ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-332/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 1999/13/EC)»

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 27 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-12/02





Criminal proceedings

against

Marco Grilli





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht)

«(Free movement of goods – Measures having equivalent effect – Transfer by road to one Member State of a motor vehicle purchased in another Member State – Temporary number plates – Criminal penalty for driving a vehicle without a valid registration)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-130/02

Krings GmbH

v

Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München)

(Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff heading – Preparation with a basis of extract of tea)

Summary of the Judgment

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Subheading 2101 20 92 (Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or concentrates of tea or maté) – Classification by Regulation No 306/2001 under that subheading of certain goods whose content of extract of tea does not exceed 2.5% and 2.2% of the total weight – Correctness – Applicability by analogy to mixtures with a slightly lower content of extract of tea

(Commission Regulation No 306/2001)

Subheading 2101 20 92 (Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or concentrates of tea or maté) of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in the version set out in Regulation No 2031/2001 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as covering goods having a low content of extract of tea, such as those described in points 2 and 3 of the table set out in the annex to Regulation No 306/2001 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (goods whose content of extract of tea does not exceed 2.5% and 2.2% of the total weight respectively).

The classification decided by the Commission in that regulation is applicable by analogy to two mixtures intended for the production of beverages with a basis of tea, both composed of 64% granulated sugar and 1.9% extract of tea and water, to which is added, in one of the two mixtures, 0.8% citric acid.

(see paras 32, 38, operative part 1-2)
Case C-218/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation – Failure to transpose in whole territory)»

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 29 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-237/02

Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co. KG

v

Ludger Hofstetter and Ulrike Hofstetter

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

(Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Contract for the building and supply of a parking space – Reversal of the order of performance of contractual obligations provided for under national law – Clause obliging the consumer to pay the price before the seller or supplier has performed his obligations – Obligation on the seller or supplier to provide a guarantee)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Directive 93/13 – Unfair term under Article 3 – Meaning – Clause obliging the consumer to pay the full price before performance once a guarantee is provided – Assessment of unfair nature by the national court

(Council Directive 93/13, Art. 3)

It is for the national court to decide whether a contractual term in a building contract requiring the whole of the price to be paid before the performance by the seller or supplier of its obligations and provision by the latter of a guarantee satisfies the requirements for it to be regarded as unfair under Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

Although the Court may interpret general criteria used by the Community legislature in order to define the concept of unfair terms such as it appears in Directive 93/13, it should not, however, rule on the application of those general criteria to a particular term, which must be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the case in question.

(see paras 22, 25, operative part)
Case C-278/02

Proceedings brought by Herbert Handlbauer GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufungssenat I der Region Linz bei der Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich)

(Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Export refunds – Repayment of amounts wrongly paid – Proceedings relating to irregularities – Article 3 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Direct effect – Limitation period – Interruption of the limitation)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the Community’s financial interests – Proceedings relating to irregularities – Limitation period – Direct applicability – Condition

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 1(2) and 3(1))

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the Community’s financial interests – Proceedings relating to irregularities – Limitation period – Interrupting act – Condition

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1), first and third subparas)

1. Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, which fixes a limitation period for proceedings at four years from the time when the irregularity is committed, is directly applicable in the Member States, including in the field of export refunds on agricultural products, in the absence of sectoral Community rules providing for a shorter limitation period which may not be less than three years or of national rules providing for a longer limitation period.

(see paras 32, 35, operative part 1)

2. The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that notification of a customs inspection made to the undertaking involved does not constitute an act relating to investigation or legal proceedings which interrupts the limitation period of four years under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the said regulation, unless the transactions to which the suspicion of the existence of irregularities relates are sufficiently precisely defined by the act.

(see para. 43, operative part 2)
Case C-181/02 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH

(Appeal – State aid – Shipbuilding – Commission decisions authorising the aid – Condition – Compliance with a ‘capacity restriction’ – Definition)

Summary of the Judgment

1. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid to shipbuilding – Directive 90/684 – Aid for East German shipyards – Criteria governing derogations – Aim of reducing excess capacity – Aim applicable to the means of production and not production itself – Commission’s discretion

(Council Directives 90/684, Art. 10a(2)(a), and 92/68)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Plea inoperative

1. For the application of Directive 90/684 on aid to shipbuilding and Directive 92/68 amending Directive 90/684, it cannot be deduced from the aim of reducing ‘excess capacity’, which applies to the means of production which the shipyards are likely to use and not to their production itself, that a capacity restriction laid down in the decisions taken on the basis of those directives implies of itself a restriction on production.

