ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-312/00 P





Commission of the European Communities

v

Camar Srl and Tico Srl





«(Appeal – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Request for additional import licences – Adjustment of tariff quota where necessary – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Action for annulment – Admissibility)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 16 April 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 10 December 2002 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Import arrangements – Tariff quota – Taking into account of the difficulties inherent in the transition from national arrangements to the common organisation of the market

(Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 19(2) and 30)

2.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law – Discretion of the institution in the adoption of measures

(Art. 228 EC, second para.)

3.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded for other legal reasons – Dismissal

4.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Review by the Court of Justice of the legal characterisation of the facts – Permissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

5.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Refusal by the Commission to adopt regulatory measures enabling importers of bananas from a non-Member State to deal with difficulties arising from the fall in production consequent on exceptional climatic conditions – Inadmissible

(Art. 230 EC, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 404/93, Arts 16(3), 18 and 19(1))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-3/00





Kingdom of Denmark

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Approximation of laws – Directive 95/2/EC – Use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates as food additives – Protection of health – Stricter national provisions – Conditions of application of Article 95(4) EC – Principle of the right to be heard)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 30 May 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 20 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Article 95 EC – Approval procedure for derogating national provisions – Purpose

(Art. 95(1), (4), (6) and (7) EC)

2.. Approximation of laws – Article 95 EC – Approval procedure for derogating national provisions – Application of the principle of the right to be heard – Not applicable

(Art. 95(4) and (6), second and third subparas)

3.. Approximation of laws – Article 95 EC – Approval procedure for derogating national provisions – Distinction between national provision existing prior to the harmonisation measure and those introduced subsequently – Conditions for the application of Article 95(4) EC – Obligation for the Member State seeking derogation to provide new scientific evidence – No such obligation – Conditions for the application for Article 95(5) EC – Obligation for the Member State seeking derogation to establish the need to introduce new national provisions on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State

(Arts 30 EC and 95(4) and (5) EC)

4.. Approximation of laws – Article 95 EC – Approval procedure for derogating national provisions – Application to maintain existing national provisions – Possibility for a Member State seeking derogation to base its application on an assessment of the risk to public health different from that made by the Community legislature – Obligation to establish a level of health protection higher than that in the Community harmonisation measure – Obligation to comply with the principle of proportionality

(Art. 95(4) and (7) EC)

5.. Approximation of laws – Article 95 EC – Approval procedure for derogating national provisions – Application to maintain existing national provisions – Assessment as regards the conditions laid down in Article 95(4) and (6) EC

(Art. 95(4) and (6) EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-458/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 – Classification of the purpose of a shipment of waste (recovery or disposal) – Incinerated waste – Point R1 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442/EEC – Concept of use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 26 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 13 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste – Classification of the proposed shipment by the notifier – Competence of the authorities to which notification of a proposed shipment is addressed to check classification (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment which is wrongly classified

(Council Regulation No 259/93, Art. 7(2) and (4))

2.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 on waste – Annex II B – Distinction between a disposal operation and a recovery operation – Combustion of waste – Classified as a recovery operation – Conditions

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350, Annex II B)

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

19 June 2003

((Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC and Decision 96/350/EC – Directive 94/62/EC – Concept of waste – Concept of recycling – Processing of metal packaging waste))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd, represented by M. Fordham; the Environment Agency, represented by J. Howell; Corus (UK) Ltd, represented by R. Singh; the United Kingdom Government, represented by G. Amodeo and P. Sales; the Netherlands Government, represented by J. van der Oosterkamp, acting as Agent; and the Commission, represented by R.B. Wainwright, at the hearing on 18 April 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 4 July 2002,
Case C-214/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures in the field of public procurement – Transposition – Definition of contracting authority – Body governed by public law – Reviewable measures – Interim measures)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 13 June 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Contracting authorities – Body governed by public law – Definition – National legislation excluding commercial companies under public control – Not permissible

(Council Directives 89/665, Art. (1)(1)(b), 92/50, Art. 1(b), second subpara., 93/36, Art. 1(b), second subpara., and 93/37, Art. 1(b), second subpara.)

