ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑327/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/14/EC – Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the internal order – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

2. Action 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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part:

By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, within the period prescribed, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑204/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 78/686/EEC – Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications – Practitioners of dentistry – Measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services – Failure to transpose 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. 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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑364/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2002/15/EC – Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑141/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/65/EC – Financial services – Distance marketing – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, as regards financial services other than private insurance, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, as regards financial services other than private insurance, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑317/06)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/14/EC – Informing and consulting employees in the European Community – 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. 6)

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the period prescribed the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community – Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by not having adopted, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑392/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/15/EC – Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

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. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

Operative part:

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

29 November 2007

Case C-9/06 P

Tomás Salazar Brier

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 in Case T-83/03 Salazar Brier v Commission [2005] ECR‑SC I‑A‑311 and II‑1407, seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State. For the same reason, activity in the service of a publicly owned company falling within one of the categories of commercial undertakings cannot be considered to be work done for a State.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

6 December 2007

Case C-59/06 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeals – Officials – Employment in a non-Member State – Reassignment of post and post holder – Duty to respect the rights of the defence – Scope – Burden of proof)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑365 and II‑1621, by which that Court dismissed the action of the appellant seeking annulment of the Commission decision reassigning the appellant’s post at the delegation of the Commission in Luanda (Angola) to the Commission’s headquarters in Brussels and a claim for damages.

Held: the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission is set aside. The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials – Principles– Rights of the defence– Scope–Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a decision involving his reassignment against his wishes – Burden of proof
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 adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending 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 Article 3 of that directive;

2. The Czech Republic 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. 11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

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 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium 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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative 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, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden 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. 8

)

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 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 58).

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive.

2. The French Republic 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)

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 the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

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 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 9-10)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 14)

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 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

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 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework agreement on part-time work

(Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clause 5(1)(a))

Summary

Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Directive 97/81 concerning that framework agreement must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires that copies of part-time employment contracts be sent to the authorities within 30 days of their signature.

The combination of that administrative formality and a system of penalties which provides for imposition of a fine in respect of each employment contract in question and in respect of each day of late notification of the contract, with no ceiling to limit the total amount of the fine, acts to discourage employers from making use of part-time work.

In addition, because of the cost and the associated penalties, the obligation to notify the authorities of part-time contracts risks particularly affecting small and medium-sized undertakings which, not having the same resources as larger undertakings, may consequently be inclined to avoid that form of organisation of work, namely part-time work, which it is the aim of Directive 97/81 to promote.

(see paras 27-30, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Protection of public policy, public security and public health (Art. 39(3) EC) (see paras 11-12, operative part)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Posts in the public service – Meaning (Art. 39(4) EC) (see paras 14, 18, operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 39(4) EC – Freedom of movement for workers – Exercise of public power – Requirement of French nationality for the pursuit of employment as master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag – Incompatible with Community law.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation a requirement of French nationality for access to the posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.