ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 235 of the EEC Treaty. It is clear from the second recital in the preamble that the principle of equal treatment in matters of social security should be implemented ‘in the first place in the statutory schemes which provide protection against the risks of sickness, invalidity, old age, accidents at work, occupational diseases and unemployment, and in social assistance in so far as it is intended to supplement or replace the above-mentioned schemes’. Article 1 states that the purpose of the Directive is ‘the progressive implementation, in the field of social security and other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3, of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ...’. The scope ratione personae of the Directive is set out in Article 2, according to which the Directive is to apply to ‘the working population — including self-employed persons, workers and self-employed persons whose activity is interrupted by illness, accident or involuntary unemployment and persons seeking employment — and to retired or invalided workers and self-employed persons’. The scope ratione materiae of the Directive is set out in Article 3(1), according to which the Directive is to apply to: ‘(a) statutory schemes which provide protection against the following risks: — sickness, — invalidity, — old age, — accidents at work and occupational diseases, — unemployment; (b) social assistance, in so far as it is intended to supplement or replace the schemes referred to in (a).’ Article 4(1) of the Directive defines the principle of equal treatment: ‘... there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on ground of sex either directly, or indirectly ... in particular as concerns: — the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access thereto, ...’. Article 7(1 )(a) provides that the Directive is to be without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its scope inter alia ‘the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits’.
3.

In this respect, it is sufficient to note that the French Government does not deny the infringement alleged against it. In its observations it has merely pointed out that a draft law intended to bring national law into line with the aforementioned directive was submitted to the Senate and that decrees were being adopted to that end. It is setded case-law ( 2 ) that this does not, however, justify a failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations.
7.

Under Article 11(2) of the 1987 Regulation: ‘Each Member State shall determine the date from which the catches of a stock or group of stocks subject to quota made by the fishing vessels flying its flag or registered in that Member State shall he deemed to have exhausted the quota applicable to it for that stock or group of stocks. As from that date, it shall provisionally prohibit for that stock or group of stocks by such vessels as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and landing of fish taken after that date and shall decide on a date up to which transhipment and landings or final notifications of catches are permitted. The Commission shall forthwith be notified of this measure and shall then inform the Member States’ (emphasis added). Upon notification of the provisional prohibition the Commission is obliged by Article 11(3), on the basis of the available information, to fix the date upon which the relevant Member State's quota is deemed to be exhausted and so inform that Member State. The Commission may also fix such a date on its own initiative. Under Article 11(3), the significance of the fixing of this date is that: ‘Fishing vessels flying the flag of, or registered in, a Member State shall cease fishing in respect of a stock or of a group of stocks subject to quota on the date on which the quota allocated for the stock or group of stocks in question to that Member State is deemed to be exhausted; such vessels shall equally cease retention on board, transhipment, landing or arranging, and landing in respect of such catches taken after that date.’
1.

By an application lodged on 16 March 1995, the Commission asks the Court to declare that by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with the directives listed below, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty: — Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety of workers at work; ( 1 ) — Council Directive 89/654/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (first individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); ( 2 ) — Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); ( 3 ) — Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace (third individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); ( 4 ) — Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (fourth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); ( 5 ) — Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC); ( 6 ) — Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (sixth individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). ( 7 )
The elimination levy was introduced to cover further losses found under the common organization of the market in the period 1981/82 to 1985/86. The relevant provisions were inserted as Article 32a of the basic regulation by Council Regulation (EEC) No 934/86 of 24 March 1986 (the ‘elimination levy regulation’). ( 3 ) Article 32a(l) provides:

‘an elimination levy, designed to eliminate the 400 million ECU deficit recorded following application of the quota arrangements in the period 1981/82 to 1985/86, shall be charged to manufacturers of sugar... during the 1986/87 [to] 1990/91 marketing years’.