2.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Reviewable decisions – National legislation which, with certain exceptions, excludes procedural acts – Whether permissible – Criteria

(Council Directive 89/665, Art. 1)

3.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Interim measures – Requirement that proceedings on the merits be brought beforehand – Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/665, Art. 2(1)(a))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-293/00





Kingdom of the Netherlands

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Annulment of Commission Decision 2000/362/EC of 25 May 2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1997)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 26 June 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on health policy – Financial contribution of the Community to veterinary measures taken by Member States – Emergency measures in the event of the occurrence of certain animal diseases – Reduction of the Community contribution in the event of non-compliance with the Community legislation – Whether permissible – Flat-rate adjustment – Conditions

(Council Decision 90/424, Art. 3(2))

2.. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on health policy – Financial contribution of the Community to veterinary measures taken by Member States – Emergency measures in the event of the occurrence of certain animal diseases – Commission's power to review – Scope – Financial adjustment where the measures adopted are inadequate – Where contested by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof

(Council Decision 90/424)

3.. Agriculture – Approximation of laws on health policy – Financial contribution of the Community to veterinary measures taken by Member States – Emergency measures in the event of the occurrence of certain animal diseases – Financial aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands – Reduction of the sums paid to breeders by way of compensation – Principle of proportionality – Breach – None

(Commission Decision 2000/362)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-137/00





The Queen

v

The Competition Commission, formerly The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and Others,

ex parte Milk Marque Ltd and National Farmers' Union







(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office))

«(Common agricultural policy – Articles 32 EC to 38 EC – Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 – Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products – Target price for milk – Regulation No 26 – Application of certain competition rules to the production of and trade in agricultural products – Whether Member States may apply national competition rules to milk producers who choose to organise themselves into cooperatives and hold market power)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 17 September 2002

Judgment of the Court, 9 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Application of national competition law to a milk producers' cooperative in a powerful position on the national market – Competence of the national authorities – Limits

(Arts 32 to 38 EC; Council Regulation No 26 and No 804/68, Art. 3(1), as amended by Regulation No 1587/96)

2.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Target price for milk – Account taken of that price by national competition authorities for the purposes of investigating the market power of an undertaking – Whether permissible

(Art. 33(1) EC; Council Regulation No 804/68, Art. 3(1) and (2), as amended by Regulation No 1587/96)

3.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Prohibition on a dairy cooperative in a powerful position on the market against entering into contracts for processing milk on its own behalf – Application of national competition law – Whether permissible

(Arts 28 and 29 EC)

4.. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Prohibition on a dairy cooperative in a powerful position on the market against entering into contracts for processing milk on its own behalf – Whether permissible

(Arts 12 EC and 34(2), second para., EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Diversity of the means by which the prescribed result may be achieved - Effect on a finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations

(Art. 249 EC, third para.)

2. Environment - Air pollution - Municipal waste incineration plants - Directives 89/369 and 89/429 - Implementation by the Member States - Obligation to achieve a certain result

(Council Directives 89/369 and 89/429)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into consideration - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

$$1. One of the principal characteristics of directives is precisely that they are intended to achieve a specified result. However, Community legislative practice shows that there may be great differences in the types of obligations which directives impose on the Member States and therefore in the results which must be achieved. Accordingly, given that a failure to fulfil obligations can be found only if there is, on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, a situation contrary to Community law which is objectively attributable to the Member State concerned, a finding that the failure at issue has occurred depends on the type of obligations imposed by the provisions of the directive in question.

( see paras 24-25, 29 )

2. Directive 89/369 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants and Directive 89/429 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants form part of an overall Community strategy to protect the environment and reduce air pollution. Incineration plants were already covered by Directive 84/360 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants, under which the Member States were obliged to prescribe prior authorisation procedures and regular checks for their operation and gradually to adapt existing plants to the best available technology. Directives 89/369 and 89/429 supplemented that legislation by introducing detailed and precise requirements applicable to both new and existing municipal waste incineration plants. It follows that Directives 89/369 and 89/429 impose on the Member States obligations, formulated in clear and unequivocal terms, to achieve a certain result, in order that their incineration plants meet detailed and precise requirements within the stated time-limits. In those circumstances, it is not therefore sufficient for a Member State to take all reasonably practicable measures to achieve the result imposed by Directives 89/369 and 89/249.

( see paras 30, 33-34 )

3. In the context of an action brought under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be taken into account by the Court.

( see para. 36 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of evidence - Excluded unless the sense of evidence has been distorted - Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Requirement that subject-matter and grounds be the same - Pleas in law and arguments not appearing in the complaint, but closely linked to it - Admissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Fresh claim for compensation distinct from that claimed in complaint - Inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. As regards a claim for compensation for damage, it is for the Court of First Instance alone, by virtue of Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to assess the existence of the damage and the causal link between that damage and the facts giving rise to it, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted. When the Court of First Instance has made use, without distorting it, of all the available evidence, evidence that is moreover consistent, the part of the ground of appeal requesting the Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence for that of the Court of First Instance must be declared inadmissible under those provisions.