Since the Community legislature had thus refrained from laying down itself in Directive 90/684 how the notion of capacity of shipyards was to be defined and the means by which the reduction in their excess capacity was to be achieved, the Commission had a certain measure of discretion in setting the conditions to which the proposed aid was to be subject in order to ensure that it remained compatible with the common market within the framework of the derogation scheme put into place by that directive in favour of the shipyards and did not prejudice the aim of reducing excess capacity set out in Article 10a of the directive.

However, it was for the Commission to state those conditions clearly and unequivocally.

(see paras 38, 40-41)

2. In the context of an appeal, a plea in law raised against a superfluous ground in a judgment of the Court of First Instance, the operative part of which is sufficiently founded in law on other grounds, must be rejected.

(see para. 49)
Case C-365/02

Proceedings brought by Marie Lindfors

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus)

(Directive 83/183/EEC – Transfer of residence from one Member State to another – Tax levied before registration or bringing into use of a vehicle)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Tax exemptions on permanent imports of the personal property of individuals – Directive 83/183 – Transfer of residence of the owner of a vehicle from one Member State to another – Tax levied by the Member State of destination on the registration or bringing into use of the vehicle – Whether permissible – Limits

(Art. 18 EC; Council Directive 83/183, Art. 1)

Article 1 of Directive 83/183 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals must be interpreted as not precluding, in connection with a transfer of residence of the owner of a vehicle from one Member State to another, a tax from being charged before the registration or bringing into use of the vehicle in the Member State to which residence is transferred. Such a tax cannot be regarded as a tax connected with importation falling within the scope of the exemption laid down in that provision.

However, having regard to the requirements deriving from Article 18 EC, it is for the national courts to ascertain whether the application of national law is capable of ensuring that, as regards that tax, that owner is not placed in a less favourable situation than that of citizens who have been permanently resident in the Member State in question and, if necessary, whether such a difference of treatment is justified by objective considerations independent of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national law.

(see paras 26, 36, operative part)
Case C-276/02

Kingdom of Spain

v

Commission of the European Communities

(State aid – Definition – Non-payment of taxes and social security contributions by an undertaking – Attitude taken by the national authorities following a declaration of suspension of payments)

Summary of the Judgment

1. State aid – Concept – Measure reducing the charges of an undertaking

(Art. 87(1) EC)

2. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of legality in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted

(Art. 87 EC)

1. Article 87(1) EC defines State aid which is governed by the Treaty as aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.

The concept of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC is wider than that of a subsidy because it embraces not only positive benefits, such as the subsidies themselves, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the normal burdens on the budget of an undertaking.

(see para. 24)

2. The legality of a decision concerning State aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted.

(see para. 31)
Case C-409/02 P

Jan Pflugradt

v

European Central Bank

(Appeal – Staff of the European Central Bank – Contractual nature of the employment relationship – Alteration of responsibilities laid down in the employment contract)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Nature of the employment relationship – Contractual and not governed by public law

2. Officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Organisation of departments – Definition or redefinition of the duties assigned to staff – Discretion of the administration – Limits – Interests of the service – Due consideration to be given to grade and classification

1. The employment relationship between the European Central Bank and its staff is contractual rather than governed by public service regulations. However, the employment contract is concluded with a Community body, entrusted with public interest responsibilities and authorised to lay down, by regulation, provisions applicable to its staff. It follows that the consent of the parties to such a contract is necessarily circumscribed by all manner of obligations deriving from those particular responsibilities and incumbent upon both the management bodies of the Bank and its staff.

(see paras 33-34)

2. The Community institutions have a broad discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, provided such assignment is made in the interest of the service and conforms with the principle of assignment to an equivalent post. The European Central Bank must, similarly, have a wide discretion to organise its departments to suit the responsibilities entrusted to it, and, consequently, having regard to those responsibilities, to define or redefine the duties which are assigned to its staff, provided that that discretion is exercised solely in the interest of the service and giving due consideration to the grade and classification which each member of staff may claim under the Conditions of Employment.

(see paras 42-43)
Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P

Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa) and Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputacíon Foral de Álava

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – State aid – Tax measures – Legitimate expectations – New pleas in law)

Summary of the Judgment

1. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the rules on the implementation of Article 93 of the Treaty (now Article 88 EC) – Possible legitimate expectation on the part of recipients – Protection – Conditions and limits

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

2. Appeal – Grounds of appeal – Plea in law submitted for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

1. In view of the mandatory nature of the review of State aid by the Commission under Article 93 of the Treaty (now Article 88 EC), undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that article and a diligent businessman should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed. In particular, where aid is paid without prior notification to the Commission, so that it is unlawful under Article 93(3) of the Treaty, the recipient of the aid cannot have at that time a legitimate expectation that its grant is lawful.