In pursuance of Article 32a(6) of the basic regulation, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3046/86 of 3 October 1986 ( 4 ) (‘the implementing regulation’) laid down detailed rules concerning the collection of the elimination levy. Article 1(1) provides:

‘Member States shall collect the elimination levy, the amounts of which are fixed in Article 32a(2) and (3) of [the basic regulation] , from manufacturers of sugar... in two instalments. Collection shall take place for each marketing year concerned before 15 December of the year in question for the first instalment which represents an advance payment, and before 15 December following the said year for the second instalment which represents the balance to be paid.’
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 22 January 1998. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/57/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. - Case C-313/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-01191



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 In these proceedings the Commission seeks a declaration, under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty by not adopting within the prescribed period, and/or by not communicating to the Commission, the measures necessary to implement Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. (1)

2 Article 16 of the Directive provides that:

`1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive no later than 31 December 1995.

...

3. The Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission the text of all the provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.'

3 The Italian Republic has not disputed its failure to implement the Directive and states in its defence that the necessary measures are in the course of being adopted.

4 In these circumstances the Commission's application is clearly well founded.

Conclusion

5 Accordingly I am of the opinion that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;

(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of these proceedings.

(1) - OJ 1994 L 319, p. 20.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General La Pergola delivered on 18 March 1999. - Miguel Amengual Far v Juan Amengual Far. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca - Spain. - Sixth VAT Directive - Leasing or letting of immovable property - Exemptions. - Case C-12/98.



European Court reports 2000 Page I-00527



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 The Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca (Provincial Court, Palma, Mallorca) has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling the question whether Spanish law, by making subject to value added tax (`VAT'), as a general rule, the letting or lease of immovable property in which an economic activity is pursued, has correctly transposed the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment. (1)

2 By decision of 19 January 1999, the Court decided, in accordance with Article 44a of the Rules of Procedure, to dispense with the oral procedure. The Advocate General's Opinion was delivered on 18 March 1999.

3 By order of 24 September 1999, the Court ordered that the oral procedure be re-opened, pursuant to Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure. However, the parties waived their right to a hearing.

4 Since there are no new matters of law or of fact, I would refer the Court to the Opinion delivered on 18 March 1999.

5 I therefore propose that the Court answer the questions referred to it by the Audiencia Provincial de Palma de Mallorca as follows:

The Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment allows the Member States to extend the scope of the exclusions from the exemptions to cases not provided for, which may include, as in this case, the letting of property as an economic activity.

(1) - OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 22 February 2000. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC - Haulage by operators established in other Member States - National rules requiring enrolment on the register of undertakings. - Case C-264/99.



European Court reports 2000 Page I-04417



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. By this action for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations, the Commission of the European Communities requests that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by maintaining rules requiring that Community nationals who carry on haulage activities as service providers be entered on a special register kept by the Chamber of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry of the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 43 and 49 EC (ex Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty);

(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

2. The Commission relies on two provisions of Law No 1442 of 14 November 1941 as they applied at the time of the pre-litigation procedure. Article 4(1) of that Law requires any haulier established in another Member State who wishes to carry on business in Italy to register on a special register kept by the Chamber of Industry and Commerce. That requirement to register is incompatible with the principle of the free movement of services. It impedes an economic operator established in a Member State other than Italy from carrying on his activities in Italy.

3. The last paragraph of Article 6 of the Law requires that companies represented by foreign nationals produce an authorisation from the Ministry of the Interior. That requirement is incompatible with the principle of freedom of establishment and infringes the principle of non-discrimination.

4. The Italian Government did not actually dispute the cause of action in its defence. It announced a statutory amendment to Article 4 of the Law. As regards Article 6, it stated that the contested provision would be repealed and not replaced.

5. It is common ground that at the point in time which is decisive in the context of actions for failure to fulfil obligations, namely the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the cause of action still pertained. It is therefore appropriate to find against the Italian Republic and grant the application. The cost consequences are laid down in Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Conclusion

6. I propose that the Court:

(1) declare that, by maintaining rules requiring that Community nationals who carry on haulage activities as service providers be entered on a special register kept by the Chamber of Commerce following authorisation by the Ministry of the Interior, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12, 43 and 49 EC (ex Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty);

(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 11 January 2000. - Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 94/62/EC. - Case C-123/99.



