ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Appeals – Copy of the original appeal sent in ‘Word’ format together with a document in ‘PDF’ format bearing the lawyer’s signature – Original sent later within the prescribed period – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(6)) (see paras 25-26)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Opening of a formal examination procedure – Duty first to raise the subject of the aid measure with the Member State concerned and examine the situation in the light of the information provided by that State (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 47-48)

3. State aid – Definition – Selective nature of the measure – Selectivity of a tax relief measure applicable to companies newly listed on the stock exchange arising from its short duration (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 56, 60)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a superfluous ground – Ineffective ground – Challenging of the Commission’s appraisal with regard to the selectivity of State aid – Acknowledgement that one of the criteria of selectivity was met being proved to be free of any error in law – Plea directed against other criteria of selectivity – Ineffective ground (see paras 57-58)

5. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation provided for by Article 87(3)(c) EC – Operating aid – Excluded (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 63-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission , by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which is a question governed by European Union law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent. In addition, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature. That is so where the insolvency judge of the Tribunale di Cosenza is called upon to give a decision of a judicial nature in order to decide a dispute in inter partes proceedings.

The function of the insolvency judge is, on the basis of a draft statement of liabilities drawn up by the administrator of the bankrupt company, to determine, on application by the creditors, which debts are to be included in the liabilities. In addition, both the administrator and the other interested parties can challenge, before the insolvency judge, an application by a creditor for a debt to be included in the liabilities. Finally, in the absence of a challenge, a decision of the insolvency judge refusing to include a debt in the liabilities has binding legal effects. Moreover, the administrator and the creditors can submit written and oral observations to the insolvency judge.

(see paras 20,21, 23-25)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 55-60)

2. Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Commission decision on the recovery of State aid (see paras 68-70)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 97)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 103-105)

5. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order to support the operative part –Plea in law ineffective (see para. 109)

6. Appeals – Pleas in law – Distortion of national law relied on as evidence – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.) (see para. 125)

7. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 131)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑301/02 AEM v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross‑appeal;

2. Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross‑appeal.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Liability as a result of an individual measure — Date of the occurrence of the adverse effects as regards the person concerned — Taking into consideration the date of the act occasioning loss — Not permissible

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46)

2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Liability as a result of an individual measure — Taking into consideration the subjective assessment of the fact of the damage — Taking into consideration of the acceptance by the institution that its conduct was unlawful — Not permissible

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the findings of fact — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

4. Actions for damages — Application — Lack of precision as regards the extent of the damage — Admissibility — Conditions — Allegation by the applicant of facts justifying that omission

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Absence of any causal link — Dismissal of the action in its entirety

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU)

6. Judicial proceedings — Length of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Non-compliance — Consequences — Duration not having affected the outcome of the dispute — Annulment of the General Court’s decision — Not included

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 52, 55, 60)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 70, 71)

3. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 90)

4. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 104)

5. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 120, 121)

6. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 128-130)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑18/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 – Article 1 – Maritime transport – Ports of general interest – Harbour dues – Exemptions and subsidies

Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Maintaining in force domestic legislation incompatible with Community law – Discriminatory system of rebates of and exemptions from harbour dues – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Regulation No 4055/86, Art. 1) (see para. 18)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement 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) – Ports of general interest – Subsidies and exemptions from harbour dues.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) of Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest, which establishes a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain 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 (Fifth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑158/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Non-civilian personnel in public authorities – 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; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88) (see paras 7-10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) and Article 18(a) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) maintained by Article 27(1) of Directive 2003/88, in conjunction with Annex I, Part B, of the same directive – Non-civilian personnel in public authorities.

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 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in respect of non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(3) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2010 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C-37/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Environment – Management of waste illegally tipped – Directive 2006/12/EC – Directive 80/68/EEC

1. Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 28)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Duty of the Member States to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of – Obligation to achieve a result – Discretion of the Member States concerning the measures to be taken – Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 4) (see paras 35-39, 44)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2006/12 – Duties of the Member States in respect of holders of waste – Meaning of holder of waste – Holders of unauthorised waste-tips – Included (Art. 174(2), EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/12, Art. 8) (see paras 46-51, 53-55)

4. Approximation of laws – Protection of groundwater – Directive 80/68 – Scope – Actions leading to indirect discharges of substances in list II of the Directive – Included (Art. 174(2), EC; Council Directive 80/68, Arts 3 and 5) (see paras 64-66)

5. Approximation of laws – Protection of groundwater – Directive 80/68 – Duty of the Member States to limit the introduction into groundwater of substances in list II of the Directive – Obligation to make subject to prior investigation any direct discharge of those substances – Waste put into landfill although no technical precautions taken to avoid polluting that water – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 80/68, Arts 3(b), and 5) (see paras 74-78)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9), which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43) – Landfill of waste in disused quarries – ‘dos Limas, dos Linos e dos Barreiras’ quarries (Lourosa) – Lack of scrutiny.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary in connection with the management of waste illegally placed in the old quarries of Limas and Linos, situated in the commune of Lourosa, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8, respectively, of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste, which codified Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 – Greece v Commission

(Case C-321/09 P)

Appeal – EAGGF – Expenditure excluded from Community financing owing to failure to comply with Community rules – Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic

1. Union law – Principles – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Administrative procedure – Assessment that must be made in concreto – Criteria for assessment – Assessment within the jurisdiction of the General Court – Review by the Court of Justice (see paras 32-36)

2. Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 45-46)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts put before the Court of First Instance – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 48-49)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009, in Case T‑33/07 Greece v Commission , by which that court dismissed an application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2006) 5993) – Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruit sectors.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 – ACEA v Commission

(Case C-319/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Aid granted to public utilities – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Locus standi – Legal interest – Article 87 EC – Concept of ‘aid’ – Article 88 EC – Concept of ‘new aid’ – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 1 and 14 – Lawfulness of a recovery order – Duty to state reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 54-59)

2. Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Commission decision on the recovery of State aid (see paras 67-69)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 82)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 114-116)

5. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order to support the operative part – Plea in law ineffective (see para. 120)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑297/02 ACEA v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

2. Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal;
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 2006/46) (see paras 9-12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1).

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 Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 1810/2004)

Summary

Heading 8703 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex 1 to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, must be interpreted as covering three or four-wheeled vehicles designed for the transport of one person who is not necessarily a disabled person, powered by a battery-operated electric motor, reaching a maximum speed of 6 to 15 km/h and equipped with a separate, adjustable steering column, known as ‘electric mobility scooters’.

The mere fact that those electric mobility scooters may be used, where appropriate, by disabled persons or even may be adapted for use by disabled persons does not affect the tariff classification of such vehicles, given that they are suitable for use for several other activities by persons who do not suffer from any disability, but who for one reason or another prefer to travel short distances other than on foot, like golfers or persons going shopping.

(see para. 25-26, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 23)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 24)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) – Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations – Obligation to ensure that such installations operate in accordance with the requirements of the directive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary as far as concerns permits for industrial installations, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Services referred to in Annex II B Directive 2004/18

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 47(2) and Annex II B)

Summary

Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not create the obligation, for Member States, to apply Article 47(2) of that directive also to contracts which have as their object services referred to in Annex II B thereto. However, that directive does not preclude Member States and, possibly, contracting authorities from providing for such application in, respectively, their legislation and the documents relating to the contract.

(see para. 46, operative part)