ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Commission v France

(Case C‑220/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/22/EC – Electronic communications – Designation of the undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service – Incorrect transposition

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Arts 8(2), 12 and 13, and Annex IV) (see paras 30-34, 45-46)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incorrect transposition [of Articles 8, 12 and 13] of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Obligation to use an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory mechanism to designate undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service – National legislation excluding a priori economic operators which are not capable of ensuring the provision of that service throughout the national territory.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by transposing into national law in the manner in which it did so the provisions concerning the designation of the undertakings capable of guaranteeing the provision of universal service, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(2), 12 and 13 of and Annex IV to Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’);
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑480/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/59/EC – Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues – Failure to have developed, implemented or approved waste reception and handling plans for all ports

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (Art. 249 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 17, 21-23)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of 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 (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81) – Failure to have developed and/or implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports under the jurisdiction of the ‘Comunidades Autónomas’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to develop, implement and approve waste reception and handling plans for all Spanish ports, the Kingdom of Spain 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;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 4(6))

2. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 4(6))

Summary

1. Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, which authorises the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where the requested person ‘is staying in, or is a national or a resident of, the executing Member State’, and where that State undertakes to execute that sentence in accordance with its domestic law, must be interpreted as meaning that a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence.

Since the objective of the Framework Decision is to put in place a system of surrender, as between judicial authorities, of convicted persons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of criminal proceedings, based on the principle of mutual recognition – a surrender which the executing judicial authority can oppose only on one of the grounds for refusal provided for by the Framework Decision – the terms ‘staying’ and ‘resident’, which determine the scope of Article 4(6), must be defined uniformly, since they concern autonomous concepts of Union law. Therefore, in their national law transposing Article 4(6), the Member States are not entitled to give those terms a broader meaning than that which derives from such a uniform interpretation.

(see paras 43, 46, 54, operative part)

2. In order to ascertain, when interpreting Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of that provision, which authorises the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where the requested person is staying in the executing Member State, it is for that authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.

(see paras 48, 54, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EC-Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons – Access to self-employed activity and the exercise thereof

(EC-Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons, Annex I, Arts 13 and 15(1))

Summary

Pursuant to Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, a contracting party must accord to the ‘self-employed frontier workers’, within the meaning of Article 13 of that annex, of the other contracting party no less favourable treatment as regards access to self‑employed activity and the pursuit thereof in the host State than that which is accorded by that State to its own nationals.

(see para. 49, 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. 24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 28) – Failure to designate the authorities responsible for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP);

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).

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 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
With regard to advertising services, where the recipient of the services is established outside the European Community, the place of supply is, as a rule, according to Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Tenth Directive 84/386, defined as the place where that recipient has his principal place of business. However, the Member States may exercise the option provided in Article 9(3)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended, and define the place where the services in question are supplied, by way of derogation from that rule, as being within the Member State concerned. If that option is exercised, advertising services provided by a supplier established in the European Community to a customer situated in a non-Member state, whether that customer is the final customer or an intermediate customer, are deemed to be supplied within the European Community, provided that the effective use and enjoyment of the services, within the meaning of Article 9(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, take place within the Member State concerned. That is the case, with regard to advertising services, where the advertising material being supplied is disseminated from the Member State concerned.

However, advertising services provided by a supplier established outside the European Community for his own clients cannot be liable to VAT under Article 9(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, even where that supplier acted in the capacity of intermediate customer in respect of an earlier supply of services, since such a supply of services does not fall within the scope of Article 9(2)(e) of that directive or, in more general terms, Article 9 of the directive as a whole, those being provisions which are expressly referred to in Article 9(3)(b) of that directive.

Whether a tax representative is appointed does not, of itself, have any effect on whether the services received or provided by the represented person are liable to VAT, since the sole purpose of the system of representation is to enable the tax authorities to have an intermediary at national level where the taxable person is established abroad.

(see paras 27-29, 33, 34, 38, 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. 11

)

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 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

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

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 43(1))

Summary

Like the first paragraph of Article 36 and that of Article 40 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a creditor of a debtor cannot lodge an appeal against a decision on a request for a declaration of enforceability if he has not formally appeared as a party in the proceedings in which another creditor of that debtor applied for that declaration of enforceability.

