ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Construction products – Directive 89/106

(Art. 249 EC; Council Directive 89/106, Art. 13(4); Commission Decision 1999/93, Arts 2 to 4 and Annexes II and III)

Summary

An individual cannot rely, in the context of legal proceedings against another individual concerning contractual liability, on the infringement by the latter of Articles 2 and 3 of, and Annexes II and III to, Decision 1999/93 on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware.

Decision 1999/93 was adopted on the basis of Article 13(4) of Directive 89/106 and is addressed to the Member States. It is an act of general application which specifies the types of attestation of conformity procedures that are applicable, respectively, to doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building hardware and which authorises the European Committee for Standardisation (‘CEN/Cenelec’) to specify the content of those procedures in the relevant harmonised standards, which will then be transposed by the standardisation bodies of each Member State. In accordance with Article 249 EC, Decision 1999/93 is binding only upon the Member States, which, under Article 4 of that decision, are the sole addressees.

(see paras 21-22 , operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Authorisation to market

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 6)

Summary

Anthroposophic medicinal products may be marketed only on condition that they have been authorised under one of the procedures referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

(see para. 43, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings

Summary

Combined cards designed to be inserted into portable computers which, because they have a modem function, can be used for data exchange over external networks, must, after 1 January 1996, be classified as data-processing machines under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, contained in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 3009/95.

They fulfil the three conditions laid down by Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature since they are used solely when inserted in portable computers, they work only if they are connected to that type of computer and are capable of converting incoming signals into data usable by an automatic data-processing machine and outgoing signals into data usable externally, whether they are transmitted across a local network (LAN) or an external network (WAN).

Such cards do not perform a ‘specific function’ within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature. The ‘specific function’ performed by a machine working with an automatic data-processing machine must be a function ‘other than data-processing’. Since the combined cards are designed to transfer data between a number of computers and, in order to do so, render incoming external signals comprehensible to the computer and transform outgoing signals processed by it into signals usable externally, regardless of whether the signal received or emitted is analogue or digital, the function which they perform consists of data-processing.

(see paras 22, 25, 30, 32, operative part)
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. Acts of the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 12)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 13-14)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – 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 implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Finland.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the Republic of Finland 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 Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Registration of a trade mark refused or trade mark declared invalid – Conflict with an earlier trade mark well known in a Member State

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 4(2)(d))

Summary

Article 4(2)(d) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the earlier trade mark must be well known throughout the territory of the Member State of registration or in a substantial part of it.

In the absence of a precise definition to that effect, a trade mark cannot be required to be well known ‘throughout’ the territory of the Member State and it is sufficient for it to be well known in a substantial part of it. However, the customary meaning of the words used in the expression ‘in a Member State’ preclude it from being applied to a situation where the fact of being well known is limited to a city and to its surrounding area which, together, do not constitute a substantial part of the Member State.

(see paras 17-18, 20, operative part)
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)

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

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. 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.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Operative part

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 .

2. 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.

3. Orders Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 226 CE) (see paras 24-25)

Subject of the case

Re:

Action for failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and (3)(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Option for Member States to retain provisions derogating from the principle of immediate deduction

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17, 18(4), and 28(3)(d))

Summary

Articles 17 and 18(4) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes are to be interpreted as not precluding national measures which are designed to accompany the abolition of a national derogating provision authorised by Article 28(3)(d) of the same directive, in so far as the national court verifies that, in its application to the specific case before it, those measures reduce the effects of the national derogating provision.

Firstly, Article 28(3)(d) of the Sixth Directive is one of the derogations from the common system of VAT provided for by that directive, in the sense that it permits Member States to continue to retain some provisions of their national law which predate that directive and which derogate from the principle of immediate deduction provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 18(2) of the Sixth Directive. Secondly, Article 28(3)(d) of the Sixth Directive, whilst it precludes the introduction of new exemptions or an extension of the scope of existing exemptions following the entry into force of the Sixth Directive, does not prevent a reduction in their scope, given the transitional nature of the derogation for which it provides.

Moreover, a different interpretation of one of the derogations provided for by the Sixth Directive, to the effect that a Member State may maintain an existing exemption but may not abolish it gradually, would be contrary to the objective pursued by that directive, which aims to abolish the derogations therefrom. Likewise, such an interpretation would undermine the uniform application of the Sixth Directive, in that a Member State might find itself compelled to maintain all the exemptions existing at the date of the entry into force of that directive, even if it regarded it as possible, appropriate and desirable progressively to implement the system provided for therein in the field in question.

