ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December 2008 – Commission v Netherlands

(Case C‑249/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Directive 92/43/EC – Measure having equivalent effect – Prior authorisation for the planting of oysters and mussels of native species from other Member States – Justification – Protection of the life of animals – Maintenance of biodiversity and conservation of fish species in the interest of fisheries

1. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Protection of the species (Council Directive 92/43, Arts 12(1) and 22(b)) (see paras. 31, 34-37)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 25-28, 43-46, 51-56)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – System of prior authorisation for the planting of oysters and mussels from other Member States in Netherlands coastal waters.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by instituting a system of prior authorisation for the planting, in Netherlands coastal waters, of oysters and mussels coming lawfully from other Member States and being of species native to the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – AGEA v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna

(Case C‑486/07)

Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Maize – Determination of price – Reductions applicable

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (Commission Regulations No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, Art. 4a and Annex II, and No 2131/93, Art. 13(1)) (see para. 32, operative part)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) – Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 21), Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18), and of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 191, p. 76) – Reductions applicable for a moisture content higher than that of the standard quality – Application to the sale of maize.

Operative part

The combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies and Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2486/92 of 27 August 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale by tender of maize held by the international intervention agencies, the price reductions in relation to the moisture content laid down for durum wheat in Table II of Annex II to Regulation No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, do not apply.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑331/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Animal feed and food law – Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 – Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action – Altered by reason of a change in Community law – Whether lawful – Conditions (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 23)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Purpose (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Action in respect of an administrative practice contrary to Community law – Lawfulness – Conditions (Art. 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 32-36)

4. Approximation of laws – Official control of animal feed and food (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 882/2004, Art. 4(2)(c)) (see paras 45-46)

5. 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. 47)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) – Shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having adopted all the measures necessary to remedy the shortage of staff assigned to the services responsible for veterinary controls in Greece, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 – SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission

(Case C‑481/07 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Commission Decision rejecting a complaint brought against Eurocontrol – Actual and certain damage

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Préjudice constitué par les frais afférents à la procédure précontentieuse (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87) (see paras 20-23)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(e)) (see paras 36-43)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 August 2007 in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law the claim for damages for the loss purportedly suffered by the appellant as a result of the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the appellant’s complaint relating to an alleged infringement by Eurocontrol of the EC Treaty provisions on competition.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.
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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Czech Republic 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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Defective transposition of Articles 3(2), 4(1), 5 and Article 8(1) of that directive.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to transpose fully and/or correctly the obligations under Articles 3(1) and (2), 4(1), 5 and 8(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic 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. 20

)

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 Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) (OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201).

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 Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) and, in particular, Articles 17, 22 to 25, 30, 33, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 50 and Annexes I, II and VII, 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

Common commercial policy – Protection against illicit commercial practices – Additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America – Regulation No 2193/2003

(Council Regulation No 2193/2003, Recital 6 and Arts 2(1), 4(2) and 5)

Summary

Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2193/2003 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its wording, namely that products for which it can be demonstrated that they are already on their way to the European Community on the date of entry into force of that regulation, namely 17 December 2003, and whose destination cannot be changed, are not to be subject to the additional duty. Article 4(2), the wording of which is unambiguous, is consistent with the system established by Regulation No 2193/2003. Traders must be able to rely on the fact that products they have exported from the United States to the Community prior to the date of publication and of entry into force of that regulation will not be subject to the additional customs duties imposed by that regulation.

By contrast, that expectation is not legitimate with regard to products which were exported after that date in so far as traders could not, as of that date, have been unaware that additional customs duties would be applicable under the provisions of that regulation. Consequently, recital 6 in the preamble to that regulation, which provides that products for which it can be proved that they have been exported from the United States to the Community prior to the date of first application of the additional customs duties, namely 1 March 2004, should not be subject to those duties, cannot be relied on to interpret Article 4(2) of that regulation in a manner clearly contrary to the wording of that provision.

(see paras 15, 18-20, operative part)
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. 7

)

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 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/22.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic 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. 9

)

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 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/22;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83 – Classification of a product as a medicinal product by function – Criteria

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, Art. 1(2))

Summary

Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27 must, apart from the case of substances or combinations of substances intended for the purpose of making a medical diagnosis, be interpreted as meaning that a product which includes in its composition a substance which has a physiological effect when used in a particular dosage is not a medicinal product by function where, having regard to its content in active substances and under normal conditions of use, it constitutes a risk to health without, however, being capable of restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings.

The pharmacological, immunological or metabolic properties of a product constitute the factor on the basis of which it must be ascertained, in the light of the potential capacities of the product, whether it may, for the purposes of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83, be used in or administered to human beings with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions.

The capacity to restore, correct or modify physiological functions should not, however, lead to the classification as medicinal products by function of products which, while having an effect on the human body, do not significantly affect the metabolism and thus do not strictly modify the way in which it functions. When that assessment is being made, the normal conditions of use of the product in question should be taken into account, and the fact that it is capable of having a significant physiological effect when used at a higher dosage than that indicated in the instructions or on the packaging is irrelevant in that regard.

This conclusion is not invalidated by the fact that the product in question, under normal conditions of use, may involve a risk to health. The fact that the use of a product presents a risk to health is not an indication that it is pharmacologically effective.

(see paras 20-25, 27, operative part)
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. 9)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/100, Art. 2) (see paras 10-11, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting 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

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 Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Environment – International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – Species listed in Annex B to Regulation No 338/97

(Council Regulation No 338/97, Art. 8(5) and Annex B)

Summary

Article 8(5) of Regulation No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of criminal proceedings brought against a person accused of having infringed that provision, any type of evidence accepted under the procedural law of the Member State concerned in similar proceedings is in principle admissible for the purpose of establishing whether specimens of animal species listed in Annex B to that regulation were lawfully acquired. In the light also of the principle of the presumption of innocence, such a person may adduce any such evidence to prove that those specimens came lawfully into his possession in accordance with the conditions laid down in that provision.

It is therefore for the national authorities to determine, according to the principles of their national law on evidence, whether, in the specific case before them, and in the light of all the circumstances, it has been proved that the conditions laid down in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 338/97 have been met. That regulation does not limit the evidence that may be used in order to establish that specimens of those species were acquired lawfully.

(see paras 28-29, 34, operative part)
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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or notify, 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

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 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Legal expenses insurance – Directive 87/344

(Council Directive 87/344, Arts 3(2), 4(1)(a), and 5)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Legal expenses insurance – Directive 87/344

(Council Directive 87/344, Art. 4(1)(a))

Summary

1. It follows from the wording of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 87/344 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance and from the context of that directive that the right to freely choose a representative is granted to every insured person in a general and independent way, within the limits set by each of those articles.

Therefore, Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344 recognises the right of the insured person to choose his representative but, other than in cases where a conflict of interests arises, restricts that right to inquiries and proceedings. The use of the adjective ‘any’ as well as the tense of the verb ‘to recognise’ demonstrate the general application and obligatory nature of that rule. Furthermore, that provision lays down the minimum level of freedom which must be granted to the insured person whatever the option provided for in Article 3(2) of that directive with which the insurance undertaking complies.

(see paras 46-48)

2. Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not permitting the legal expenses insurer to reserve the right, where a large number of insured persons suffer loss as a result of the same event, itself to select the legal representative of all the insured persons concerned.

(see para. 68, operative part)