ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment – More than one defendant

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))

Summary

The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.

It is apparent from Article 18(1) of that regulation and, moreover, from a literal interpretation of Section 5, supported by the ‘travaux préparatoires’ relating to the regulation, that the court having jurisdiction in proceedings concerning an individual contract of employment must be designated in accordance with the jurisdiction rules laid down in that section, rules which, on account of their specific and exhaustive nature, cannot be amended or supplemented by other rules of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation unless specific reference is made thereto in Section 5.

As regards the possibility that only an employee may rely on Article 6(1) of the regulation, that would run counter to the wording of both that provision and Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation. The transformation by the Community courts of the rules of special jurisdiction, aimed at facilitating sound administration of justice, into rules of unilateral jurisdiction protecting the party deemed to be weaker would go beyond the balance of interests which the Community legislature has established in the law as it currently stands. Furthermore, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the regulation and which requires, in particular, that rules of jurisdiction be interpreted in such a way as to be highly predictable.

(see paras 19-24, 32-33, 35, 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 paras 24-25)

2. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 92/57 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (Council Directive 92/57, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 35-36)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (Eighth Individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6) – Appointment of health and safety coordinators for a construction site where a number of undertakings are operating.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose in Italian law Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (Eighth Individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 52 of the EEC Treaty, (subsequently, Art. 52 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC) and Art. 58 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently, Art. 58 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment Art. 48 EC))

Summary

In the absence of valid justification, Articles 52 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 52 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 58 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 58 of the EC Treaty, and now Article 48 EC) preclude the application of tax legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of valuing the unlisted shares of a company for the determination of the wealth tax liability of the parent company of which that company is a subsidiary causes that company’s holding in a partnership established in another Member State, subject to the condition that such a holding is capable of allowing it a definite influence on the decisions of the partnership established in the other Member State and enabling it to determine its activities, to be assigned a greater value than its holding in a partnership established in the Member State concerned.

Since such a difference in treatment gives rise to a tax disadvantage for the parent company by which that company is entirely owned, that company might be discouraged from acquiring a holding in a partnership established in another Member State.

The need to maintain the cohesion of a tax system can justify the restriction resulting from such legislation only to the extent that, for an argument based on such reasoning to succeed, a direct link must be established between the tax advantage concerned and the offsetting of that advantage by a particular tax levy.

Such legislation cannot, moreover, be justified by the argument relating to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision since the tax authorities could request the taxpayers concerned to provide themselves the evidence which the authorities consider necessary to carry out a calculation of the value of the holdings of those taxpayers in companies or firms established in other Member States

(see paras 31-33, 37, 39-42, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction over consumer contracts

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 15(1)(c))

Summary

In a situation in which a consumer seeks, in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which he is domiciled and before the court for the place in which he resides, an order requiring a mail-order company established in another Member State to pay a prize which that consumer has apparently won, and

– where that company, with the aim of encouraging that consumer to conclude a contract, sent a letter addressed to him personally of such a kind as to give him the impression that he would be awarded a prize if he requested payment by returning the ‘prize claim certificate’ attached to that letter,

– but without the award of that prize depending on an order for goods offered for sale by that company or on a trial order,

the rules on jurisdiction laid down by Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as follows:

– such legal proceedings brought by the consumer are covered by Article 15(1)(c) of that regulation, on condition that the professional vendor has undertaken in law to pay that prize to the consumer;

– where that condition has not been fulfilled, such proceedings are covered by Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 only if the consumer has in fact placed an order with that professional vendor.

The wording of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001, which is essentially identical to that of Article 13 of the Brussels Convention, requires a contract to have been concluded by a consumer with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities. For a contract to exist within the meaning of that provision, it is necessary that the professional vendor should assume a legal obligation by submitting a firm offer which is sufficiently clear and precise with regard to its object and scope as to give rise to a link of a contractual nature, that is to say by declaring itself to be unconditionally willing to pay the prize at issue to consumers who so request. In the absence of such a legal commitment, Article 15(1) applies only on condition that the misleading prize notification was followed by the conclusion of a contract by the consumer with the mail-order company evidenced by an order placed with the latter.

(see paras 53-55, 59-60, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Oral procedure – Reopening

(Art. 222, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 61)

2. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Member States – Agreements predating the EC Treaty

(Arts 57(2) EC, 59 EC, 60(1) EC and 307, second para., EC)

Summary

1. Under the second paragraph of Article 222 EC, it is the Advocate General’s duty, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice, require his involvement. Since the Court is not bound either by the Advocate General’s Opinion or by the reasoning on which it is based, it is not absolutely necessary to reopen the oral procedure, under Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure, each time the Advocate General raises a point of law which was not the subject of debate between the parties as long as the judgment is not based on arguments which were not the subject of debate between them.

