ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Direct award of a public service contract by a public authority to a company limited by shares with wholly public capital

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

It is not contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality or the obligation of transparency arising therefrom for a public service contract to be awarded directly to a company limited by shares with wholly public capital so long as the public authority which is the contracting authority exercises over that company control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and so long as the company carries out the essential part of its activities with the authority or authorities controlling it.

Without prejudice to the determination by the court making the reference of the effectiveness of the relevant provisions of the statutes, the control exercised over that company by the shareholder authorities may be regarded as similar to that which they exercise over their own departments when:

– that company’s activity is limited to the territory of those authorities and is carried on essentially for their benefit, and

– through the bodies established under the company’s statutes made up of representatives of those authorities, the latter exercise conclusive influence on both the strategic objectives of the company and on its significant decisions.

(see para. 90, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Member States – Agreements predating the EC Treaty

(Arts 57(2) EC, 59 EC, 60(1) EC and 307, second para., EC)

Summary

A Member State which fails to take appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities with the Treaty concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in bilateral investment agreements on the mutual promotion and protection of investments entered into by it with third countries fails to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC.

The second paragraph of Article 307 EC obliges the Member States to take all appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities with Community law which have been established in agreements concluded prior to their accession.

The provisions of Articles 57(2) EC, 59 EC and 60(1) EC confer on the Council the power to restrict, in certain specific circumstances, movements of capital and payments between the Member States and third countries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of those provisions, it must be possible for measures restricting the free movement of capital, where adopted by the Council, to be applied immediately with regard to the States to which they relate.

Where an agreement does not contain a provision allowing the Member State concerned to exercise its rights and to fulfil its obligations as a member of the Community and there is no international-law mechanism either to make that possible and that Member State has taken no steps, with respect to the third country concerned, to eliminate the risk of conflict to which the application of the agreement concerned may give rise with measures liable to be adopted by the Council pursuant to Articles 57(2) EC, 59 EC and 60(1) EC, and it does not put forward any mechanism which would enable it to fulfil its Community obligations, the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council in relation to the movement of capital might be hindered by the very existence of the bilateral agreements at issue and by the terms in which they are drafted.

(see paras 28-33, 49-50, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 – Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C‑117/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2005/28/EC – Principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use – Requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such medicinal products – 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. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products (OJ 2005 L 91, p.13).

Operative part

The Court:

By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 – Commission v Sweden

(Case C‑258/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/18/EC – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Non-transposition 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. 8)

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

The Court:

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;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑40/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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. 10)

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 adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 February 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑273/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/51/EC – Public procurement – Procedures for the award of contracts

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. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005, amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005, amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑32/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/84/EC – Copyright – Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p 32).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2008 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑392/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/19/EC – Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. 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. 7)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 2005 L 58, p. 19).

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 Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 June 2008 – Commission v France

(Case C‑507/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 –Industrial and commercial property – Community designs – Article 80(2) – Failure to communicate the list of courts and tribunals

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. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) – Failure to communicate the list, referred to in Article 80(2) of the regulation, of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not communicating to the Commission of the European Communities the list of Community design courts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 December 2008 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑84/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/51/EEC – Recognition of diplomas – Studies completed in an ‘independent study centre’ not recognised as an educational establishment by the host Member State – Optician

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council Directive 92/51, Arts 1(a) and 3) (see paras 27-28, 46, operative part)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council Directive 92/51, Art. 12) (see paras 35-37, 46, operative part)

3. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51 (Council Directive 92/51, Art. 4(1)(b), third subpara.) (see paras 43-46, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 3, 4(1)(b) and 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that the Hellenic Republic,

– by failing to recognise the opticians’ diplomas granted by the competent Italian authorities following training given under an agreement pursuant to which training given in Greece by a private body is homologated by those authorities;

– by making consideration of applications for recognition of Italian opticians’ diplomas subject to the provision, by the Italian authorities, of the answers to five questions previously sent to them by the Greek authorities; and

– by allowing applicants for recognition of Italian opticians’ diplomas, who applied before the entry into force of Law 2916/2001 on the structure of university or similar education and the regulation of questions on the technological sector of that education, no choice between an adaptation period and an aptitude test,

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, the third subparagraph of Article 4(1)(b) and Article 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2009 – Commission v Poland

(Case C‑492/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/21/EC – Electronic communications networks and services – Definition of subscriber

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Production of evidence showing failure – Incumbent on Member State concerned to refute evidence (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 17, 20)

2. Member States – Obligations – Supervisory tasks assigned to the Commission – Duty of the Member States – Cooperation in inquiries into whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations – Obligation to notify and supply information (Art. 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, Art. 28(3)) (see paras 17-19)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Article 2(k) 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 (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) – Definition of subscriber.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly 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 (Framework Directive) and in particular Article 2(k) thereof with reference to the definition of ‘subscriber’, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 – Commission v France

(Case C‑556/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Common Fisheries Policy – Regulation (EC) No 894/97 – Drift net – Meaning – ‘Thonaille’ fishing net – Prohibition on the fishing of certain species – Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93 and (EC) No 2371/2002 – Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure compliance with that prohibition

1. Fisheries – Conservation of the resources of the sea – Technical conservation measures (Council Regulation No 894/97, as amended by Regulation No 1239/98, Art. 11a) (see paras 48-69)

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 para. 76)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Common Fisheries Policy – Council Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) and (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59) – Acceptance by national authorities of the ‘thonaille’ notwithstanding the Community prohibition on drag nets of a length greater than or equal to 2.5 km – Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure compliance with that prohibition.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and supervise fishing activities in the light of the prohibition on drift nets for the capture of certain species, and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those responsible for infringements of the Community legislation on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) 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 2846/98 of 17 December 1998 and Articles 23(1) and (2), 24 and 25(1) and (2) 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;
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. 10)

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 para. 10)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures 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

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 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 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

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. 7)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania – Directive 2006/100 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/10) (see paras 6-10)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

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 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 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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