ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Power granted to the Member States to promote systems for the reuse of packaging – Whether national measures permissible – Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 1(2) and 5)

2. Environment – Waste – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Right of producers and distributors to continue to participate in a given packaging-waste management system – No such right – Replacement of an existing packaging-waste management system – Permissible – Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 7)

3. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – National rules replacing a global packaging-waste collection system with a deposit and return system – Justification – Protection of the environment – Condition – Observance of the principle of proportionality

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

1. Article 1(2) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste does not preclude the Member States from introducing measures designed to promote systems for the reuse of packaging.

In accordance with Article 5 of that directive, such measures must comply not only with requirements that flow from the directive’s other provisions, in particular Article 7, but also with obligations resulting from the provisions of the Treaty, in particular Article 28 EC.

(see paras 36-37, operative part 1)

2. While Article 7 of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste does not confer on the producers and distributors concerned any right to continue to participate in a given packaging-waste management system, it precludes the replacement of a global system for the collection of packaging waste with a deposit and return system where the new system is not equally appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objectives of that directive or where the changeover to the new system does not take place without a break and without jeopardising the ability of economic operators in the sectors concerned actually to participate in the new system as soon as it enters into force.

(see paras 43, 46, 48, 50, operative part 2)

3. Article 28 EC precludes national rules when they announce that a global packaging-waste collection system is to be replaced by a deposit and return system without the producers and distributors concerned having a reasonable transitional period to adapt thereto and being assured that, at the time when the packaging-waste management system changes, they can actually participate in an operational system. Such rules can be justified by reasons relating to protection of the environment only if the means which they employ do not go beyond what is necessary for the purpose of attaining the desired objectives.

(see paras 79, 83, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax — Capital goods — Adjustment of the deduction originally made – Conditions for the application of Article 20 of the Sixth Directive — Acquisition of goods by a body governed by public law as a public authority within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the directive — Sale of those goods by the same body as a taxable person — Right to adjustment excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 4(5) and 20)

Summary

A body governed by public law which purchases capital goods as a public authority within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, that is to say as a non-taxable person, and subsequently sells those goods as a taxable person, is not entitled, in respect of that sale, to a right of adjustment based on Article 20 of that directive in order to deduct the value added tax paid on the purchase of those goods.

Only the capacity in which the body is acting at the time of purchase of the goods can determine the existence of a right to deduct.

(see paras 38, 44, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

22 May 2003

((Free movement of goods – Trade with third countries – Procedure for returned goods – Article 187 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Reimportation of compensating products originally re-exported subsequent to an inward processing procedure – Determination of the import duty legally owed – Burden of proof in respect of the proportion of the value of the reimported products corresponding to inward processing))

and

THE COURT (First Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of IHW Rebmann GmbH and the Commission at the hearing on 23 January 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 February 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

30 September 2003

((Freedom of movement for workers – Article 39(4) EC – Employment in the public service – Masters of fishing vessels – Conferment of powers of public authority on board – Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State))

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the appellants in the main proceedings, represented by P. Slabschi; of the respondent in the main proceedings, represented by B. Karsten, Regierungsrätin; of the German Government, represented by M. Lumma; of the French Government, represented by G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes; and of the Commission, represented by I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agent, and H. Kreppel, at the hearing on 21 January 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 June 2003,
Case C-67/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC – Quality of shellfish waters – Pollution-reduction programme)»

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-148/02





Carlos Garcia Avello

v

État belge





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium))

«(Citizenship of the European Union – Handing down of surnames – Children of nationals of Member States – Dual nationality)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 22 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Full Court), 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Citizenship of the European Union – Treaty provisions – Scope ratione personae – National of one Member State lawfully residing on the territory of another Member State – Whether included – Effect – Benefit of rights attaching to the status of citizen of the Union – Persons concerned also nationals of the State of residence – Not relevant – Discrimination on grounds of nationality in regard to the rules governing the surname – Not permissible

(Arts 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC)

2.. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Minor children resident in a Member State and having dual nationality of that State and of another Member State – Application for a change of surname to enable those minor children to bear the surname to which they are entitled in the second Member State – Refusal of the administrative authority to grant that application – Not permissible

(Arts 12 EC and 17 EC)

1.