(see paras 13-14)

2. A Member State which does not take appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in an investment agreement it has entered into with a third country fails to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC.

The provisions of Articles 57(2) EC, 59 EC and 60(1) EC confer on the Council the power to restrict, in certain specific circumstances, movements of capital and payments between Member States and third countries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of those provisions, measures restricting the free movement of capital must be capable, where adopted by the Council, of being applied immediately with regard to the States to which they relate, which may include the third countries which have signed an investment agreement. Accordingly, those powers of the Council, which consist in the unilateral adoption of restrictive measures with regard to third countries on a matter which is identical to or connected with that covered by an earlier agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, reveal an incompatibility with that agreement where, first, the agreement does not contain a provision allowing the Member State concerned to exercise its rights and to fulfil its obligations as a member of the Community and, second, there is also no international-law mechanism which makes that possible.

The periods of time necessarily involved in any international negotiations which would be required in order to reopen discussion of the agreement at issue are inherently incompatible with the practical effectiveness of those measures. The possibility of relying on other mechanisms offered by international law, such as suspension of the agreement, or even denunciation of the agreement at issue or of some of its provisions, is too uncertain in its effects to guarantee that the measures adopted by the Council could be applied effectively.

(see paras 36-38, 40-41, 45)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-49/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 1999/37/EC – Registration documents for vehicles – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57).

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 Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑376/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures 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

The Court:

Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative 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 Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑320/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/14/EC – Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Failure to implement within the period prescribed

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part

By failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

18 July 2007

Case C-213/06 P

European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

v

Georgios Karatzoglou

(Appeals – Temporary staff – Termination of contract)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04 Karatzoglou v EAR [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-000 and II-A-2-000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: the judgment is set aside and the case referred back to the Court of First Instance.

Summary

Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations

(Conditions of employment of other servants, Arts 47 to 50)

The fact that the amendment of a temporary servant’s contract created an ambiguous situation, which could have given the impression that the administration had restricted its power under Articles 47 to 50 of the Conditions of employment of other servants to terminate the contract, does not give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of that temporary servant as to the duration of his contract. An uncertain contractual situation cannot form the basis of precise assurances on the part of the administration, which are necessary to give rise to legitimate expectations.

Nor, in that respect, is it possible to rely on the principle to the effect that the weaker party to an employment contract can expect vague provisions of the contract to be interpreted in his favour. Factors linked to a temporary servant’s contractual situation in relation to his employer cannot make up for the absence of one of the preconditions for establishing the existence of a legitimate expectation.
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 – Nestlé v OHIM

(Case C‑193/06 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Figurative mark containing the word ‘QUICKY’ – Opposition of holder of earlier national word marks QUICKIES – Likelihood of confusion – Overall assessment

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35, 46-47, 76)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T 74/04 Nestlé v OHIM , intervener: Quick Restaurants SA., dismissing the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 922/2001-2) concerning opposition proceedings in which the parties were Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Quick Restaurants SA.

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 22 February 2006 in Case T 74/04 Nestlé v OHIM-Quick (QUICKY) to the extent that, contrary to Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, the Court did not assess the visual similarity of the signs at issue by relying on the overall impression given by them;

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑217/06)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Public works contracts – Directive 71/305/EEC – Meaning and definition of a public works contract – Failure which has produced all its effects

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Infringement terminated before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion – Inadmissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 21)

2. Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Scope (Council Directive 71/305) (see para. 23)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3 and 12 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1971 L 185, p. 5) – Award, after private negotiation and without publication of a notice of invitation to tender, of a works contract for the performance of works specified in resolution No 48 of the Municipal Council of Stintino of 14 December 1989, in particular: ‘the design and execution of works relating to the technical and structural modernisation, maintenance and completion of the water supply and drainage networks, the road network, and structures and facilities serving the centre of population, the external villages and the tourist zones of the territory of the commune of Stintino, and including the cleaning and decontamination of the coast and tourist centres of that commune’.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that by allowing execution of at least one of the operations entrusted by the commune of Stintino to the company Maresar Soc. Cons arl under the Agreement No 7/91 signed on 2 October 1991 and additional measures subsequently agreed by the same parties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, and in particular Articles 3 and 12 thereof;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 – Commission v Germany

(Case C‑247/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/337/EEC – Effects of certain projects on the environment – Heating installation – Energy production – Partial incineration of dangerous products

1. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Disposal of waste – Meaning (Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Arts 2(1) and 4(1) and Annex I, point 9) (see paras 28-31)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 45-47, 49-51)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) – Authorisation of a heating installation for the production of energy which partly incinerates dangerous waste without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment – Waste disposal and waste recovery operations.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission 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. 9

)

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 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. By not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Portuguese Republic is ordered 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 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.