ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6

)

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 Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products (OJ 2005 L 91, p.13).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under A rticle 31(1) of that directive;

2. The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment

(Art. 43 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

Summary

1. The mere fact that a resident company is granted a loan by a related company which is established in another Member State cannot be the basis of a general presumption of abusive practices and justify a measure which compromises the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty. Conversely, a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may be justified on the ground of prevention of abusive practices where it specifically targets wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and are designed to circumvent the legislation of the Member State concerned and, in particular, to escape the tax normally due on the profits generated by activities carried out on national territory.

(see paras 26-28)

2. Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation under which interest payments made by a company resident in a Member State to a director which is a company established in another Member State are reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, taxable, where, at the beginning of the taxable period, the total of the interest-bearing loans is higher than the paid-up capital plus taxed reserves, whereas, in the same circumstances, where those interest payments are made to a director which is a company established in the same Member State, those payments are not reclassified as dividends and are, on that basis, not taxable.

Such a difference in treatment between resident companies according to the place of establishment of the company which, as director, has granted them a loan constitutes an obstacle to the freedom of establishment if it makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise that freedom and they may, in consequence, refrain from managing a company in the Member State which enacts that measure, or even refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in that Member State.

Even if the application of a limit such as the limits laid down under that legislation seeks to combat abusive practices, it goes in any event beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, since it also affects situations in which the transaction concerned cannot be regarded as a purely artificial arrangement. If interest payments made to non‑resident companies are reclassified as dividends as soon as they exceed such a limit, it cannot be ruled out that that reclassification will also apply to interest paid on loans granted on an arm’s length basis.

(see paras 23, 32-34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 14

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) and of Annex I thereto – Concepts of application of the ‘best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration’ of the conditions for an operating permit.

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing correctly to transpose Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and of Annex I thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 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 paras 25-26)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determined by the reasoned opinion – Time-limit communicated to the Member State – Default subsequently remedied – Interest in continuing the proceedings – Possible liability of the Member State (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 27-28)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision relating to a concentration – Defences – Absolute impossibility of implementation – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Obligation on the Commission and the Member State to cooperate in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty (Arts 10 EC and 226 EC) (see para. 30)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision relating to a concentration – Defences – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent measure (Arts 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 34-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with Article 2 of Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 4279 final) and Article 2 of Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 7039 final).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1) declares that by not withdrawing:

– the conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17 imposed by the decision of the National Energy Committee which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 4279 final), and

– conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15, as amended, imposed by decision of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade which were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 – E.ON/Endesa – C(2006) 7039 final),

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each of those decisions;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 11, 13)

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 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Difficulties of interpretation pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, with corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

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 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-37)

2. 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57-59)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM and Cornu against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG mbh and Cornu SA Fontain – Interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) – Likelihood of confusion between two trade marks – Weak degree of similarity between the goods – Distinctiveness of the earlier mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 December 2006 in Case T‑310/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM – Cornu (FERRO) ;

2. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002‑4);

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain to pay the costs of the appeal;

4. Orders Ferrero Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

5. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance, except for those relating to the intervention of Cornu SA Fontain;

6. Orders Cornu SA Fontain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in relation to its intervention.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Free movement of capital

–

Energy law (Arts 43 EC and 56 EC) (see paras 39, 46, 54-55, 58, 62‑63, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC – National law making the acquisition of certain shareholdings in undertakings which carry on regulated activities in the energy sector subject to prior approval of a special commission.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting the first indent of the second paragraph of the single article of the fourteenth function of the National Energy Commission provided for in Supplementary Provision No 11, part 3, point 1, of Law 34/1998 of 7 October 1998 on the hydrocarbon sector (Ley 34/1998, del sector de hidrocarburos), as amended by Royal Decree-Law 4/2006 of 24 February 2006 (Real Decreto-Ley 4/2006), in order to make the acquisition of certain shareholdings in undertakings which carry on certain regulated activities in the energy sector and the acquisition of the assets necessary to carry on such activities subject to the prior approval of the National Energy Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC;

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

Summary



Keywords

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

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Regulation No 338/97)

Summary

Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, read separately or in conjunction with Regulation No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, do not preclude national legislation under which a prohibition on importing, holding or trading in mammals belonging to species other than those expressly referred to in that legislation applies to species of mammals which are not included in Annex A to that regulation, if the protection of or compliance with the interests and requirements relating to the protection of animal welfare, the protection of the health and life of animals and the protection of the environment cannot be secured just as effectively by measures which obstruct intra-Community trade to a lesser extent.

It is for the national court to determine:

– whether the drawing up of the national list of species of mammals which may be held and subsequent amendments to that list are based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria;

– whether a procedure enabling interested parties to have species of mammals included in that list is provided for, readily accessible and can be completed within a reasonable time, and whether, where there is a refusal to include a species, it being obligatory to state the reasons for that refusal, that refusal decision is open to challenge before the courts;

– whether applications to obtain the inclusion of a species of mammal in that list or to obtain individual derogations to hold specimens of species not included in that list may be refused by the competent administrative authorities only if the holding of specimens of the species concerned poses a genuine risk to the protection of the abovementioned interests and requirements; and

– whether conditions for the holding of specimens of mammals not referred to in that list are objectively justified and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by the national legislation as a whole.

(see paras 27-29, 42-43, 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. 12)

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

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Arts 3(b), 5(1) and 16(1)) (see paras 17-22, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to prepare and adopt waste reception and handling plans for every Italian port, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

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

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7)

Summary

The transfer of material from a protected database to another database following an on‑screen consultation of the first database and an individual assessment of the material contained in that first database is capable of constituting an ‘extraction’, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases, to the extent that that operation amounts to the transfer of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, of the contents of the protected database, or to transfers of insubstantial parts which, by their repeated or systematic nature, would have resulted in the reconstruction of a substantial part of those contents.

The concept of extraction, within the meaning of Article 7 of that directive, must be understood as referring to any unauthorised act of appropriation of the whole or a part of the contents of a database. The decisive criterion is to be found in the existence of an act of ‘transfer’ of all or part of the contents of the database concerned to another medium, whether of the same nature as the medium of that database or of a different nature. Such a transfer implies that all or part of the contents of a database are to be found in a medium other than that of the original database, whatever the nature or form of the mode of operation used.

(see paras 34-36, 60, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

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;

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(f))

Summary

Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other conditions in that provision are met, services supplied to their members by independent groups are covered by the exemption contained in that provision, even if those services are supplied only to one or several of those members.

A restriction on the scope of that provision, by excluding from the exemption from value added tax services supplied by independent groups to their members, in particular in cases where the needs of those members differ, is not supported by the purpose of that provision, which is to create an exemption from value added tax in order to avoid an entity offering certain services from being required to pay that tax when it has found it necessary to cooperate with other entities by means of a common structure set up to undertake activities essential to the provision of those services.

Moreover, the need to interpret that provision strictly cannot lead to each member of an independent group being given the right to deprive the other members of that group of exemption from value added tax by deciding at any particular time not to use a particular service provided by the group of which it has originally decided to become a member. The existence of such a right for each member of an independent group does not follow either from the wording or from the purpose of Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive.

(see paras 36-37, 41, operative part)