ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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. 14

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) – National legislation under which the distributor of a defective product may incur liability in the same way as the manufacturer.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. By adopting and maintaining in force provisions which make intermediaries in the distribution chain liable under the same conditions as a manufacturer, contrary to Article 3(3) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Scope

Summary

Where an awarding authority of a Member State initiates the procedure for the conclusion of agreements concerning the use of that part of municipal waste produced in the municipalities of a region of that Member State remaining after the collection of selected material, and concludes those agreements without following the procedures laid down by Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and, in particular, without publishing the appropriate contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities , that Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under that directive, and in particular under Articles 11, 15 and 17 thereof.

The abovementioned agreements, which provide, in particular, for the payment by the awarding authority to the operator of a royalty the amount of which is fixed in euros per tonne of waste transferred by the municipalities concerned to that operator do not establish a method of remuneration consisting in the right to exploit the services in question for payment and involving the assumption by the operator of the risk connected with operating them. Such agreements must therefore be considered to be public service contracts subject to Directive 92/50 and not service concessions outside the scope of that directive, their conclusion being possible only in accordance with the provisions of that directive.

(see paras 32, 34, 37, 45-46, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of goods

–

Quantitative restrictions (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see para. 26, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – National legislation relating to a national monopoly on retail sales of alcoholic beverages prohibiting the direct importation of such beverages by private individuals.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages by private individuals acting by their designated independent intermediaries or professional transporters, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC and that prohibition cannot be regarded as being justified under Article 30 EC;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States

(Council Regulations No 1552/89, Art. 17(2), and No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b); Council Decision 94/728, Arts 2 and 8)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Alleged failure having no adverse effects – Irrelevant

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. Member States are required to establish the Communities’ own resources as soon as their own customs authorities have the necessary particulars and, therefore, are in a position to calculate the amount of duties arising from a customs debt and determine the debtor, regardless of whether the criteria for applying Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code are met and therefore whether or not it is possible to proceed with a subsequent entry in the accounts or post-clearance recovery of the customs duties in question.

In those circumstances, a Member State which fails to establish the Communities’ own resources and to make the corresponding amount available to the Commission, without any of the conditions laid down in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376 on the system of the Communities’ own resources being met, fails to fulfil its obligations under Community law, in particular Articles 2 and 8 of Decision 94/728 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources.

(see para. 32, operative part)

2. Failure to comply with an obligation imposed by a rule of Community law is itself sufficient to constitute a breach, and the fact that such a failure had no adverse effects is irrelevant.

(see para. 35)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Right of residence of family members

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 10)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Right of residence of family members – Return of the worker to his Member State of origin after being gainfully employed in another Member State

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 10(1)(a))

Summary

1. In the event of a Community worker returning to the Member State of which he is a national, Community law does not require the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence to a third-country national who is a member of that worker’s family because of the mere fact that, in the host Member State where that worker was gainfully employed, that third-country national held a valid residence permit issued on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.

The right to family reunification under that article does not entail for members of the families of migrant workers any autonomous right to free movement, since that provision benefits the migrant worker whose family includes a national of a third country. It follows that the right of a third-country national who is a member of the family of a Community worker to install himself with that worker may be relied on only in the Member State where that worker resides.

Moreover, under Regulation No 1612/68, the effects of the residence permit issued by the authorities of a Member State to a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker’s family are confined to the territory of that Member State.

(see paras 23-26, operative part 1)

2. The right of the migrant worker to return and reside in the Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, is conferred by Community law, to the extent necessary to ensure the useful effect of the right to free movement for workers under Article 39 EC and the provisions adopted to give effect to that right, such as those laid down in Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. That interpretation is substantiated by the introduction of the status of citizen of the Union, which is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States.

When a worker returns to that latter Member State of which he is a national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State, a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68, which applies by analogy, to reside in the State of which the worker is a national, even where that worker does not carry on any effective and genuine economic activities. The fact that a third-country national who is a member of a Community worker’s family did not, before residing in the Member State where the worker was employed, have a right under national law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is a national has no bearing on the determination of that national’s right to reside in the latter State.

(see paras 32, 45, operative part 2)
1.

Declares that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as from 31 December 1998, urban waste water from the agglomeration of several communes of the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) and (5) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-69/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – State aid in the agricultural sector – Submission of annual reports during 2000 and 2001 – Guidelines for the assessment of State aid

1. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Guidelines adopted by the Commission and accepted by the Member States – Binding effect (Art. 88(1) EC) (see para. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations under Community law – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on national considerations – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

3. 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. 11)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to communicate, before 1 July 2001 and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all existing State aid schemes during 2000 and 2001 in the agricultural sector – Article 88(1) EC and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) – Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2000/C/28/02) (OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2; corrected version OJ 2000 C 232, p. 19)

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate, before 1 July 2001 and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all State aid schemes in the agricultural sector existing during 2000 and 2001, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 88(1) EC and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC], as implemented by the Commission communication entitled ‘Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector’, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 1 February 2000;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-198/05)

Failure to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/100/EEC – Rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property – Public lending right – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. 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. 16)

2. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Public lending right of protected works – Directive 92/100 (Council Directive 92/100, Arts 1 and 5) (see para. 21 and operative part)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 6) – Derogation from the exclusive right in respect of public lending – Scope.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by exempting from the public lending right all categories of lending establishment accessible to the public within the meaning of Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2007 – Commission v Ireland

(Case C‑148/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 79/923/EEC – Quality of shellfish waters – Designation of shellfish waters – Pollution reduction programmes – Setting control parameters

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Formal notice (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 32)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 34-35)

3. Approximation of laws – Quality required of shellfish waters – Directive 79/923 (Council Directive 79/923, Arts 3 and 4) (see paras 46-48, 61-66)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incomplete transposition of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47) – Failure to designate certain shellfish waters, to establish pollution-reduction programmes and to set control parameters.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing:

– in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters, to designate all shellfish waters requiring designation;

– in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 79/923, to set all the required values in respect of shellfish waters designated or requiring designation pursuant to Article 4; and

– in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 79/923, to take all necessary measures to establish pollution reduction programmes for waters requiring designation pursuant to Article 4,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Declares that, by adopting Legislative Decree No 209 of 24 June 2003 transposing into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end‑of‑life vehicles in a manner contrary to that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 7(2)(a) and Article 8(3) and (4) of that Directive;
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)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National legal 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 period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium 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) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the period prescribed all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany 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) (see para. 6

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise – Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into national law Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise as regards the Provinces of Burgenland, Carinthia, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Styria and Tyrol, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria 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) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) – Adoption of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Principles – Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk

(Commission Regulation No 536/93, as amended by Regulation No 1001/98, Art. 3(2), second para., and No 1392/2001, Art. 5(3))

Summary

1. The principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty must be respected by national courts when they have to penalise practices which do not comply with rules laid down by Community legislation.

(see para. 40, operative part)

2. In the case of a slight delay in observing the time-limit imposed on purchasers for communication of the summary of statements, such as one working day, the system of financial penalties provided for by Article 5(3) of Regulation No 1392/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the additional levy on milk is less severe than that provided for by the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of that levy, as amended by Regulation No 1001/98.

(see para. 40, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

2. 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. 10)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, as amended by Regulation No 1256/1999, Art. 7(2))

Summary

Article 7(2) of Regulation No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Regulation No 1256/1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that, on the expiry of a rural lease on a milk production holding, the attached reference quantity can revert to the lessor in so far as that lessor, not being a producer himself and having no intention to become one, transfers the reference quantity as soon as possible through a State sales office to a third party who has that status.

(see para. 40, operative part)