ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑358/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/54/EC – Internal market in electricity – Failure to transpose 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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC – Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37).

Operative part:

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulation and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;
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. 5)

Subject of the case

Re:

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, 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 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. 13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii (OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic 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 paras 6-9 and operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to ensure the transposition within the prescribed period, with regard to the autonomous province of Åland, of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2003 L 37, p. 19).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, with regard to the Åland Islands, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Shelled pumpkin seeds having lost their ability to germinate and intended for use in the baking industry

Summary

Since shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate and which are intended for use in the baking industry are intended not to be sown but for human consumption, they fall under subheading 1212 99 80 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1789/2003.

(see paras 30, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Community transit – External Community transit

(Commission Regulation No 1062/87, Art. 11a(2))

Summary

Article 11a(2) of Regulation No 1062/87 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Regulation No 1429/90, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs cannot grant to the principal the three‑month period to enable it to provide proof of the regularity of the transit operation or proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed after the decision has been taken to proceed to recovery of the import duties, during the proceedings relating to a complaint lodged against that decision.

Such a belated communication of that time-limit is contrary to the provisions of the said Article 11a(2) and infringes the right of the principal which flows from those provisions, effectively to set out its views on the regularity of the transit operation, before the taking of the decision to recover duties which is addressed to it and which materially affects its interests.

(see paras 37, 39, 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)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of Community law

(Art. 10 EC)

Summary

1. Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security does not preclude a Member State, when it adopts rules intended to allow persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to be eligible throughout their retirement for the pension scheme applicable to persons of the other sex, from making such membership dependent upon the payment of adjustment contributions consisting of the difference between the contributions paid by the persons originally discriminated against in the period during which the discrimination took place and the higher contributions paid by the other category of persons during the same period, together with interest to compensate for inflation.

However, any measure taken by a Member State in order to comply with the norms of Community law, such as the principle of equal treatment between men and women, must be effective. Consequently, that directive precludes a Member State, when it adopts rules intended to allow persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to persons of the other sex, from requiring the payment of adjustment contributions to be made together with interest other than that to compensate for inflation. That directive also precludes a requirement that that payment be made as a single sum, where that condition makes the adjustment concerned impossible or excessively difficult in practice. That is the case in particular where the sum to be paid exceeds the annual pension of the interested party.

(see paras 27-28, 35, operative part 1)

2. Following a judgment given by the Court on an order for reference from which it is apparent that the national legislation is incompatible with Community law, it is for the authorities of the Member State concerned to take the general or particular measures necessary to ensure that Community law is complied with, by ensuring in particular that national law is changed so as to comply with Community law as soon as possible and that the rights which individuals derive from Community law are given full effect.

Where discrimination infringing Community law has been found, for as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, the national court must set aside any discriminatory provision of national law, without having to request or await its prior removal by the legislature, and apply to members of the disadvantaged group the same arrangements as those enjoyed by the persons in the other category.

(see para. 41, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Decisions on the control of aliens – Substantive and procedural safeguards – Scope ratione personae

(Council Directive 64/221)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Grounds of public policy

(Council Directive 64/221)

Summary

1. An interpretation to the effect that the provisions of Directive 64/221 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health apply only to citizens of the Union who are lawfully resident on the territory of the host Member State is not consistent with Community law.

The safeguards provided by Directive 64/221 call for a broad interpretation as regards the persons to whom they apply. Member States must take all steps to ensure that the safeguard of the provisions of the directive is available to any national of another Member State who is subject to a decision ordering expulsion. To exclude from the benefit of those substantive and procedural safeguards citizens of the Union who are not lawfully resident on the territory of the host Member State would deprive those safeguards of their essential effectiveness.

(see paras 35, 37)

2. A Member State which applies to citizens of the Union not Directive 64/221 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health but general legislation relating to foreign nationals which makes it possible to establish a systematic and automatic connection between a criminal conviction and a measure ordering expulsion fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 64/221.

A previous criminal conviction can be taken into account only in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy. Reliance by a national authority on the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. Community law also precludes provisions of national law based on a presumption that nationals of other Member States who have received a particular sentence for specific offences must be expelled.

(see paras 41, 43-44, 51, operative part)
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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35, 46-47, 76

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. 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;

2. Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

4. Reserves 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, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. By not adopting within the period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Republic of Austria is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support system for producers of certain arable crops

(Council Regulation No 1765/92, Arts 7(6), first subpara., and 9; Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 9)

Summary

On a proper construction of Article 9 of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Regulation No 1648/95, the maximum area to be considered for compensatory payments for set-aside in accordance with the second and fourth sentences of the first subparagraph of Article 7(6) of Regulation No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops, as amended by Regulation No 2989/95, should be calculated on the basis of the area applied for provided that that area is actually under arable crops and does not contain land excluded from compensatory payments by Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92.

(see para. 38, 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. 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)

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 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – New submission of an argument – Admissibility – Limits

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))

2. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

1. It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that, on appeal, an appellant may put forward any relevant argument, provided only that the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not changed in the appeal.

2. Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State, that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that respect, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent representation of that State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State.
Case C-135/06 P

Roderich Weißenfels

v

European Parliament

‛Appeal — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance — Deduction of the amount of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character’

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 20 September 2007 I-12045

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 18 December 2007 I-12063

Summary of the Judgment

An action against a confirmatory decision is inadmissible only if the confirmed decision has become final in relation to the person concerned for failing to bring an action within the time-limit. Otherwise, the person concerned is entitled to challenge either the confirmed decision, or the confirmatory decision, or both. It would, moreover, be contrary to the sound administration of justice to require an applicant to bring a new action before the Court of First Instance against a decision concerning the same question as an earlier decision. An application seeking the annulment of that new decision brought at the reply stage is therefore admissible. (see paras 54-56)

‘Disputes of a financial character’ within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations include not only actions brought by staff members seeking to have an institution held liable, but also all those seeking payment by an institution to a staff member of a sum which the latter considers to be due to him under the Staff Regulations or other measure governing their working relations. It follows that a claim by a staff member that the institution concerned pay to him sums which, he claims, were wrongly withheld from his remuneration, together with interest at the statutory rate, constitutes a dispute of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. The unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Community judicature by Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations entrusts it with the task of providing a complete solution to the disputes brought before it, that is to say to rule on all the rights and obligations of the staff member, save for leaving to the institution in question, under the control of the court, the implementation of such part of the judgment and under such precise conditions as the court shall determine. The Community judicature is therefore able, in an appropriate case, to order an institution to pay a sum to which the applicant is entitled under the Staff Regulations or another legal measure. (see paras 65-68)
Under Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the Court of First Instance has, in disputes of a financial character, unlimited jurisdiction, pursuant to which it has the power, if need be of its own motion, to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the defendant’s wrongful act and, in such a case, taking account of the circumstances of the case, to assess the damage suffered ex aequo et bono. In addition, when the Court of First Instance has determined that there is damage, it alone has jurisdiction to decide, within the confines of the claim and subject to compliance with the obligation to state reasons, how and to what extent reparation for the damage should be provided.

In that regard, the method used to determine the extent of reparation for the damage resulting from the loss of a chance for a member of the temporary staff whose candidature has been unlawfully rejected of being recruited to a post within a Community institution, adopted in the domestic law of several Member States, based on a criterion relating to loss of earnings, establishing the difference between the earnings aspired to and the earnings actually received, then assessing, as a percentage, the chance of being recruited in order to weight that loss, necessarily leads the Community judicature to rely on a series of suppositions, by their nature uncertain, but which fall within that appraisal of the facts by the Court of First Instance and the discretion at its disposal.

(see paras 45, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 72-74)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 — Adam v Commission

(Case C-211/06 P)

‛Appeal — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition provided for by the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Definition of ‘work done for another State’’

Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Work done for another State or an international organisation (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) (see paras 44-49)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342/04 Adam v Commission dismissing an action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;