European Court reports 2000 Page I-02881



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. By this action, the Commission of the European Communities is asking the Court to find that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (hereinafter the Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Article 22(1) of the Directive provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith by 30 June 1996 at the latest. It goes on to provide that they are to inform the Commission of the provisions adopted immediately.

3. Having received no information as to transposition of the Directive into the Greek legal order, the Commission initiated the administrative procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC).

4. By letter of 16 January 1997, the Commission formally called upon the Hellenic Republic to submit its observations within a period of two months.

5. Since the Greek Government did not respond to that letter, the Commission, on 2 October 1997, sent it a reasoned opinion requiring it to comply with the Directive within a period of two months.

6. By letter of 22 June 1998 the Hellenic Republic sent the Commission a draft law transposing the Directive.

7. The Commission brought this action on 13 April 1999.

8. Although the Hellenic Republic submits that the action should be dismissed, it does not dispute the accusation levelled against it. In its defence, it observes that the measure transposing the Directive is to be signed within a short time by the competent ministers prior to being submitted to the Parliament.

9. Therefore, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, I propose that the Commission's action should be upheld.

10. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they were applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Hellenic Republic has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the Commission's pleadings to that effect.

Conclusion

11. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should declare as follows:

(1) By failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1) of that directive.

(2) The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
((Appeal – Competition – Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty – Normal competition – Adoption of a decision by the Commission – Procedural rights – Addressing of statement of objections))
((Application on the basis of an arbitration clause – Penalty for late completion of the IPE IV building – Declaration that the European Parliament is not liable to interim interest))
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Alber delivered on 30 January 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands. - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC - Components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles. - Case C-83/00.



European Court reports 2001 Page I-02351



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In the present Treaty-infringement proceedings, the Commission is seeking a declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to implement the provisions of Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty, together with an order requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

2. Under Article 8(1) of Directive 97/24, the Member States were required by no later than 18 December 1998 to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to comply with that directive and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.

3. It is undisputed that the requisite laws, regulations and administrative measures were not enacted by what was, according to settled case-law, the decisive date, namely the date of expiry of the two-month period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 10 August 1999. This had not even been done by the time that the proceedings were instituted on 7 March 2000.

4. The Netherlands Government does not deny that it has failed to fulfil its obligations, but points out that a series of adverse circumstances have coincided to cause the delay in the transposition. Reference was made in the course of the written procedure to a draft of the implementing legislation which had been revised in the interim.

5. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a Community directive. I therefore propose that an order should be made against the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the terms sought. An order for costs should be made in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Conclusion

6. I propose that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to implement the provisions of Directive 97/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty; and

(2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 20 September 2001. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/51/EC. - Case C-148/00.



European Court reports 2001 Page I-09823



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In this action the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/51/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. According to its settled case-law, the Court of Justice considers that, in an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.

3. In this case it is clear from the documents before the Court that, at the end of the period of two months fixed by the reasoned opinion, that is 14 September 1999, the Italian Republic had not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/51. The Italian Government does not dispute that fact.

Conclusion

4. Therefore, I suggest that the Court should uphold the Commission's action and declare that:

(1) By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/51/EC of the Commission of 9 July 1998 laying down certain measures for implementing Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) of the directive.

(2) The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
((EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Financial years 1995 to 1998))
((Procedure – Reply to the Opinion of the Advocate General – Fundamental rights – Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 – Free movement of workers – Social advantage – Right of the spouse of a migrant worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory of a Member State))
((Directive 92/100/EEC – Rights related to copyright – Phonograms published for commercial purposes – Freedom of use in relation to broadcasting – Right to equitable remuneration – Meaning))
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its Treaty obligations – Infringement of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources – Failure to make available to the Commission the sum of ITL 1 484 936 000 000 by way of own resources within the periods laid down in the same regulation – Refusal to pay default interest on that amount))
((State aid – Compensation for economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany – Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry))