ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Establishment and making available by the Member States – Crediting the amount to the Commission’s account

(Council Regulations No 1552/89, Arts 2, 6 and 9 to 11, and No 1150/2000, Arts 2, 6 and 9 to 11)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Establishment and making available by the Member States – Crediting the amount to the Commission’s account

(Council Regulation No 1552/89, Art. 11)

Summary

1. From the time when, on the basis of the information provided by the authorities of the State of exportation, the authorities of the State of importation are in a position to determine the debtors and calculate the amount of the customs debt, a delay in making available the customs duties at issue cannot be justified by the expectation of further information from the authorities of the State of export or a definitive decision in the judicial proceedings initiated in that State, and still less by the expectation of the final report of the investigation conducted in parallel by the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention of the Commission. The authorities of the State of importation must accept the findings made by the authorities of the State of exportation in a subsequent verification. Consequently, the fact that the authorities of the State of exportation also point out that there are proceedings pending against the findings of the subsequent verification cannot affect the obligation on the authorities of the State of importation to enter in the accounts and notify the customs debt in question and to establish the own resources resulting from it.

Thus, by allowing customs claims to become time-barred, despite the receipt of a mutual assistance communication, paying the own resources owed in this connection late and refusing to pay the default interest payable, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376 on the system of the Communities’ own resources and the same articles of Council Regulation No 1150/2000 implementing Decision 94/728 on the system of the Communities’ own resources.

(see paras 80, 83, 88, 98, operative part)

2. There is an inseparable link between the obligation to establish the Communities’ own resources, the obligation to credit them to the Commission’s account within the prescribed time-limit and the obligation to pay default interest, payable regardless of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the Commission’s account.

Under Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376 on the system of the Communities’ own resources, any delay in making the entries in the account referred to in Article 9(1) of that regulation gives rise to the payment of interest by the Member State concerned at the interest rate applicable to the entire period of delay. Moreover, it is apparent from the wording of Article 11 that a delay in the making available of own resources cannot depend on a time-limit fixed by the Commission for making available those resources.

(see paras 93-95)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2008 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑36/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/16/EEC – Specific training required to practise as a general practitioner – Incorrect transposition

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Request seeking to have a Member State ordered to take specific measures (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 8-10)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Doctors – Directive 93/16 (Council Directive 93/16, Arts 30, 31 and 36) (see operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1) – Specific training required to practise as a general practitioner.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/2003 which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C-239/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/100/EC – Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of certain directives by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

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

Re:

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 June 2009 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑356/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with a particular bank

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 37)

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Rules of the national medical association imposing on its members established in the national territory the obligation to open a bank account with a particular bank (Art. 49 EC) (see paras 40-49, 51, operative part 1)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC – National legislation imposing an obligation on medical doctors established in the territory of the Land of Upper Austria to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by imposing an obligation on every medical doctor becoming established in Oberösterreich (Land of Upper Austria) to open a bank account with the Oberösterreichische Landesbank in Linz to which fees for benefits in kind in the context of the exercise of his professional activity are to be transferred by the health insurance funds, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 49 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑469/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/36/EC ­ – Recognition of professional qualifications – 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. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with 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).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 – Commission v Estonia

(Case C‑464/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/65/EC – Transport policy – Security of ports – 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. 9)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28).

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 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air-conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, 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 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)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market (OJ 2007 L 69, p. 27).

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 Commission Directive 2007/14/EC of 8 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of goods – Definition

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 5(1) and 6(1))

Summary

Article 5(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that reprographics activities have the characteristics of a supply of goods to the extent that they are limited to mere reproduction of documents on materials, where the right to dispose of them has been transferred from the reprographer to the customer who ordered the copies of the original. Such activities must be classified however as a ‘supply of services’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, where it is clear that they involve additional services liable, having regard to the importance of those services for the recipient, the time necessary to perform them, the processing required by the original documents and the proportion of the total cost that those services represent, to be predominant in relation to the supply of goods, so that they constitute an aim in themselves for the recipient thereof.

(see para. 33, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport – Road transport – Social provisions – Period of work other than driving time – Rest period

(Council Regulations No 3820/85, Arts 1, para. 5, and 8(3) and (6), and No 3821/85, Art. 15)

2. Transport – Road transport – Social provisions – Period of work other than driving time – Rest period

(Council Regulations No 3820/85, Art. 1, para. 5, and 8(7), and No 3821/85, Art. 15)

Summary

1. The concept of ‘operating centre’, featuring in paragraph 21 et seq. of the judgment in Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches and Others , when it comes to classifying, in light of the provisions of Regulations No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, the time corresponding to the journey made by a driver to travel from his home to the place where he is to take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment, must be defined as the place to which the driver is actually attached, namely the transport undertaking facilities from which he usually carries out his service and to which he returns at the end of that service, in the normal exercise of his functions and without complying with specific instructions from his employer.

(see paras 20, 31, operative part 1)

2. Whether the driver concerned drives himself to the place where he must take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment or whether he is driven to that place by someone else has no bearing on the classification of the travelling time in the light of the concept of ‘rest’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport.

In this connection, first, Article 8(7) of Regulation No 3820/85 makes the option for a driver to take his daily rest in a vehicle subject to the condition that that vehicle be fitted with a bunk and be stationary. Secondly, it would be contrary to the objective of road safety to distinguish between whether or not the driver concerned drives himself to a place where he is to take over a vehicle in which recording equipment is installed where he must drive that vehicle on arrival. The state of tiredness of the driver which may endanger that objective may result not only from actually driving a vehicle but also from the conditions in which the journey takes place.

(see paras 33-35, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Customs union – Incurring and recovery of a customs debt – Communication to the debtor of the amount of duty within a period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 221(3) and (4)

Summary

Article 221(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, when the failure to pay customs duty has its origins in a criminal offence, time for the purposes of the limitation period for recovery of the customs debt is to run from the date on which the order or judgment in the criminal proceedings becomes final.

Indeed, first, Article 221(4) of the Customs Code does not itself lay down any limitation period or grounds for the suspension or interruption of the limitation period applicable. Secondly, by merely referring to ‘the conditions set out in the provisions in force’, Article 221(4) of the Customs Code makes a renvoi to national law with regard to the rules governing extinction of the customs debt through the passage of time, when that debt arises as a result of an act that, at the time it was committed, was liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings.

(see paras 33-36, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Disregard of the obligations imposed by a directive – Defences – Challenge to the lawfulness of the directive – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Art. 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 15-16)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 18)

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. 226 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/24) (see paras 19-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the 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 (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

Operative part

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 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 Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Facts, evidence and arguments presented in support of the opposition – Proof of renewal of the earlier trade mark

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 42(3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 16, 19 and 20)

Summary

Although it follows from a reading of Rule 16 in conjunction with Rule 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94, as worded prior to amendment by Regulation No 1041/2005, that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is entitled to require proof that an earlier mark has been renewed where that mark expires after notice of opposition has been filed, those provisions do not require the opponent, on its own initiative, to submit such proof.

Neither Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark nor Rules 16(1) and (3) and 20(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 specify the facts, evidence and arguments which must be submitted in support of the opposition within the period fixed under Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94. In particular, those provisions contain nothing to suggest that an opponent should automatically provide, within that period, evidence of renewal of the earlier mark relied on where the renewal is to occur after notice of opposition has been filed.

While paragraphs 2 and 4 of Rule 19 of Regulation No 2868/95 now impose, within certain limits, an express obligation on an opponent to produce proof of renewal of the earlier trade mark within the period referred to in Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94, they thereby clarify in that respect the general rule laid down by Article 42(3) of the regulation, which is intended to afford greater legal certainty to operators engaged in opposition proceedings before the Office. In those circumstances, the new rules laid down in Regulation 2868/95 cannot be applied with retroactive effect.

(see paras 57-58, 68-69)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Male and female workers – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment

(Council Directive 76/207, Arts 2(1), (3) and (4), and 5)

Summary

Article 2(1), (3) and (4) and Article 5 of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides that female workers who are mothers and whose status is that of an employed person are entitled, in accordance with various rules, to take leave during the first nine months following the child’s birth, whereas male workers who are fathers with that same status are not entitled to the same leave unless the child’s mother is also an employed person.

Given that such leave may be taken by the employed father or the employed mother without distinction, implying that feeding and devoting time to the child can be carried out just as well by the father as by the mother, that leave seems to be accorded to workers in their capacity as parents of the child. It cannot therefore be regarded as ensuring the protection of the biological condition of the woman following pregnancy or the protection of the special relationship between a mother and her child. Moreover, to refuse entitlement to that leave to fathers whose status is that of an employed person, on the sole ground that the child’s mother does not have that status, could have as its effect that a woman who is self‑employed would have to limit her self-employed activity and bear the burden resulting from the birth of her child alone, and could not be helped by the child’s father. Consequently, such a measure cannot be considered to be a measure eliminating or reducing existing inequalities in society within the meaning of Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207, nor as a measure seeking to achieve substantive as opposed to formal equality by reducing the real inequalities that can arise in society and thus, in accordance with Article 157(4) TFEU, to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in the professional careers of the relevant persons.

(see paras 31, 37-39, operative part)