ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods – Trade with non-member countries – Inward processing system

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 121, 122(c), and 236)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 121, 122(c) and 236)

Summary

1. Article 122(c) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that, at the time of determining the amount of the customs debt resulting from the release for free circulation of compensating products, unless the person concerned has expressly made a request to that effect, the national customs authorities are not bound to apply the rules of assessment relating to the procedure for processing under customs control where the import goods could have been placed under that procedure.

It is not apparent from the provisions of the Customs Code that the Community legislature intended to impose upon the national authorities a duty of care as regards persons owing payment of duty, in accordance with which those authorities must look after the interests of the latter by applying the most favourable rules governing assessment of duty.

(see paras 32, 34, operative part 1)

2. Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that the national customs authorities must allow a request for repayment of import duties where it transpires that, following an error by the person concerned and not through the exercise of a choice, the amount of the customs debt has been determined by applying Article 121 of that Code and has already been the subject of a communication to the person concerned, even if that request entails a recalculation by those authorities of the amount of the debt by applying Article 122(c) of the Customs Code.

(see para. 43, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Pharmaceutical products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use

(Council Directive 89/105, Arts 1 and 6(1) and (2))

2. Approximation of laws – Pharmaceutical products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use

(Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(2))

Summary

1. The purpose of Directive 89/105 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, according to Article 1 thereof, is to ensure that any national measure to control the prices of medicinal products for human use or to restrict the range of medicinal products covered by their national sickness insurance systems complies with the requirements of that directive. Those objectives would be compromised if a Member State were able to introduce a dual procedure for the establishment of a list of medicinal products qualifying for reimbursement by the national health insurance system, one pursuant to the obligations laid down by Article 6(1) of that directive, the other being exempt in part from those obligations and, in part, not complying with the objectives laid down by that directive.

It follows that Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State which, following the exclusion of non-prescription medicinal products from the range of benefits provided by the national health system, empower an authority under that system to adopt rules derogating from that exclusion in respect of certain medicines without making provision for a procedure under Article 6(1) and (2) of that directive.

(see paras 25, 27, 36, operative part 1)

2. Article 6(2) of Directive 89/105 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems describes with precision and in unequivocal terms an obligation, namely that of stating reasons for refusing to enter a medicinal product on the list of products covered by the national health insurance system and informing the applicant of the remedies available, which is not qualified by any condition, or subject, in its implementation or effects, to the taking of a subsequent measure. Its wording thus appears to be unconditional and sufficiently precise so that it can be relied on by interested parties in their relations with a Member State.

It follows that the said Article 6(2) must be interpreted as conferring on the manufacturers of medicinal products affected by a decision which allows the coverage by the health insurance system of certain medicinal products containing active ingredients referred to therein the right to a reasoned decision mentioning remedies, even though the rules of the Member State make no provision for any corresponding procedure or remedies

(see paras 42, 44, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 2(1) and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) – Consents granted without assessment

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, in failing to correctly transpose Articles 2(1) and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (cf. points 14-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Articles 1 to 4 and 9 to 13 of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications, and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC on the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 CE) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ 2001 L 11, p. 4)

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Procedure for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Public works contracts – Concept

(Council Directive 93/37, Art. 1(a))

2. Approximation of laws – Procedure for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Scope

(Council Directive 93/37, Art. 6)

3. Approximation of laws – Procedure for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Scope

(Council Directive 93/37, Art. 1(a))

Summary

1. An agreement by which a first contracting authority entrusts a second contracting authority with the execution of a work constitutes a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, whether or not it is anticipated that the first contracting authority is or will become the owner of all or part of that work.

(see para. 47, operative part 1)

2. In order to determine the value of a contract for the purpose of Article 6 of Directive 93/37 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, account must be taken of the total value of the works contract from the point of view of a potential tenderer, including not only the total amounts to be paid by the contracting authority but also all the revenue received from third parties.

