ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Common system for the exchange of information – Administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax – Court of Auditors’ audit powers – Scope

(Art. 248(1) to (3) EC; Council Regulation No 1798/2003)

Summary

A Member State that objects to the Court of Auditors of the European Union’s conducting of audits in that Member State concerning administrative cooperation under Regulation No 1798/2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and the provisions for its implementation fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 248(1) to (3) EC.

Article 248 EC, which explains how the Court of Auditors is required to perform its task of carrying out audits provides that it is to examine the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Community, the legality and regularity of that revenue and expenditure, and whether the financial management has been sound. Article 248(3) EC empowers the Court of Auditors to carry out audits based on records and, if necessary, on the spot, including in the Member States.

The system of own resources established pursuant to the Treaty is designed, as regards resources accruing from value added tax, to create an obligation on the part of the Member States to make available to the Community as own resources a proportion of the amounts which they collect as that tax. In so far as they are intended to combat value added tax fraud and avoidance, the mechanisms of cooperation to which the Member States are subject by virtue of Regulation No 1798/2003 are themselves capable of having a direct and fundamental impact on the effective collection of value added tax revenue and, therefore, on the availability to the Community budget of resources accruing from value added tax. Thus, the effective application by a Member State of the rules on cooperation established by Regulation No 1798/2003 is likely to determine not only that Member State’s ability to take effective measures to prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance in its own territory but also the ability of the other Member States to take such measures in their own territories, especially where the correct application of value added tax in those other Member States depends on the information held by that Member State.

The audit by the Court of Auditors in relation to administrative cooperation under Regulation No 1798/2003 did therefore deal with Community revenue from the aspect of its legality and its sound financial management, and thus had a direct link with the powers conferred on the Court of Auditors by Article 248 EC.

(see paras 59-61, 71, 77, 79, 81, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Ambit – Project adopted by a national legislative act – Not included – Conditions

(Council Directive 85/337 as amended by Directive 2003/35, Art. 1(5))

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Project adopted by a national legislative act falling within the ambit of the directive – Right to a review procedure in respect of that act – Scope

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, Art. 10a; Council Decision 2005/370)

Summary

1. Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of that directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the ambit of the directive. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions are satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply ratify a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons relating to the general interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been opened, cannot be regarded as a specific legislative act for the purposes of that provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the ambit of Directive 85/337, as amended.

(see para. 48, operative part 1)

2. Article 9(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters, approved on behalf of the European Community by Decision 2005/370, and Article 10a of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that:

- when a project falling within the ambit of those provisions is adopted by a legislative act, it must be possible for the question whether that legislative act satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 1(5) of that directive to be submitted, under the national procedural rules, to a court of law or an independent and impartial body established by law;

- if no review procedure of the nature and scope set out above were available in respect of such an act, any national court before which an action falling within its jurisdiction is brought would have the task of carrying out the review described in the previous indent and, as the case may be, drawing the necessary conclusions by disapplying that legislative act.

(see para. 57, operative part 2)
Case C-204/09

Flachglas Torgau GmbH

v

Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Access to environmental information — Bodies or institutions acting in a legislative capacity — Confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities — Condition that the confidentiality must be provided for by law’

Summary of the Judgment

The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4 on public access to environmental information and repealing Directive 90/313 must be interpreted as meaning that the option given to Member States by that provision of not regarding bodies or institutions acting in a legislative capacity as public authorities may be applied to ministries to the extent that they participate in the legislative process, in particular by tabling draft laws or giving opinions, and that option is not subject to the conditions set out in the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of that directive. (see para. 51, operative part 1)

The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4 on public access to environmental information and repealing Directive 90/313 must be interpreted as meaning that the option given to Member States by that provision of not regarding bodies or institutions acting in a legislative capacity as public authorities can no longer be exercised when the legislative process in question has ended. (see para. 58, operative part 2)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-6/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/60/EC – Money laundering and terrorist financing – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

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 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment— Periods within which an action must be brought— Point from which that period starts to run— Action against a regulation adopted under the Act of Accession of 2003 brought by an acceding Member State— Period starting to run from the date of entry into force of the Treaty and of the Act of Accession of 2003

(Art. 230(2) and (5) EC; 2003 Act of Accession, Art. 2(3))

Summary

The European Union is a union based on the rule of law, its institutions being subject to review of the conformity of their acts, inter alia, with the Treaty and the general principles of law.

Those principles are the very foundation of that union and compliance with them means, as is now provided for expressly in Article 4(2) TEU, that the new Member States are to be treated on the basis of equality with the old Member States.

Therefore, the new Member States must enjoy, in relation to all measures which were adopted on the basis of Article 2(3) of the Accession Treaty of 2003 and which affect them in their capacity as Member States, a right of action as applicants pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 EC.

