ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2007 – Commission v France

(Case C‑106/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/59/EC – Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues – Failure to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all ports

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. 16)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, 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

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to develop and implement, within the prescribed period, waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the French 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;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑150/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Late payment of own resources – Default interest payable – Accounting rules – ATA system

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Council Regulation No 1552/89, Arts 2, 6(2) and 10) (see paras 61-64)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 65-66, 68)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 6(2), 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) – Refusal to pay default interest in the case of late payment of own resources under the ATA system – Accounting rules.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by refusing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the default interest payable on account of the late payment of own resources under the ATA system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2) and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 – France v Council

(Case C‑479/07)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 – Definition of the concept of drift nets – ‘Thonaille’ – Duty to state reasons – Infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination

1. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Technical conservation measures – Prohibition on pelagic driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long (Council Regulation No 809/2007) (see paras 36-38, 43-45)

2. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 49-54)

3. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Technical conservation measures – Prohibition on pelagic driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long (Council Regulation No 809/2007) (see paras 63-70)

Re:

Action for annulment – Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June 2007 amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1) – Concept of ‘drift nets’ – Inclusion in that concept of stabilised nets such as the ‘thonaille’ – Infringement of the obligation to provide reasons and of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑292/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public procurement – Directive 2004/18/EC – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Incorrect or incomplete transposition – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC; Council Directive 2004/18) (see paras 68-70, 120, 122)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 100, 155, 166)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose or to transpose completely and/or correctly Article 1(2)(b), in conjunction with Annex I; the second sentence of Article 9(1); Article 9(8)(a)(i) and (iii); Article 23(2); Article 30(2) to (4); Article 31(1)(c); Article 38(1); point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 43; the second subparagraph of Article 44(2); Article 44(3) and (4); the first paragraph of Article 46; Article 48(2)(f); points (d) and (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 55(1); Article 55(3); the second and third subparagraphs of Article 67(2); the first paragraph of point (a) of Article 68; Article 72, and Article 74(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Request seeking to have a Member State ordered to take specific measures (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 8-10)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Doctors – Directive 93/16 (Council Directive 93/16, Arts 30, 31 and 36) (see operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1) – Specific training required to practise as a general practitioner.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/2003 which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Visas, asylum, immigration – Asylum policy – Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – Regulation No 343/2003

(Council Regulation No 343/2003, Art. 20(1)(d) and (2))

Summary

In a procedure to transfer an asylum seeker, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, that article must be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the requesting Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal, the period for implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending the implementation of the transfer procedure, but only as from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation. In the light of the objective pursued by setting a period for the Member States, the start of that period should be determined in such a manner as to allow the Member States a six-month period which they are deemed to require in full in order to determine the practical details for carrying out the transfer.

(see paras 44, 46, 53, 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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40) and Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes and Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded;

2. Orders the Czech Republic 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. 17

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) – Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Declares that, by failing to draw up an external emergency plan for all establishments subject to the provisions of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that Directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria 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. 11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system 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 within the prescribed period 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, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE 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 Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, Art. 4 and Annex II)

Summary

Article 4 of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as not requiring that a determination, that it is unnecessary to subject a project falling within Annex II to that directive to an environmental impact assessment, should itself contain the reasons for the competent authority’s decision that the latter was unnecessary. However, if an interested party so requests, the competent administrative authority is obliged to communicate to him the reasons for the determination or the relevant information and documents in response to the request made.

If a determination of a Member State not to subject a project falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive states the reasons on which it is based, that determination is sufficiently reasoned where the reasons which it contains, added to factors which have already been brought to the attention of interested parties, and supplemented by any necessary additional information that the competent national administration is required to provide to those interested parties at their request, can enable them to decide whether to appeal against that decision.

(see paras 61, 66, operative part 1-2)
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. 10)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (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 measures 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, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose Directive 2004/35/CE 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 Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria 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. 29)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Mere administrative practices insufficient (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 32)

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Tax exemptions for means of transport temporarily imported (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/112/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) – Incomplete definition of normal residence for the purpose of determining whether there is an entitlement to an exemption.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purpose of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

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

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market – Regulation No 1383/2003 – Action by the customs authorities

(Council Regulations No 40/94, Art. 146, No 1383/2003, Art. 5(4), and No 1992/2003)

Summary

Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, read in the light of Article 146 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Regulation (No) 1992/2003, is to be interpreted as allowing the holder of an internationally registered trade mark to secure action by the customs authorities of one or more other Member States, besides that of the Member State in which it is lodged, just like the proprietor of a Community trade mark.

Article 146(2) of Regulation No 40/94, as inserted by Regulation No 1992/2003, provides that the international registration of a trade mark designating the European Community is to have the same effect as the registration of a mark as a Community trade mark. The Community legislature thus meant, so far as their practical effects are concerned, to treat internationally registered marks as Community trade marks. Following the assimilation into Community trade marks of internationally registered trade marks, it must necessarily be accepted that, in conformity with the Community legislature’s intention in adopting Regulation No 1992/2003, the application of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1383/2003 may also be requested by the holder of an internationally registered trade mark.

(see paras 21-22, 25-26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social security for migrant workers – Invalidity benefits

(Art. 39 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 40(3)(b))

Summary

Article 39 EC must be interpreted as precluding application by the competent authorities of a Member State of national legislation which, in accordance with Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 647/2005, makes acquisition of the right to invalidity benefits subject to the condition that a period of primary incapacity of one year has elapsed, where such application has the result that a migrant worker has paid into the social security scheme of that Member State contributions on which there is no return and is therefore at a disadvantage by comparison with a non-migrant worker.

Application of such national legislation by the competent authorities is contrary to Community law, given that, firstly, it places a worker at a disadvantage in relation to those who are in the same situation of definitive incapacity to work but who have not exercised their right of freedom of movement and, secondly, it results in payment of social contributions on which there is no return.

(see paras 46, 50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Exhaustion of the right conferred by the mark – Placing of goods on the market directly in the European Economic Area by a third party with no economic link to the trade mark proprietor – Implied consent of the proprietor – Conditions

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(1))

Summary

Article 7(1) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), must be interpreted as meaning that the consent of the proprietor of a trade mark to the marketing of goods bearing that mark carried out directly in the EEA by a third party who has no economic link to that proprietor may be implied, in so far as such consent is to be inferred from facts and circumstances prior to, simultaneous with or subsequent to the placing of the goods on the market in that area which, in the view of the national court, unequivocally demonstrate that the proprietor has renounced his exclusive rights.

In order to ensure the protection of the rights conferred by the trade mark and to make possible the further marketing of goods bearing a trade mark without the proprietor of the trade mark’s being able to oppose that, it is essential that the proprietor should be able to control the first placing of those goods on the market in the EEA.

Therefore, the purely factual question whether the goods bearing the trade mark concerned were marketed for the first time within the EEA or outside it is not, as such, relevant for the purposes of the application of the exhaustion rule laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104.

In those circumstances, if the possibility of inferring from certain facts and circumstances the implied consent of the trade mark proprietor – within the meaning of Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss – were to be limited to only those cases in which the first marketing of the goods in question occurred outside the EEA, that would not be in accordance with either the wording or the objectives of Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104.

(see paras 32-35, operative part)