ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑284/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/51/EC – Public procurement – Procedures for the award of contracts – 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 adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127).

Operative part

The Court

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
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;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2008 –

Commission v Spain

(Case C‑196/07)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Competition policy – Concentrations – Failure to comply with obligations imposed by the Commission – E.ON/Endesa

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 paras 25-26)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determined by the reasoned opinion – Time-limit communicated to the Member State – Default subsequently remedied – Interest in continuing the proceedings – Possible liability of the Member State (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 27-28)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision relating to a concentration – Defences – Absolute impossibility of implementation – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Obligation on the Commission and the Member State to cooperate in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC) (see para. 30)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision relating to a concentration – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Arts 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 34-38)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with Article 2 of Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 4279 final) and Article 2 of Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 7039 final).

Operative part

The Court:

1) declares that by not withdrawing:

– the conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17 imposed by the decision of the National Energy Committee which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 4279 final), and

– conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15, as amended, imposed by decision of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 7039 final),

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each of those decisions;

2) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑268/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/17/EC – Public procurement procedures in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 9-10)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – 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 – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

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 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2008 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑233/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Directive 91/271/EEC – Urban waste water treatment – Decision 2001/720/EC – Derogation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast – Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Decision 2001/720/EC

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. 31)

2. Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on difficulties in application – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 33)

3. Environment – Urban waste water treatment – Directive 91/271 – Exceptions (Council Directive 91/271; Commission Decision 2001/720, Arts 2, 3 and 5) (see paras 41, 47-56)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Commission Decision of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a derogation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast (OJ 2001 L 269, p. 14).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision 2001/720/EC of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a derogation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, by

– failing to subject, during the bathing season, the urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, prior to discharge into the sea, to at least advanced primary treatment and to a disinfection system in accordance with Article 2 of that decision,

– failing to subject, outside the bathing season, the urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, prior to discharge, to at least primary treatment in accordance with Article 3 of that decision, and

– allowing the discharge of urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast to produce adverse effects on the environment;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑437/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Design and construction of a municipal tramway – Public works contract – Award by means of a procedure for the award of a public works concession – Infringement of Directive 93/37

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Scope (Council Directive 93/37) (see paras 29-38)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and Articles 7 and 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) – Infringement of the principles of transparency and non‑discrimination – Public works carried out by means of ‘project financing’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, in so far as the Comune di l’Aquila (Commune of Aquila) awarded a public works contract concerning the design and construction of a rubber-tyred tramway for public transport in that town by means of a procedure different from those laid down for the award of public works contracts by Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑524/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Registration of old used vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Technical requirements with regard to exhaust emissions and noise pollution – Public health – Protection of the environment

1. Approximation of laws – Motor vehicles – Community type-approval procedure – Directives 92/97 and 93/59 – Scope (Council Directives 92/97 and 93/59) (see paras 45-47)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 49-52, 56-64)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC – National rules making the registration of imported used vehicles previously registered in other Member States contingent upon compliance with certain technical requirements, although used vehicles already on the national market and having the same characteristics are not subject to such requirements in cases of re-registration.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by requiring, for the purposes of their first registration in Austria, that motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States which have not undergone, because of their age, a Community type-approval procedure, comply with limit values in respect of pollutant emissions and noise which are stricter than those they initially had to comply with, in particular, the values laid down in Council Directive 93/59/EEC of 28 June 1993 amending Directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and Council Directive 92/97/EEC of 10 November 1992 amending Directive 70/157/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, although vehicles having the same characteristics and which are already authorised to use the roads in Austria are not subject to that requirement in cases of their re-registration in that Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2009 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑539/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/22/EC – Article 26(3) – Single European emergency call number – Caller location information – Availability to the authorities handling emergencies – 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. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make caller location information available, to the extent technically feasible, to the authorities handling emergencies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);
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. 9)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania – Directive 2006/100 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/100, Art. 2) (see paras 8-11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141).

Operative part

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 Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium 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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market – Regulation No 1383/2003 – Simplified procedure of abandoning goods, suspected of infringing an intellectual property right, for destruction

(Council Regulation No 1383/2003, Arts 11 and 18)

Summary

The initiation, with the agreement of an intellectual property right‑holder and of the importer, of the simplified procedure laid down in Article 11 of Regulation No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, does not deprive the competent national authorities of the power to impose, on the parties responsible for importing those goods into the Community customs territory, a ‘penalty’, within the meaning of Article 18 of that regulation, such as an administrative fine.

The initiation of such a simplified procedure – the introduction of which into the legal order of Member States is only optional – cannot deprive the authorities of those States of the power to impose a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of Article 18 of Regulation No 1383/2003, since that provision, read in conjunction with recital 10 in the preamble to that regulation, provides that Member States are required to introduce penalties, in case of infringement of that regulation, which must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In that regard, the destruction of the goods following an optional procedure, subject to an agreement between the trade mark proprietor and the importer, cannot be considered as a penalty imposed by a national authority applying the system of penalties which the Member States are required to introduce pursuant to that provision.

(see paras 27-30, 33, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods – Community transit – Transport operations carried out under cover of a TIR carnet

(Commission Regulation No 1593/91, Art. 2(1))

2. Free movement of goods – Community transit – Transport operations carried out under cover of a TIR carnet

(Commission Regulation No 1593/91, Art. 2(2) and (3))

Summary

1. Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1593/91 providing for the implementation of Regulation No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of the Customs Convention on the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR Carnets must be interpreted as meaning that failure to comply with the period within which the holder of a TIR carnet is to be notified of its non-discharge does not have the consequence that the competent customs authorities forfeit the right to recover the duties and taxes due in respect of the international transport of goods made under cover of that carnet.

(see para. 52, operative part 1)

2. Article 2(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1593/91 providing for the implementation of Regulation No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA carnets as transit documents, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention on the International Transport of Goods under cover of TIR carnets, must be interpreted as determining only the period within which proof is to be furnished of the regularity of the transport operation, and not the period within which proof must be provided as to the place where the offence or irregularity was committed. It is for the national court to determine, according to the principles of national law on evidence, whether, in the specific case before it and in the light of all the circumstances, that proof was furnished within the period prescribed. However, the national court must determine that period in compliance with Community law and, in particular, must take account of the fact, first, that the period must not be so long as to make it legally and materially impossible to recover the amounts due in another Member State, and, second, that that period must not make it materially impossible for the TIR carnet holder to furnish that proof.

(see para. 72, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras. 30-31)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for a legislative act (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 32-35)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transport Schiocchet v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible, on the ground of limitation, the action brought by the appellant seeking a declaration of non-contractual liability and compensation for harm sustained as a result of various illegal acts committed by the Community institutions – Conditions for bringing an action for damages – Concepts of regular service and special regular service within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for regular and special regular services by coach and bus between Member States (OJ English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 143), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Transports Schiocchet – Excursions SARL to pay the costs.