ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-429/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC – Genetically modified organisms – Contained use)»

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for precise transposition – Directive 90/219 – Obligation of Member States to assess specifically whether there is a need to establish an emergency plan for the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms

(Art. 249, third para., EC; Council Directive 90/219, Art. 14(a))

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Infringement terminated before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion – Inadmissibility

(Art. 226 EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for full transposition – Provision concerning only the relations between the Member States and the Commission – Provision not necessarily entailing specific transposing measures – Possibility for the Commission to demonstrate the need to adopt specific transposing measures

4.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for clear and precise transposition

(Art. 249, third para., EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-396/01

Commission of the European Communities

v

Ireland

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Identification of waters affected by pollution and waters which could be affected by pollution – Designation of vulnerable zones which contribute to pollution – Establishment of action programmes in respect of designated vulnerable zones – Monitoring and review)

Summary of the Judgment

Environment – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Directive 91/676 – Identification of waters affected by pollution or waters which could be affected by pollution – Member States’ obligations – Scope

(Council Directive 91/676, Arts 3(1), and 5, paras A(1), (2) and (3) of Annex I)

Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 91/676 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, read in conjunction with paragraphs A(1) and A(2) of Annex I thereto, the Member States are obliged to identify as waters affected by pollution, or as waters which could be affected by pollution, not only waters intended for human consumption but also all surface freshwaters and groundwaters which have or could have a nitrate concentration in excess of 50 mg/l.

Moreover, pursuant to the same article, in conjunction with paragraph A(3) of Annex I to Directive 91/676, Member States are required to identify eutrophic freshwaters or freshwaters at risk of eutrophication in the near future if action pursuant to Article 5 of the directive is not taken.

(see paras 25, 43)
Case C-218/01





Proceedings brought

by

Henkel KGaA







(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht)

«(Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) – Grounds for refusal of registration – Three-dimensional mark consisting of the packaging of goods – Distinctiveness)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 14 January 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 12 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Refusal of registration or invalidity – Three-dimensional trademarks consisting of the packaging of goods which are packaged in trade for reasons linked to the very nature of the goods – Packaging assimilated to shape of goods – Consequence – Packaging which may constitute the shape of the goods within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e) and serve to designate characteristics of the goods within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of the directive

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(c) and (e))

2.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Refusal of registration or invalidity – Three-dimensional trademarks consisting of the packaging of goods which are packaged for reasons linked to the very nature of the goods – Assessment of distinctiveness – Criteria

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b))

3.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Refusal of registration or invalidity – Absence of distinctiveness – Appraisal by the competent authority – Examination solely on the basis of national trade usage – Registration in another Member State of an identical mark for identical goods – Possibility that it is taken into consideration but without being decisive – Registration in another Member State of a similar mark for similar goods – No effect

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-240/01

Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81/EEC – Mineral oils used as heating fuel)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81 – Mineral oils to be subject to excise duty – Mineral oils ‘used as heating fuel’ – Definition – Independent interpretation – Definition including all forms of consumption of mineral oil – National legislation not making all mineral oils falling within that definition subject to excise duties – Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 2(2), first sentence)

Under the first sentence of Article 2(2) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, mineral oils not referred to in Directive 92/82 are to be subject to excise duty if they are ‘used as heating fuel or motor fuel’.

In that respect, the fact that the Community legislature did not define those uses provides no ground for inferring that it intended to leave the definition of those uses to the Member States. Such an eventuality would involve the risk of divergent definitions, which would adversely affect the uniform determination of the chargeable event for the excise duty made by the article in question. It follows that the expression ‘used as heating fuel’ must be interpreted independently.

As regards that interpretation, it is clear from the scheme of Directive 92/81 and the objective pursued by the excise duty on mineral oils as a tax on consumption that the expression at issue does not refer only to cases in which the thermal energy produced by the combustion of mineral oil is used for heating purposes, but includes also cases in which the thermal energy thus produced is used for other purposes and therefore refers to all cases where mineral oils are burnt and the thermal energy thus produced is used for heating, whatever the ultimate purpose of that heating may be, including that of transformation or destruction of the substance absorbing the thermal energy during a chemical or industrial process. In all those cases, the mineral oils are used up and must therefore be subject to the excise duty.

