.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for granting

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, Art. 47(2) and (3))

Summary

Article 47(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, which provides that the exporter may submit to the competent agency a reasoned request for other documents to be deemed equivalent if the control copy referred to in Article 6 of that regulation is not returned to the office of departure or the central body within three months of issue owing to circumstances beyond the control of the exporter, does not apply to the direct export of products.

Where, however, as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the exporter, the national export document proving that the products in question have left the customs territory of the Community cannot be produced, the national authorities competent for export refunds must, in accordance with the objectives of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, take into account of their own motion equivalent means of proof and implied requests for documents to be treated as equivalent. Those means of proof must nevertheless be just as satisfactory for the purpose of the verification in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by national law, provided that those rules respect the scope and effectiveness of Community law.

Where the passing of the deadline for furnishing equivalent means of proof is attributable to the competent national authorities, they cannot rely on the 12-month period laid down by Article 47(2) of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, as against a diligent exporter.

(see paras 32, 51, operative part)