Given that that status was acquired by the new Member States only on the date of entry into force of the Accession Treaty and of the 2003 Act of Accession, it must be held that, in relation to those States, the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC began to run, in relation to those acts, only as from that date, that is, in the present case, 1 May 2004.

(see paras 36-39)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 – ArchiMEDES v Commission

(Case C‑317/09 P)

Appeal – Set‑off of claims governed by separate legal orders – Application for repayment of sums advanced – Principle of litis denuntiatio – Rights of the defence and right to a fair hearing

1. Procedure – Statement of reasons for judgments – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36) (see paras 76-78)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see paras 88-91)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Union law (see para 105)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Plea in law to the effect that there is no mechanism for the joinder of a third party (see paras 121-125)

5. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility (see paras 130-134)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 10 June 2009 in Joined Cases T‑396/05 and T‑397/05 ArchiMEDES v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the applicant at first instance seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decisions to recover certain sums paid under a contract with the applicant and to set off their reciprocal claims and, second, an order for the Commission to pay the remainder of the balance due under that contract – Non-applicability of the principle of litis denuntiatio – Rejection of the claim for the co-contractors to be held jointly and severally liable – Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 – Commission v Spain

(Case C-340/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 1999/22/EC – Article 4(2) to (5) – Keeping of wild animals – Zoos

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Production of evidence showing failure – Incumbent on the Member State concerned to refute evidence (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 36-38)

2. 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. 39)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 1999/22, Art. 4(2) to (5)) (see paras 43-45)

4. Procedure – Costs – Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the opposite party (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5)) (see paras 46, 49-50)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (OJ 1999 L 94, p. 24).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary with respect to the zoos that are the subject of the present action in the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Asturias, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castile and Leon, Valencia, Extremadura and Galicia concerning the inspection, licensing and, if appropriate, the closure of those establishments in accordance with Article 4(2) to (5) of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 – Commission v Poland

(Case C-326/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/113/EC – Social policy – Equal treatment between men and women – Access to and supply of goods and services – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action (Art. 288(3) TFEU) (see para. 22)

3. 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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37)

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 Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Republic of Poland failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 para. 27)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2009 in Case T-476/08 Media-Saturn v OHIM (BEST BUY) by which that court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 28 August 2008, dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision which refused the registration of the figurative sign ‘BEST BUY’ as a Community trade mark for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 5 to 12, 14 to 17, 20 to 22, 27, 28, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 42 – distinctive character of a mark consisting of an advertising slogan and composed of elements individually devoid of any distinctive character.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Ifemy’s Holding GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Implementation of directives

–

Failure to fulfil obligations

–

National system pleaded as justification

–

Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 33-39

)

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) – Installations which could have an effect on emissions into the air, water or soil and on pollution – Authorisation conditions for existing installations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of that directive operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Importation free of customs duties – Medicinal products

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, Part One, Section II, C, point 1(i), and Part Three, Annex 3, as amended by Commission Regulations No 2031/2001 and No 1832/2002)

Summary

Part One, Section II, C, 1(i) of Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulations Nos 2031/2001 and 1832/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a pharmaceutical substance listed in Annex 3 of Part Three of Annex I, to which other substances have been added, in particular pharmaceutical substances, no longer qualifies for the duty-free treatment which would have applied if such a substance had been in its pure form.

The provision governing the application of duty-free treatment constitutes a derogation from the principle that goods imported into the European Union are, as a general rule, subject to customs duties and, as such, must therefore be interpreted strictly. Consequently, in the absence of an express indication or another factor supporting the conclusion that the legislature of the European Union intended to grant duty-free treatment to the pharmaceutical substances listed in Annex 3 which, subject to possible residual impurities contained in those substances, are not in their pure form, Regulation No 2658/87 cannot be interpreted as meaning that pharmaceutical substances to which other substances have been added qualify for that relief.

In addition, that interpretation is the most appropriate for ensuring a uniform application of the provisions of Regulation No 2658/87 in so far as it leaves only limited discretion to the national customs authorities to determine whether a pharmaceutical substance is in its pure form or not.

(see paras 16-17, 25-26, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM

–

Examination by the Board of Appeal

–

Scope

–

Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose

–

Taking into account

–

Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 42-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 in Case T‑392/06 Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM – Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito , by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the holder of the national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO for goods and services in Classes 35 and 36 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the appellant’s opposition to registration of the Community figurative mark unibanco for goods in Classes 36 and 38 – Misinterpretation of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Discretion of the Board of Appeal in respect of evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs .
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 27)

2. Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Implementation by Member States – Penalties in the event of failure to comply with the regulation – Federal Member State not obliged to conclude a cooperation agreement with the regions in order to give effect to the regulation (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 126) (see para. 37)

Subject of the case

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p.1) – Penalties applicable for infringement of the REACH Regulation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties applicable to infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 126 of that regulation;

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