Accordingly, a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 2(2) of Directive 92/81 when its national legislation provides for a restrictive definition, with the effect that cases in which the combustion of the mineral oil coincides, in a homogeneous process, with the transformation or destruction of the substance absorbing the thermal energy produced by the combustion are exempt from the excise duty, and thereby does not make all mineral oils intended for use as heating fuel subject to excise duties.

(see paras 45-46, 50, 52, 56-58, operative part)
Case C-495/01

Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Finland

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 77/388/EEC – VAT – Article 11(A)(1)(a) – Taxable amount – Subsidy directly linked to the price – Regulation (EC) No 603/95 – Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Basis of assessment – Supply of goods and services – Subsidies directly linked to the price – Meaning – Aid granted in the dried fodder sector – Exclusion – National scheme failing to levy value added tax on that aid – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11(A)(1)(a))

Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is intended to subject the full value of goods or services to VAT by providing that the basis of assessment comprises subsidies directly linked to the price of the transaction in question, paid to taxable persons. A Member State which does not levy the tax on aid paid under Regulation No 603/95 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder does not fail to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

‘Subsidies linked directly to the price’ include only subsidies which constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.

The conditions for the aid at issue to be subject to VAT are not met in respect of the sale by a processing undertaking, after drying, of fodder purchased from producers of green fodder, since, in such a case, the aid is not paid specifically to a processing undertaking to enable it to supply dried fodder to a purchaser at a price which is lower than on the world market. Nor are those conditions met as regards the special-order contracts concluded by such an undertaking with a producer of green fodder, as the aid which the processing undertaking receives is not paid for its benefit in such a case and that undertaking merely functions as an intermediary between the body which distributes the aid and the fodder producer.

(see paras 27-28, 32-33, 37, 39, 43, 46)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations — Employment in the public service — Meaning — Master of fishing vessels — Inclusion — Conditions — (Art. 39(4) EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations — Protection of public policy, public security and public health — General exclusion of nationals of other Member States from access to the post of master of fishing vessels — Not permissible — (Art. 39(3) EC)

Summary

1. Article 39(4) EC must be construed as allowing a Member State to reserve for its nationals the post of master of vessels flying its flag and engaged in small-scale maritime fishing only if the rights under powers conferred by public law on masters of such vessels are in fact exercised on a regular basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.

The scope of that derogation from the freedom of movement for workers concerning employment in the public service must be limited to what is strictly necessary for safeguarding the general interests of the Member State concerned, which would not be imperilled if rights under powers conferred by public law were exercised only sporadically, indeed exceptionally, by nationals of other Member States.

see paras 63-64, 69, operative part

2. A general exclusion, by a Member State, of nationals of other Member States from access to the post of master of fishing vessels cannot be justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health mentioned in Article 39(3) EC, since the right of Member States to restrict the free movement of persons on those grounds is not intended to exclude economic sectors such as fishing or occupations such as master of fishing vessels from the application of that principle as regards access to employment, but to allow Member States to refuse access to their territory or residence there to persons whose access or residence would in itself constitute a danger for public policy, public security or public health.

see paras 67-68
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure — Proceedings brought before the Court on the basis of an arbitration clause — Contract granting Community funding for an energy project — Unilateral termination under the terms of the contract — Right to reimbursement of advances together with interest as provided for in the contract — (Art. 238 EC; Council Regulation No 3640/85)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services — Lawyers — Directive 77/249 — Reimbursement of legal costs by the unsuccessful party in a dispute — Judicial rule limiting the reimbursement of fees of lawyers established in other Member States to the scale applicable to national lawyers — Whether permissible — Reimbursement of a local lawyer excluded in the event of his being obliged to work in conjunction with a foreign lawyer — Not permissible — ( Arts 49 EC and 50 EC; Council Directive 77/249, Art. 4)

Summary

Article 49 EC, Article 50 EC and Directive 77/249 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not precluding a judicial rule of a Member State limiting to the level of the fees which would have resulted from representation by a lawyer established in that State the reimbursement, by an unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party, of costs in respect of the services provided by a lawyer established in another Member State.