In both cases, the enforcement procedure provided for constitutes an autonomous and complete system, independent of the national legal systems, including the matter of appeals. The rules relating to it must be interpreted strictly. The case-law on Articles 36 and 40 of the Convention is applicable to Article 43 of Regulation No 44/2001.

(see paras 23-24, 27, 30-31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Single payment scheme

(Council Regulations No 1254/1999, Art. 23(1), and No 1782/2003, Art. 37(1); Commission Regulation No 795/2004, Art. 3a)

Summary

Article 3a of Regulation No 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that reductions and exclusions based on Regulation No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal are not to be taken into account in the calculation provided for in Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003.

Article 3a of Regulation No 795/2004 expressly provides, in regard to the calculation of the reference amount, that the number of animals for which a direct payment ‘has been or should have been granted’ is to be taken into consideration. It follows that, for the purposes of calculating the reference amount referred to in Article 37(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, it is not necessary that the direct payment in question should actually have been made to the farmer. It is also apparent from the wording of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1254/1999 that the consequence of the application of a penalty is to exclude the producer, irrespective of the number of animals concerned, from receiving the payments granted on the basis of that regulation. Such a penalty cannot therefore affect the determination of the number of animals to be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the abovementioned reference amount. That interpretation is, in addition, in accordance with the wish of the Community legislature not to perpetuate penalties to the detriment of farmers beyond the initial penalty.

(see paras 33-36, 47, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Scope – Excluded matters – Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art.1 (2)(b))

Summary

The exception provided for in Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation 44/2001on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying to a judgment of a court of Member State A regarding registration of ownership of shares in a company having its registered office in Member State A, according to which the transfer of those shares was to be regarded as invalid on the ground that the court of Member State A did not recognise the powers of a liquidator from a Member State B in the context of insolvency proceedings conducted and closed in Member State B.

The action which gave rise to such a decision derives directly from insolvency proceedings and is closely linked to them. First, the link between the court action and the insolvency proceedings is particularly close since the dispute concerns solely the ownership of the shares which were transferred in insolvency proceedings by a liquidator on the basis of provisions, such as those enacted under the legislation of Member State B on insolvency proceedings, which derogate from the general rules of private law and, in particular, from property law. Thus, the transfer of the shares and the action for restitution of title to which it gave rise are the direct and indissociable consequence of the exercise by the liquidator – an individual who intervenes only after the insolvency proceedings have been opened – of a power which he derives specifically from the provisions of national law governing insolvency proceedings. Second, the content and the scope of the decision declaring the transfer to be invalid are intimately linked to the conduct of the insolvency proceedings since the ground on which the transfer was held invalid relates, specifically and exclusively, to the extent of the powers of that liquidator in insolvency proceedings.

(see paras 25-28, 30-31, 33, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 2 and 5(3))

Summary

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning the damage caused to an undertaking by the delivery of a contaminated chemical product which rendered unusable the fertiliser that the undertaking produces from a number of raw materials and by the processing of that product, the words ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ designate the place where the initial damage occurred as a result of the normal use of the product for the purpose for which it was intended.

Article 5(3) covers not only the place of the event giving rise to the damage but also the place where the damage occurred, such as the factory of an undertaking in which that undertaking processed a defective product causing material damage to the processed product suffered by the undertaking, going beyond the damage inherent in the product itself. In that connection, taking account of the place where the damage occurred, other than the place of the event giving rise to the damage, enables the court which is most appropriate to deal with the case to take jurisdiction, in particular on the grounds of proximity and ease of taking evidence. By contrast, to decide in favour only of the place of the event giving rise to the damage would, in a significant number of cases, cause confusion between the heads of jurisdiction laid down by Articles 2 and 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, with the result that the latter provision would, to that extent, lose its effectiveness.

(see paras 23-24, 29-32, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing correctly to apply Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants in relation to the operation of the Phase One steam plant of the Delimara and Marsa power stations, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 12 of that directive in conjunction with Part A of Annex IV, Part A of Annex VI, Part A of Annex VII and Part A.2 of Annex VIII thereto;

2. Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.