( see para. 24 )

2. In actions brought by officials, although the relief sought in the application to the Court must be the same as that set out in the complaint, and although the application may only contain heads of claim based on the same legal basis as that relied on in the complaint, those heads of claim may, in the non-contentious stage of the procedure, be developed by the submission of pleas and arguments not necessarily appearing in the complaint but which are closely linked to it.

( see para. 34 )

3. The substance of the complaint is not intended to be strictly and definitively binding for the purposes of the contentious stage of the procedure, provided always that neither the legal basis nor the subject-matter of the complaint is changed in the action brought. Thus, where the applicant asks in his complaint for the annulment of the implied decision rejecting his request for assistance, he must be regarded as having asked for compensation for the damage which may have been caused to him by that decision. On the other hand, when he brings a new claim for compensation based on a new head of damage arising from measures of reprisal taken against him following the lodging of his complaint, and those reprisals are not the result of the Commission's implied decision rejecting his request for assistance, it is a claim for compensation different from that contained in the complaint, and must be regarded as a new claim which, as such, is inadmissible.

( see paras 35, 37-38 )
Keywords



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Need for full transposition
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Grounds of revocation of a trade mark — No genuine use of the mark — Concept — Application by the national court to the specific case — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))

Summary

Article 12(1) of the First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that there is "genuine use" of a trade mark where the mark is used in accordance with its essential function, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. When assessing whether use of the trade mark is genuine, regard must be had to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark is real, particularly whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark, the nature of the goods or services at issue, the characteristics of the market and the scale and frequency of use of the mark. The fact that a mark that is not used for goods newly available on the market but for goods that were sold in the past does not mean that its use is not genuine, if the proprietor makes actual use of the same mark for component parts that are integral to the make-up or structure of such goods, or for goods or services directly connected with the goods previously sold and intended to meet the needs of customers of those goods.

It is for the national court to draw the consequences for the resolution of the dispute before it of that interpretation of the Community law concept of "genuine use" of the trade mark.

see paras 43, 46, operative part 1-2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Classification of special protection areas — Obligation of the Member States — Obligation to adopt measures which automatically link the classification of a site as a special protection area to the application of a protection regime — (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4)

2. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by the Member States — Need for clear and precise transposition — (Art. 249 EC)

Summary

1. Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires the Member States to provide special protection areas with a legal protection regime that is capable, in particular, of ensuring both the survival and reproduction of the bird species listed in Annex I to the directive and the breeding, moulting and wintering of migratory species not listed in that annex which are regular visitors. Under paragraph 4 of that article, as amended in part in relation to special protection areas by Article 7 of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the legal protection regime of those areas must also guarantee the avoidance therein of the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as significant disturbance of the species for which those areas have been designated.

The absence of any national provision linking the classification of a site as a special protection area to the application of a protection regime such as that described in the said Article 4 undermines the objective of special protection for wild bird life.

see paras 15-17

2. The provisions of directives must be implemented with unquestionable binding force, and the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements of legal certainty which requires appropriate publicity for the national measures adopted pursuant to Community rules in such a way as to enable the persons concerned by such measures to ascertain the scope of their rights and obligations in the particular area governed by Community law.

see para. 21
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment — Freedom of access to information — Directive 90/313 — Information relating to the environment — Definition — Information on compliance with the rules on labelling of foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms — Not included — (Council Regulation No 1139/98, Council Directive 90/313, Art. 2(a))

Summary

Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment is not intended to give a general and unlimited right of access to all information held by public authorities which has a connection, however minimal, with one of the environmental factors mentioned in Article 2(a). To be covered by the right of access it establishes, such information must fall within one or more of the three categories set out in that provision. Article 2(a) is thus to be interpreted as meaning that the name of the manufacturer and the product description of foodstuffs which have been the subject of administrative measures for controlling compliance with Regulation No 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication [in] the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112 concerning the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs, the number of administrative penalties imposed following those measures, and the producers and products concerned by such penalties do not constitute information relating to the environment within the meaning of that provision. Regulation No 1139/98 is intended to add further information to that which must already be mentioned on the labelling of certain foodstuffs under Directive 79/112, which was not designed as a measure for protection of the environment.

see paras 25, 33, 35, operative part