With the exception of the conditions requiring residence or registration with a professional organisation, mentioned in Article 4 of Directive 77/249, all other conditions and rules in force in the host country may apply to the transfrontier provision of services by a lawyer. The reimbursement of the fees of a lawyer established in a Member State may therefore also be made subject to the rules applicable to lawyers established in another Member State.

Article 49 EC and Directive 77/249 must, however, be construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State which provides that the successful party to a dispute, in which that party has been represented by a lawyer established in another Member State, cannot recover from the unsuccessful party, in addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction with the first lawyer.

The obligation to have recourse to the services of a lawyer practising before the court seised means that the resulting costs will be necessary for the purposes of appropriate legal representation. The general exclusion of such costs from the amount to be reimbursed by the unsuccessful party would penalise the successful party, with the effect that parties to legal proceedings would be strongly discouraged from having recourse to lawyers established in other Member States. The freedom of such lawyers to provide their services would thereby be obstructed and harmonisation of the sector, as initiated by Directive 77/249, would be adversely affected.

see paras 29-31, 39, 41, operative part 1-2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Member States' option to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services — Application of a reduced rate to supplies by musical ensembles for a concert organiser and the standard rate to supplies by soloists working for an organiser — Not permissible — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 12(3)(a), third subpara.)

Summary

By applying a reduced rate of value added tax to services provided directly to the public by musical ensembles or for a concert organiser and to services provided directly to the public by soloists, but applying the standard rate of that tax to the services of soloists working for an organiser, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

In exercising the power to charge a lower rate, the Member States must respect the principle of fiscal neutrality which precludes in particular treating similar goods and supplies of services, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes, so that those goods or supplies must be subjected to a uniform rate.

see paras 19-20, 28, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Direct sale for consumption — Obligation on producer to keep stock accounts — Scope — (Commission Regulation No 536/93, Art. 7(1)(f))

Summary

The first sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products should be interpreted as meaning that the stock accounts which producers with reference quantities for direct sales are required to keep need state only the quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products sold.

see para. 38, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Medicinal products – Application for a marketing authorisation with reference to a medicinal product that has already been authorised – Possibility of transposing the safety and efficacy assessment carried out for that medicinal product without any risk to public health – Rejection of the application because the medicinal products do not have a common origin – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

In the case where

– an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product is submitted with reference to a medicinal product that has already been authorised,

– the medicinal product which is the subject of the application is imported from a Member State in which it has obtained a marketing authorisation,

– the assessment of safety and efficacy carried out for the medicinal product which is already authorised can be used in the application for a marketing authorisation for the second medicinal product without any risk to public health,

Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude the application being rejected solely on the ground that the two medicinal products do not have a common origin, that is, that their manufacturers are not part of the same group of undertakings and they do not produce those medicinal products under agreement with the same licensor.

In such circumstances, the restriction on the free movement of goods between Member States which results from the refusal to issue a marketing authorisation to the second medicinal product cannot be justified on grounds of protecting public health if that refusal is based solely on the fact that the two medicinal products do not have the same origin. A common origin may indeed constitute an important element in establishing that the assessment of safety and efficacy carried out for the medicinal product which is already authorised can be used in the application for a marketing authorisation for the second medicinal product without any risk to public health. The absence of a common origin for the two medicinal products does not, however, in itself constitute a ground for refusing a marketing authorisation to the second medicinal product.

(see paras 15-18, 21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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)

Summary

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)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Customs union – Accrual of a customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’ – Employer of the person who introduced the goods – Included by national legislation – Requirements for permissibility

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 202(3))

Summary

Article 202(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which, in the event of unlawful introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods subject to import duties, makes the employer co‑debtor of the customs debt of the employee who introduced those goods in the conduct of the employer’s affairs, so long as such legislation requires that the employer took part in the introduction of the goods and knew or ought reasonably to have known that such introduction was unlawful.

(see para. 45, operative part)