ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Art. 28 EC)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

1. A Member State which fails to provide an easily accessible procedure for enabling processing aids used in the preparation of foodstuffs from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed to be entered in the national list of authorised substances fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

Such a procedure must be simple and capable of being concluded within a reasonable time, and, if it leads to a refusal, the refusal decision must be capable of review before the courts.

(see paras 81-82, 117-118)

2. A Member State which lays down, for processing aids and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed, a prior authorisation scheme not complying with the principle of proportionality, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

Whilst, in the absence of harmonisation, it is for the Member States to decide at which level they intend to ensure the protection of the health and life of persons, and whether to require prior authorisation for the marketing of processing aids and foodstuffs in the preparation of which such aids have been used, and whilst, by reason of a high degree of scientific and practical uncertainty, a Member State may, under the precautionary principle, take protective measures without having to wait for the reality and the seriousness of the risks posed by the marketing of those products to be fully demonstrated, the fact remains that if there are risks concerning certain categories of processing aids, the national legislation must be targeted and clearly justified by evidence in relation to the categories concerned. An authorisation scheme is thus disproportionate in so far as, in the absence of prior authorisation, it systematically prohibits the marketing of any processing aid or any foodstuffs in the preparation of which processing aids have been used which have been lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in other Member States, without making any distinction according to the various categories or according to the level of risk which their use might potentially pose for health.

(see paras 85, 90-91, 95, 97, 100, 122, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Directive 2005/29

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29)

Summary

Directive 2005/29 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for a prohibition in principle, without taking account of the specific circumstances of individual cases, of commercial practices under which the participation of consumers in a prize competition or lottery is made conditional on the purchase of goods or the use of services.

Annex I to Directive 2005/29 establishes an exhaustive list of 31 commercial practices which, in accordance with Article 5(5) of the directive, are regarded as unfair ‘in all circumstances’. Consequently, as recital 17 in the preamble to Directive 2005/29 expressly states, those commercial practices alone can be deemed to be unfair without a case-by-case assessment against the provisions of Articles 5 to 9 of the directive. Thus, national legislation which establishes a prohibition in principle of practices which make the participation of consumers in a lottery or prize competition conditional on the purchase of goods or use of services does not meet the requirements of the directive.

Lastly, that legislation runs counter to the content of Article 4 of Directive 2005/29, which expressly prohibits Member States from maintaining or adopting more restrictive national measures, even where such measures are designed to ensure a higher level of consumer protection.

(see paras 45, 47, 50, 54 and operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Visas, asylum, immigration – Immigration policy – Right to family reunification – Directive 2003/86

(Council Directive 2003/86, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Visas, asylum, immigration – Immigration policy – Right to family reunification – Directive 2003/86

(Council Directive 2003/86, Arts 2(d) and 7(1)(c))

Summary

1. The phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting rules in respect of family reunification which result in such reunification being refused to a sponsor who has proved that he has stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, but who, given the level of his resources, will nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance in order to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, tax refunds granted by local authorities on the basis of his income, or income-support measures in the context of local-authority minimum-income policies.

Since authorisation of family reunification is, under the directive, the general rule, the faculty provided for in Article 7(1)(c) thereof must be interpreted strictly. Furthermore, the margin for manoeuvre which the Member States are recognised as having must not be used by them in a manner that would undermine the objective of the directive, which is to promote family reunification, and the effectiveness thereof.

(see paras 43, 52, operative part 1)

2. Directive 2003/86 on the right to family reunification, in particular Article 2(d) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in applying the income requirement set out in Article 7(1)(c) of that directive, draws a distinction according to whether the family relationship arose before or after the sponsor entered the territory of the host Member State.

Having regard to that lack of distinction, intended by the European Union legislature, based on the time at which the family is constituted, and taking account of the necessity of not interpreting the provisions of Directive 2003/86 restrictively and not depriving them of their effectiveness, the Member States do not have discretion to reintroduce that distinction in their national legislation transposing the directive. Furthermore, the capacity of a sponsor to have regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) cannot in any way depend on the point in time at which he constitutes his family.

(see paras 64, 66, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts – Directive 97/7 – Right of withdrawal

(European Parliament and Council Directive 97/7, Art. 6(1), first subpara., 2nd sentence, and (2))

Summary

Article 6(1), first subparagraph, second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that allows the supplier under a distance contract to charge the costs of delivering the goods to the consumer where the latter exercises his right of withdrawal.

Those provisions authorise suppliers to charge consumers, in the event of their withdrawal, only the direct cost of returning the goods. If consumers also had to pay the delivery costs, such a charge, which would necessarily dissuade consumers from exercising their right of withdrawal, would run counter to the very objective of Article 6 of the directive.

In addition, charging them in that way would compromise a balanced sharing of the risks between parties to distance contracts, by making consumers liable to bear all the costs related to transporting the goods.

(see paras 55-57, 59, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Income tax

(Art. 49 TFEU)

Summary

Article 49 TFEU precludes national legislation that, in relation to the granting of a tax advantage, such as a self‑employed person’s deduction for those who have worked a certain number of hours as a business operator, is discriminatory towards non‑resident taxable persons whose hours worked for an establishment situated in another Member Stare are not taken into account for that purpose, even though those taxable persons may opt for the regime applicable to resident taxable persons in order to benefit from that tax advantage.