(see paras 44-45)

2. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court’s jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

(see para. 59)
Case C-175/02

F.J. Pape

v

Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

(State aid – Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) – Planned aid – Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission’s final decision – Tax partly earmarked for financing the aid measure – Tax imposed before approval of the aid)

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 4 March 2004

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 13 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

State aid – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Taxes partly earmarked for financing an aid measure – Included – Condition – Binding hypothecation between the tax and the aid

(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93 (now Art. 88 EC))

Taxes do not fall within the scope of the Treaty provisions on State aid unless they constitute the means of financing an aid measure and are thus an integral part of that measure.

For a tax, or part of a tax, to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules. In the event of such hypothecation, the revenue from the tax has a direct impact on the intensity of the aid and, consequently, also on the assessment of whether the aid is compatible with the common market.

(see paras 14-15)
Keywords



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Proprietary medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Withdrawal of authorisation — Authorisations granted in accordance with the mutual recognition procedure, coupled with arbitration procedures — Competence of the Commission with regard to authorisation initially granted under national procedures — None — (Council Directive 75/319, Art. 15a)

Summary

Article 15a of Directive 75/319 relating to proprietary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 93/39, applies to marketing authorisations which have been granted in accordance with the mutual recognition procedure, coupled with arbitration procedures, provided for in Chapter III of Directive 75/319. That provision cannot be used as a legal basis for Commission decisions ordering the Member States to withdraw marketing authorisations initially granted under purely national procedures.

see paras 45-46, 51
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Recruitment of a member of the temporary staff by a political group of the Parliament – Rejection of an application – Duty to state reasons at the latest when rejecting a complaint – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Failure to calculate the loss, in the application, or to justify that omission – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

Summary

1. The duty to state reasons imposed by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and, as regards decisions taken as a result of a complaint, that imposed by the second subparagraph of Article 90(2) thereof, are intended, on the one hand, to provide the persons concerned with sufficient details to enable them to assess whether the decision was well founded and whether it would be expedient to bring legal proceedings to contest its legality and, on the other hand, to enable the Court to review the decision.

In the case of a decision involving a choice between several candidates, the appointing authority or, by analogy, the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement, is bound to give a statement of reasons, at the very least when rejecting a complaint made by an unsuccessful candidate against the decision rejecting his candidature and/or against that appointing another candidate. The extent of that duty must be determined on the basis of the particular facts of each case.

As regards the engagement of a member of the temporary staff in a political group of the European Parliament, inasmuch as the competent authority, whose decision, founded in principle on a comparative assessment, was based also on objective data, namely a comparison of the candidates’ files with the qualifications required and the taking into consideration of the selection board’s proposal in the light of the results of the tests, by definition departed from the board’s opinion and, therefore, from the order of merit based on the result of the tests and communicated to the appellant, a general statement of reasons or one taking the form of a mere reference to the fact that the recruitment procedure had been properly conducted does not enable the person concerned to ascertain the reasons for being overlooked.

(see paras 39-41, 44, 46)

2. As regards the material damage alleged in support of a claim for compensation, in certain special cases, particularly where that loss is difficult to calculate, it is not absolutely necessary to particularise its exact extent in the application nor to calculate the amount of the compensation claimed.

However, an action must be dismissed as inadmissible if the applicant has not established, nor even claimed, the existence of special circumstances justifying the omission to calculate, in the application, the head of alleged loss.

(see para. 62)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – Community Agreements – Direct effect – Conditions – Article 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources and Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol – Obligation on Member States to subject the discharge of certain substances to a system of authorisation

(Art. 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources, and Art. 6(1) of the amended Protocol)

2. International agreements – Community Agreements – Article 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources and Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol – Discharge of non-toxic substances – Prohibition without prior authorisation

(Art. 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources, and Art. 6(1) of the amended Protocol)

Summary

1. A provision in an agreement concluded by the Community with a non‑member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure.

Such is the case with Article 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources and Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol which clearly, precisely and unconditionally lay down the obligation for Member States to subject discharges of the substances listed in Annex II to the Protocol to the issue by the competent national authorities of an authorisation taking due account of the provisions of Annex III. As a result, since those provisions have direct effect, any interested party is entitled to rely on them before the national courts.

(see paras 39, 41, 47, operative part 1)

2. Article 6(3) of the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources and Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol must be interpreted as prohibiting, without an authorisation issued by the competent national authorities, the discharge of substances which, although not toxic, have an adverse effect on the oxygen content of the marine environment, since those provisions do not expressly make the requirement of prior authorisation conditional on their toxicity.

(see paras 49, 52, operative part 2)