2.
Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02

Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

v

Kazimieras Viluckas and Ricardas Jonusas

(References for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Community Customs Code – Extent of the obligation as to presentation of goods arriving at customs – National legislation providing for an express declaration in respect of hidden goods at the time of presentation of goods at customs – Persons having brought in the goods and being under a duty to declare them – Concept of customs debtor)

Summary of the Judgment

Customs union – Creation of a customs debt following unlawful bringing in of goods – Extent of the obligation to present goods to customs – Inclusion of goods hidden in a vehicle without the knowledge even of its driver – Customs debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code – Concept

(Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, Article 4(19), Article 40 and the first indent of Article 202(3))

The presentation to customs of goods introduced into the Community, in terms of Article 4(19) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, concerns all goods, including those hidden in a secret compartment specially made for that purpose. The obligation to present goods as set out in Article 38 of the Code rests, as provided by Article 40 of the Code, with the driver and co-driver of a lorry who introduced the goods, even though the goods were hidden in the vehicle without their knowledge.

The person who has introduced goods into the customs territory of the Community without mentioning them in the notification of presentation to customs is a customs debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Customs Code, even if other persons can be declared debtors in respect of the same goods on the basis of the other provisions of that article.





(see paras 24, 29-30, operative part)
Case C-406/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Belgium





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC – Standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment)»

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

Summary of the Judgment
Joined Cases C-53/02 and C-217/02

Commune de Braine-le-Château and Michel Tillieut and Others

v

Région wallonne

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium))

(Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Waste – Management plans – Suitable sites and installations for waste disposal – Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposal sites)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Obligation on the competent authorities to draw up one or more waste management plans – Suitable disposal sites or installations – Obligation, for purposes of issuing a permit, to mark them on a geographical map or to determine location criteria which are sufficiently precise

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Council Directive 91/156, Arts 7 and 9)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Obligation on Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period – Scope

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 7(1) and Council Directive 91/156, Art. 2(1), first subpara.)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Failure to draw up within the prescribed period one or more waste management plans relating to suitable disposal sites or installations – Issue of individual operating permits – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Arts 4, 5, 7 and 9)

1. Article 7 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted to mean that the management plan or plans which the competent authorities of the Member States are required to draw up under that provision must include either a geographical map specifying the exact location of waste disposal sites or location criteria which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9 of the directive to determine whether the site or installation in question falls within the management framework provided for by the plan.

(see para. 35, operative part. 1)

2. Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period, which may go beyond the time-limit for transposing Directive 91/156 laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the latter.

(see para. 38, operative part 2)

3. Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, read in conjunction with Article 9 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State which has not adopted, within the period prescribed, one or more waste management plans relating to suitable sites or installations for waste disposal from issuing individual permits to operate such sites and installations.

(see para. 46, operative part 3)
Case C-49/02

Proceedings brought by Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht)

(Trade marks – Harmonisation of laws – Directive 89/104/EEC – Signs capable of constituting a trade mark – Combinations of colours – Colours blue and yellow for certain products used in the building trade)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Signs capable of constituting a trade mark – Colours or combinations of colours – Conditions – Requirement for the competent authority to examine the other conditions for registration – Scope of the examination

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 2 and 3)

Colours or combinations of colours which are the subject of an application for registration as a trade mark, claimed in the abstract, without contours, and in shades which are named in words by reference to a colour sample and specified according to an internationally recognised colour classification system may constitute a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the First Trade Marks Directive 89/104 where:

– it has been established that, in the context in which they are used, those colours or combinations of colours in fact represent a sign, and

– the application for registration includes a systematic arrangement associating the colours concerned in a predetermined and uniform way, as the mere juxtaposition of two or more colours, without shape or contours, or a reference to two or more colours ‘in every conceivable form’ does not exhibit the qualities of precision and uniformity required by Article 2 of the directive, and/or

– the colours or combinations of colours in question are capable of conveying precise information, particularly as regards the origin of a product or service.

Even if a combination of colours satisfies the requirements for constituting a trade mark for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, it is still necessary for the competent authority for registering trade marks to decide whether the combination claimed fulfils the other requirements laid down, particularly in Article 3 of the directive, for registration as a trade mark in relation to the goods or services of the undertaking which has applied for its registration. Such an examination must take account of all the relevant circumstances of the case, including any use which has been made of the sign in respect of which trade mark registration is sought. That examination must also take account of the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for other traders who market goods or services of the same type as those in respect of which registration is sought.

(see paras 34, 37, 42, operative part)
Case C-224/02

Heikki Antero Pusa

v

Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus)

(Citizenship of the Union – Article 18 EC – Right to move freely and to reside in the Member States – Attachment of remuneration – Detailed rules)

Summary of the Judgment

Citizenship of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States – National legislation calculating the attachable part of a pension by deducting from that pension the national tax prepayment levied in that State – Failure to take account of the tax which the holder of such a pension must pay on it in the Member State where he resides – Not permissible – National legislation requiring the debtor to prove that the tax has in fact been paid in the other Member State before it can be taken into account – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Art. 18 EC)

Community law in principle precludes legislation of a Member State under which the attachable part of a pension paid at regular intervals in that State to a debtor is calculated by deducting from that pension the income tax prepayment levied in that State, while the tax which the holder of such a pension must pay on it subsequently in the Member State where he resides is not taken into account at all for the purposes of calculating the attachable portion of that pension.