That national legislation which, for the purposes of such a tax advantage uses an ‘hours test’ in such a way as to prevent non‑resident taxable persons from including hours worked in another Member State, may well operate primarily to the detriment of those taxable persons. Consequently, such legislation constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality for the purposes of Article 49 TFEU. That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that an option of being treated as a resident taxable person is available to non-resident taxable persons enabling them to choose between the discriminatory tax regime and the regime applicable to residents, for such a choice is not capable of remedying the discriminatory effects of the first of these two tax regimes. If such a choice were to be recognised as having the effect described, the consequence would be to validate a tax regime which, in itself, remains contrary to Article 49 TFEU by reason of its discriminatory nature. In addition, a national scheme that restricts freedom of establishment still remains incompatible with European Union law even if its application is optional. Consequently, the choice offered to non‑resident taxable persons by means of the option of being treated as resident taxable persons does not serve to neutralise the discrimination established.

(see paras 48-55, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Exercise of that right not dependent on a specific interest in bringing an action (Art. 226 EC) (see para 30)

3. Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Electronic communications networks and services – Legislative background – Directive 2002/21 – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 – Transitional arrangements (European Parliament and Council Directives 2002/21, Arts 16 and 27(1) and 2002/22, Arts 16 and 17) (see paras 46-50, 57-72, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) – Imposing on an operator a requirement to obtain authorisation for the tariff for providing retail access services to high-speed internet without a market analysis having been carried out.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. declares that, by regulating retail tariffs for access to high-speed internet without previously carrying out a market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16 in conjunction with 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive);

2. Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Directive 2001/80 – Scope – Large combustion plants – Exceptions

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/80, Art. 2(7), second subpara., 1st sentence)

Summary

Since Directive 2001/80 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants defines a combustion plant as technical apparatus in which fuels are oxidised in order to use the heat thus generated, electricity is not a product of combustion. The products of combustion are in fact the waste gases, ash and other residues and also the heat generated on combustion. The electric current is neither a physical product of combustion nor heat, but results from a series of processes in which combustion releases heat which is used to generate steam in a boiler, the steam in turn propels a turbine and the turbine, finally, generates electricity. To take the view that electricity constitutes a product of combustion would require that concept to be interpreted so broadly that it would also encompass other products which do not result directly from combustion and which do not correspond to the usual meaning of the term both in scientific language and in everyday language.

The first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(7) of Directive 2001/80 does not simply define the term ‘combustion plant’ more precisely but excludes certain plants from the directive’s scope. The fact that this provision has the character of a derogation is indeed clearly expressed by its wording, because it states that the directive is to apply to plants designed for production of energy with the exception of those which make direct use of the products of combustion in manufacturing processes. A restrictive interpretation of this provision is all the more necessary because the exclusion of certain combustion plants from the directive’s scope runs counter to the very objective of the directive. The directive is intended to combat acidification by reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, to which large combustion plants, including installations for the production of electricity, are significant contributors. To extend the exception set out in the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 2(7) of the directive to power plants which have direct use made of their electricity production in a manufacturing process would thus compromise the directive’s effectiveness.

(see paras 36-37, 40-42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/12 – Manufactured tobacco – Products manufactured from products not subject to excise duty imported into the Community under the inward processing procedure

(Council Directive 92/12, Arts 5(2), first para., first indent, and 18(1))

Summary

The first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as meaning that products subject to excise duty (such as manufactured tobacco) that are manufactured from products not subject to excise duty (such as raw tobacco) imported into the Community under the inward processing procedure are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements, within the meaning of that provision, even though they have become products subject to excise duty only by virtue of having been processed within Community territory, with the result that they can move between Member States without the administrative authorities being entitled to insist on production of the administrative or commercial document provided for in Article 18(1) of that directive.

(see paras 36-46, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))

2. Preliminary rulings – Interpretation – Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

1. Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security precludes national legislation under which, for the years 1984 to 1994, the calculation of old-age and retirement pensions for female frontier workers, concerning equal work or work of equal value, was based on notional and/or flat-rate daily wages lower than those for male frontier workers.

(see para. 31, operative part)

2. The Court may, exceptionally, taking account of the serious difficulties which its judgment may create as regards events in the past, be moved to restrict the opportunity for all persons concerned of relying on the interpretation the Court gives to a provision of European Union law in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling. However, the financial consequences that might ensue for a Member State from a preliminary ruling do not in themselves justify limiting the temporal effects of the ruling.

(see paras 33-34)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age

(Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 2 and 6(1))

Summary

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which workers eligible for an old-age pension from their employer under a pension scheme they have joined before attaining the age of 50 years may not, on that ground alone, claim a severance allowance aimed at assisting workers with more than 12 years of service in the undertaking in finding new employment.

That exclusion is based on the idea that employees leave the labour market if they are eligible for an old-age pension from their employer and joined that pension scheme before attaining the age of 50 years. As a result of that age-based assessment, workers who satisfy the criteria for eligibility for a pension from their employer yet wish to waive their right to their pension temporarily and to continue with their career will not be able to claim the severance allowance even though it is intended to protect them. Thus, in pursuing the legitimate aim of preventing that allowance from being claimed by persons who are not seeking new employment but will receive a replacement income in the form of an occupational old-age pension, the measure at issue actually deprives workers who have been made redundant and who wish to remain in the labour market of entitlement to the severance allowance merely because they could, inter alia because of their age, draw such a pension.

In addition, the measure at issue in the main proceedings prohibits an entire category of workers defined on the basis of their age from temporarily waiving their right to an old-age pension from their employer in exchange for payment of the severance allowance, which, after all, is aimed at assisting them in finding new employment. That measure may thus force workers to accept an old-age pension which is lower than the pension which they would be entitled to if they were to remain in employment for more years, leading to a significant reduction in their income in the long term.

(see paras 44, 46, 49, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑342/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/82/EC – Article 11(1)(c) – Failure to draw up external emergency plans – Incomplete transposition

1. 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. 12)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible ( Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need to ensure that directives are effective (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 16)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to draw up external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside establishments falling within Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that an external emergency plan is drawn up for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑253/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/22/EC – Approximation of laws – Social legislation relating to road transport activities –Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

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

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;