(see paras 33-34, 37, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer – Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, Art. 3, first para., and 10(a))

Summary

The first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987, relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an extra‑judicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.

(see para. 44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Directive 2001/29 – Electronic commerce – Directive 2000/31 – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector – Directive 2002/58 – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Directive 2004/48 – Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)

(TRIPs Agreement, Arts 41, 42 and 47; European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2002/58 and 2004/48)

Summary

Directive 2000/31 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (Directive on electronic commerce), Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and Directive 2002/58 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) do not require the Member States to lay down an obligation to communicate personal data in order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil proceedings, in a situation in which a non-profit-making organisation of producers and publishers of musical and audiovisual recordings has brought proceedings seeking an order that a provider of internet access services disclose to the organisation the identities and physical addresses of certain subscribers, so as to enable civil proceedings to be brought for infringement of copyright.

Similarly, as to Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement), in the light of which Community law must as far as possible be interpreted where it regulates a field to which that agreement applies, while they require the effective protection of intellectual property rights and the institution of judicial remedies for their enforcement, they do not contain provisions which require those directives to be interpreted as compelling the Member States to lay down an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings.

However, Community law requires that, when transposing those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives, the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of proportionality.

(see paras 60, 70, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Member States under an obligation to provide for review procedures in respect of decisions awarding contracts

(Council Directive 89/665, Arts 2(1)(a) and (b), and 6, second para.)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 92/50, where its legislation fails to provide for a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of a contract to all the tenderers or to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion.

The combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 are to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages. Moreover, the complete legal protection which must accordingly be ensured before the conclusion of the contract pursuant to Article 2(1) of the directive presupposes, in particular, the duty to inform the tenderers of the award decision before the conclusion of the contract so that they may have a real possibility of initiating review proceedings. That same protection requires provision to be made for the unsuccessful tenderer to examine in sufficient time the question of whether the decision to award is valid. In the light of the need to guarantee the effectiveness of Directive 89/665, the objective of which is to ensure that unlawful decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible, it follows that a reasonable period must pass between the moment when the award decision is communicated to the unsuccessful tenderers and the conclusion of the contract in order to allow them, inter alia, to bring an application for interim measures until the conclusion of the contract.

(see paras 37‑39, 44, 58, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002

(Council Regulation No 1493/1999, Art. 47(2)(c) and Annex VII, point B(1)(b), fifth indent, and (3); Commission Regulation No 753/2002, Arts 6(1) and 23)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002

(Commission Regulation No 753/2002, Art. 24(2)(a), and Annex III)

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Designation and presentation of wines – Regulations Nos 1493/1999 and 753/2002

(Commission Regulation No 753/2002, Art. 24(2) and Annex III)

Summary

1. Article 47(2)(c) of Regulation No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, in conjunction with point (B)(3) of Annex VII thereto and Article 6(1) of Regulation No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Regulation No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, as amended by Regulation No 1512/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a particular relating to the production or ageing method or the quality of a wine may be permitted under those provisions only if there is no risk that it will mislead the persons to whom it is addressed by creating confusion between that particular and the other traditional terms referred to in the fifth indent of point (B)(1)(b) of Annex VII to Regulation No 1493/1999 and Article 23 of Regulation No 753/2002. It is for the national court to assess whether the terms in issue in the main proceedings are likely to give rise to such a risk.

(see paras 28-29, 31-32, operative part 1)

2. Article 24(2)(a) of Regulation No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Regulation No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, as amended by Regulation No 1512/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that there may be imitation or evocation of a traditional term within the meaning of that provision where that term is translated into a language other than that in which that term is given in Annex III to that regulation, if that translation is likely to cause confusion or to mislead the persons to whom it is addressed. It is for the national court to examine whether that is the case in the dispute before it.

(see paras 39, 43-44, operative part 2)

3. Article 24(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Regulation No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, as amended by Regulation No 1512/2005, is to be interpreted as meaning that a traditional term listed in Annex III to that regulation is protected both with regard to wines of the same category or categories from the same producer Member State as that traditional term and with regard to wines of the same category or categories from other producer Member States.

(see paras 53, 55-56, 58, operative part 3)