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

(Case C‑339/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/116/EC – Annex to Directive 82/471/EEC – Animal feed – Candida guilliermondii – 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 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

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, 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 Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Declares that by not having adopted within the prescribed period the legislative, regulatory and administrative 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, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑440/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisance – Treatment of urban waste water – Articles 3 and 4

1. 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)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 27-28)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) – Failure to have ensured appropriate treatment of urban waste water in 24 agglomerations.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to ensure that the agglomerations of Artemida, Chrysoupoli, Igoumenitsa, Heraklion (Crete), Katerini, Koropi, Lefkimmi, Litochoro (Prieria), Malia, Markopoulo, Megara, Nea Kidonia (Crete), Navpaktos, Nea Makri, Parikia (Paros), Poros-Galatas, Rafina, Thessaloniki (tourist zone), Tripoli, Zakynthos, Alexandria (Imathia), Edessa and Kalymnos are, where appropriate, provided with collecting systems for urban waste water meeting the requirements of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water and/or urban waste water treatment systems satisfying the requirements of Article 4 of that directive, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission

(Case C‑176/06 P)

Appeal – Aid allegedly granted by the German authorities to nuclear power stations – Provisions for closure of power stations and disposal of radioactive waste – Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance – Absolute bar

1. Appeals – Grounds – Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance – Absolute bar for non-compliance with the condition laid down by Article 230, fourth para., EC – Examination of Court’s own motion (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56) (see para. 18)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para. , EC) (see paras 19-25, 28-31)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission in which the Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear power stations for the purpose of disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC – Obligation of the Commission to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC where there are difficulties of assessment or doubts

Operative part

The Court:

Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission.

Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought by Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by the operators of nuclear power stations for the purpose of the safe disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑528/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/98/EC – Re-use of public sector information – Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period

1. 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)

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

The Court:

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;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2008 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑522/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 – Substances that deplete the ozone layer – Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of those substances

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. 19)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) – Articles 16(5) and 17(1) – Failure to adopt measures defining the minimum qualification requirements for personnel responsible for recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances referred to in Article 2 of the regulation and contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump equipment, fire protection systems and fire extinguishers – Failure to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and absence of checks on the possible presence of leakages.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that:

– by failing to define the minimum qualification requirements for certain members of personnel working in recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances in accordance with Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and

– in respect of the Walloon Region, by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances and by failing to carry out annual checks to establish the presence of leakages in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 2037/2000,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of that regulation;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 – Degussa v Commission

(Case C-266/06 P)

Appeal – Competition – Cartel – Market in methionine – Fine – Regulation No 17 – Article 15(2) – Nulla poena sine lege – Distortion of the facts – Principle of proportionality – Principle of equal treatment

1. Community law – General legal principles – Legal certainty – Nulla poena sine lege – Scope (see paras 38-40, 44-46)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 50-62)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 72-74, 86, 94)

4. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the appraisal at first instance of the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Not included – Whether it may review that appraisal on the ground that the principle of non-discrimination was infringed – Included (Art. 81(1), EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 95, 114)

5. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether lawful – Conditions (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58, first para.) (see paras 102-103)

6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Need to distinguish between the undertakings involved in the same infringement according to their total turnover – None (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, para. 1A, fifth subpara.) (see paras 119-123)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission , in which that Court dismissed in part the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 1) – Cartel concerning the market in methionine – Requirements of the principle of nulla poena sine lege in relation to the system of fines laid down by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH to bear the costs;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 – CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission

(Case C-497/06 P)

Appeal – Non-contractual liability – Tendering procedure – Payment in kind – Payment of the tenderers in fruits other than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender – Causal link

1. Procedure – Res judicata – Judgment of the Court finding that the applicant has standing to bring an action for annulment of a Commission decision – Decision treated by the Court as an act adversely affecting a party (see paras 33-35)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury – Causal link – Cumulative conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 39-40)

3. Non-contractual liability – Unlawful conduct of the institutions – Commission decision amending a condition for the award of a contract (Art. 288, second para, EC) (see paras 60-66)

4. European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Expenses incurred by a tenderer – Right to compensation – None – Exception – Infringement of Community law (see paras 81-82)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2006 in Case T‑226/01 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission , by which that Court dismissed the action for compensation for the alleged loss caused by Commission Decisions C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and C(96)2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted within the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85).

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 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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 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 Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16

)

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 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to 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;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

2. 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. 12)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of goods

–

Quantitative restrictions

–

Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 26, 28, 32, 35, 38-39, 43, 46-48, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 28 EC –National rule making the registration of second-hand vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State subject to the submission of an excerpt from the entry on the commercial register of the vehicle’s seller, whereas vehicles previously registered in Luxembourg are not subject to such a requirement – Obstacle to the free movement of goods – Lack of justification and proportionality.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Structural reform – Improving the efficiency of agricultural structures

(Council Regulation No 950/97, Arts 17 and 18)

Summary

Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation No 950/97 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures confer on Member States the right to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer who fulfils the conditions laid down in those articles. However, those articles do not preclude a Member State from refusing payment of such an allowance where that farmer is in receipt of a pension, in particular, a length-of-service pension.

(see para. 23, operative part)