(see para. 57, operative part 2)

3. A contracting authority is not exempt from using the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in Directive 93/37 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts on the ground that, in accordance with national law, the agreement may be concluded only with certain legal persons, which themselves have the capacity of contracting authority and which will be obliged, in turn, to apply those procedures to the award of any subsequent contracts.

(see para. 68, operative part 3)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Persons liable to pay the tax (Council Directive 77/388, Arts 21 and 22) (see para. 56, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 49 EC and Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) – National legislation imposing the obligation, for a taxable person who is not established in a country, but who carries out taxable transactions there, to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay the tax.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing the appointment of a tax representative on taxable persons not established in Finland, but who carry out taxable transactions there and are established in another Member State or in a non-member country with which a convention has been concluded concerning mutual assistance of the competent authorities as regards indirect taxes, the scope of which corresponds to the scope defined in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 of 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001;

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

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1774/2002, as amended by Regulation No 808/2003; Council Regulation No 259/93, as amended by Regulation No 2557/2001, Art. 1(3)(a))

Summary

Under Article 1(3)(a) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Regulation No 2557/2001, the shipment of meat-and-bone meal classified as waste on account of a requirement or intention to discard it, which is destined for recovery only and listed in Annex II to that regulation, is excluded from the scope of the provisions of the regulation except as provided for in Article 1(3)(b) to (e), Article 11 and Article 17(1) to (3) thereof.

However, it is for the national court to ensure that that shipment takes place in compliance with the requirements arising from the provisions of Regulation No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, as amended by Regulation No 808/2003, amongst which those of Articles 7, 8 and 9 and of Annex II to the regulation may prove to be relevant.

The application of Regulation No 259/93 does not mean that the provisions of Regulation No 1774/2002 are completely irrelevant. Besides the environmental risks, meat-and-bone meal presents risks of spreading disease. To avoid any threat of dispersal of pathogens, the provisions of Regulation No 1774/2002 impose a series of requirements aimed at ensuring that animal by-products are not used or shipped for illegal purposes. In order to maintain the effectiveness of those regulations, they must therefore be applied in parallel so that their respective provisions are complementary.

(see paras 73, 77, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the Community institutions

–

Statement of reasons

–

Obligation

–

Scope (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36) (see paras 18-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Annulment of Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) – Special rules for the recognition of the acquired rights of nurses responsible for general care and midwives who have Polish qualifications.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

When examining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. In that regard, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

(see paras 41-42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Res judicata – Scope – Inadmissibility of a second appeal – Conditions – Same subject-matter

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Option for Member States to apply a reduced rate on a transitional basis

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 12 and 28)

Summary

1. In the context of infringement proceedings against a Member State, that State cannot validly plead res judicata in the light of an earlier judgment where the subject-matter of case in question and that of the earlier case are different, precisely on account of the information which that Member State supplied to the Commission in the context of the case in question.

(see para. 27)

2. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes if it maintains in force a reduced rate of value added tax of 5% applicable to road tolls for a crossing operated by an independent third party, where that State had applied the standard rate of value added tax to the services at issue between 1992 and 1994. The reduced rate that may be applied cannot be lower than 12% under Article 28(2)(e) of that directive. Moreover, a Member State which has complied, as regards services other than those specified in Annex H to the Sixth Directive, with the harmonised provisions of that directive, cannot exempt itself from its obligations by relying on Article 28(2)(e) thereof, since the objective of that provision is precisely the opposite, namely the gradual harmonisation of national provisions to align them with those of the Sixth Directive, and, accordingly, it cannot be authorised to reintroduce a reduced rate in respect of those services.

(see paras 49, 55-56, 59, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑85/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – Community action in the field of water policy – 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. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, 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 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2006 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-122/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – 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) (para. 5)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

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 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by imposing the appointment of a tax representative on taxable persons not established in Finland, but who carry out taxable transactions there and are established in another Member State or in a non-member country with which a convention has been concluded concerning mutual assistance of the competent authorities as regards indirect taxes, the scope of which corresponds to the scope defined in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 of 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001;
1.

Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;
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 to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans‑European high-speed rail system (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6).

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 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.