On the other hand, Community law does not preclude such national legislation if it provides for tax to be taken into account, where taking the tax into account is made subject to the condition that the debtor prove that he has in fact paid or is required to pay within a given period a specified amount as income tax in the Member State where he resides. However, that is only the case to the extent that, first, the right of the debtor concerned to have tax taken into account is clear from that legislation; secondly, the detailed rules for taking tax into account are such as to guarantee to the interested party the right to obtain an annual adjustment of the attachable portion of his pension to the same extent as if such a tax had been deducted at source in the Member State which enacted that legislation; and, thirdly, those detailed rules do not have the effect of making it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise that right.

(see paras 35, 48, operative part 1-2)
Case C-417/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Hellenic Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 85/384/EEC – Recognition of architects’ diplomas – Registration procedure with the Greek Technical Board (Technico Epimelitirio Elladas) – Obligation to provide a document stating that the evidence of formal qualifications concerned is covered by the system of mutual recognition)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the proceedings – Specification in the pre-litigation procedure – Purely formal amendment of the grounds for complaint after the issue of the reasoned opinion because of an amendment to national legislation – Permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Architects – Recognition of diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications – Obligation to provide a document attesting to compliance with the national provisions in question – Delayed processing by the national technical board of applications for registration of Community nationals not holding a national diploma – Not permissible

(Council Directive 85/384)

1. In an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, the Commission’s reasoned opinion and its action must be based on identical grounds for complaint. That requirement cannot, however, go so far as to make it necessary that in every event the national provisions mentioned in the reasoned opinion and in the application should be completely identical. Where a change in the legislation occurred between those two phases in the procedure, it is sufficient that the system established by the legislation contested in the pre-litigation procedure has as a whole been maintained by the new measures which were adopted by the Member State after the issue of the reasoned opinion and have been challenged in the application.

(see para. 17)

2. A Member State which adopts and retains in force provisions which, among the conditions for obtaining authorisation to pursue the profession of architect, lay down the obligation to submit a certificate issued by the competent authorities of the person’s Member State of origin or of the State from which he comes, attesting that the diplomas or other evidence of formal qualifications submitted correspond to those provided for by the national provisions at issue, and accepts that the national technical board, with which a person must be registered in order to pursue the profession of architect, carries out with significant delays the processing of the files and the registration of Community nationals holding foreign diplomas which ought to be recognised under Directive 85/384 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(see para. 18, operative part)
Case C-411/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Austria

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition – Directive 98/10/EC – Telecommunications – Concepts of ‘a basic level of itemised billing’ and ‘still more detailed presentation’)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications – Directive 98/10 – Obligation on Member States to provide for itemised billing – Legislation providing for billing which lists charges only according to the type of charge – Not permissible

(Directive 98/10 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 14(2))

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(2) of Directive 98/10 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment, by opting for billing which lists charges only according to the type of telephone charge and, consequently, is not sufficiently detailed to ensure effective verification and control by the consumer, as required by that provision.

Although that provision does not specifically indicate what information is required to appear on standard itemised bills, the directive lays down a minimum level of information which is dictated by the need to allow subscribers to verify and control the charges incurred in using the fixed public telephone network. However, a billing system which shows only the number of calls, the total number of tariff units used and the corresponding total price does not allow such verification and such control to be achieved.

(see paras 16, 19, 24, operative part)
Case C-55/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Portuguese Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC – Definition of ‘collective redundancy’ – Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies – Incomplete transposition)

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Definition of collective redundancy – Termination of contract of employment without the consent of the worker dependent on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will – Included

(Council Directive 98/59, Art. 1(1)(a))

The concept of ‘redundancy’, as mentioned in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, has meaning in Community law and may not be defined by any reference to the laws of the Member States. It has to be interpreted as including not only redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, but any termination of contract of employment not sought by the worker, and therefore without his consent. Therefore, termination of a contract of employment without the worker’s consent cannot escape the application of the directive just because it depends on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will. The objectives of the directive which is designed, inter alia, to strengthen the protection of workers in the case of collective redundancies would be attained only in part if such a termination of a contract of employment were to be excluded from the body of rules laid down by the directive.

(see paras 49-50, 52-53, 60, 66, operative part 1)