ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/11

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

(Case C-75/08) (1)

(Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Obligation to make public the reasons for a determination not to make a project subject to an assessment)

2009/C 153/22

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor

Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Obligation to make available to the public reasons for a decision not to subject a project falling within the classes listed in Annex II to the directive to an assessment

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, 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.

2. If a determination of a Member State not to subject a project, falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 as amended by Directive 2003/35, 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 which 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.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/19

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-321/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 141/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/23

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-427/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 180/38

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Michelogiannaki, agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/16

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-322/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 153/30

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: S. Johannesson, acting as Agent)

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 of the judgment

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 failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/13

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-567/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 205/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted or notified, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, 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.

(1) OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/22

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-417/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage - Failure to transpose)

2009/C 180/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.-A. Gilly and U. Wölker, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures 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 of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt 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 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive.

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

(1) OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-165/08) (1)

(Genetically modified organisms - Seed - Prohibition on placing on the market - Prohibition on inclusion in the national catalogue of varieties - Directives 2001/18/EC and 2002/53/EC - Reliance on ethical and religious grounds - Burden of proof)

2009/C 220/16

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) and of Articles 4(4) and 16 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting the marketing of seed derived from genetically modified varieties and the registration of such varieties in the national catalogue of varieties

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by prohibiting the free circulation of genetically modified seed varieties and the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue of varieties, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and under Articles 4(4) and 16 of Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission.

4. Orders the Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 220/9

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Gilbert Snauwaert, Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA, Coldstar NV, Dirk Vlaeminck, Jeroen Den Haerynck, Ann De Wintere (C-124/08), Géry Deschaumes (C-125/08) v Belgische Staat

(Joined Cases C-124/08 and C-125/08) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Customs debt - Amount of duty - Communication to the debtor - Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings)

2009/C 220/14

Language of the cases: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Gilbert Snauwaert, Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA, Coldstar NV, Dirk Vlaeminck, Jeroen Den Haerynck, Ann De Wintere (C124/08), Géry Deschaumes (C-125/08)

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 221(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (version in force in 1992) (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Whether or not the amount of the duty owed must be entered in the accounts before being communicated to the debtor — Limitation period — Customs fraud — Finding of joint and several liability

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of import or export duty due may be validly communicated to the debtor by the customs authorities, in accordance with appropriate procedures, only if the amount of that duty has been entered in the accounts beforehand by those authorities.

2. Article 221(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may, after the expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred, validly communicate to the debtor the amount of duty legally due, where the exact amount of that duty could not be determined by those authorities as a result of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. That includes cases where the debtor has not committed that act.

(1) OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/20

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht (Germany)) — Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha) v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-206/08) (1)

(Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Public service for the distribution of drinking water and the treatment of sewage - Service concession - Definition - Transfer to the supplier of the risk connected with operating the service in question)

2009/C 267/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha)

Defendant: Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH

Intervening parties: Stadtwirtschaft Gotha GmbH, Wasserverband Lausitz Betriebsführungs GmbH (WAL)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) and 1(3)(b) of 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) — Call for bids for the provision, in the form of a public service concession, of a service to the public in respect of the production, transport and distribution of drinking water and in respect of the disposal and treatment of sewage — Criteria for distinguishing a public service contract from a public service concession

Operative part of the judgment

In relation to a contract for the supply of services, the fact that the supplier does not receive consideration directly from the contracting authority, but is entitled to collect payment under private law from third parties, is sufficient for the contract in question to be categorised as a ‘service concession’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of 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, where the supplier assumes all, or at least a significant share, of the operating risk faced by the contracting authority, even if that risk is, from the outset, very limited on account of the detailed rules of public law governing that service.

(1) OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 267/19

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

(Case C-199/08) (1)

(Legal expenses insurance - Directive 87/344/EEC - Article 4(1) - Right of insured persons to choose their own lawyer - Contractual limitation - Multiple insured persons suffering loss as a result of the same event - Selection of the legal representative by the insurer)

2009/C 267/32

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr. Erhard Eschig

Defendant: UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 4(1), of Council Directive 87/344/EEC on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77) — Clause contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance of a legal expenses insurer enabling it, in the case of an accident in which a large number of insured persons suffer losses as a result of the same event, to choose a legal representative, and thereby limiting the right of the individual insured person to choose his own lawyer (‘mass torts clause’).

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance must be interpreted as not permitting the legal expenses insurer to reserve the right, where a large number of insured persons suffer loss as a result of the same event, itself to select the legal representative of all the insured persons concerned.

(1) OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-232/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 - Article 29(2) - Restrictions on fishing for plaice - Maximum engine power of fishing vessels - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Article 2(1) - Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 - Article 23 - Control, and enforcement of the rules)

2009/C 297/08

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and K. Banks, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Grave and C. Wissels, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy — Fishing for plaice — Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities — Responsibility of the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005;

2. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.