ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Oral procedure – Reopening

(Art. 222, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 61)

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Directive 2002/37

(Council Directive 91/414, Annexes I and II; Commission Directive 2002/37, Art. 4(1))

Summary

1. The Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties. However, it is not necessary to reopen the oral procedure pursuant to that provision every time the Advocate General raises a point of law that has not been debated by the parties. Although, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 222 EC, it is the duty of the Advocate General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice, require the Advocate General’s involvement and although, in carrying out that task, the Advocate General may, where appropriate, analyse a reference for a preliminary ruling by placing it in a context broader than that strictly defined by the national court or the parties to the main proceedings, the Court is not bound either by the Advocate General’s Opinion or by the reasoning which led to that view to be formed.

(see paras 33-34)

2. Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/37 amending Directive 91/414 to include ethofumesate as an active substance must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to terminate, before 1 September 2003, the authorisation of a plant protection product containing ethofumesate on the ground that the holder of that authorisation does not hold, or have access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

Although that provision requires Member States, first, to review authorisations previously granted for each plant protection product containing ethofumesate, in order to ensure that the conditions relating to that active substance, as set out in Annex I to Directive 91/414, are complied with and, second, to amend or, if necessary, to withdraw those authorisations, in accordance with that directive, before 1 September 2003, there is nothing in its wording to suggest that the holders of existing authorisations must, for the purposes of the review of those authorisations, hold, or have access to, a dossier satisfying the requirements set out in Annex II. That is the only interpretation that is compatible with the principle of legal certainty, in accordance with which Community legislation must enable those concerned to acquaint themselves with the precise extent of the obligations it imposes upon them.

(see paras 44-45, 50, 55, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 41)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Application initiating proceedings – Statement of subject-matter and pleas in law – Formal requirements – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Art. 226 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see para. 47)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38) – Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation – Requirement of a Greek road transport authorisation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for granting – Compliance with Community legislation on the welfare of live bovine animals during transport

(Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, Annex, points 48.4(d), 48.5 and 48.7(a) and (b))

Summary

Point 48.7(a) of the Annex to Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport as amended by Directive 95/29 is to be interpreted as defining the general provisions applicable to transport by sea, including transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the European Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals, with the exception, so far as that type of vessel is concerned, of rest periods given to the animals after unloading, which are provided for in point 48.7(b) of that annex.

In accordance with that latter provision, whether there is a connection between the periods of transport by road preceding and following a period of transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the European Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals depends on whether or not the maximum duration of 28 hours of travel on a roll‑on/roll-off ferry referred to in point 48.4(d) of the annex to Directive 91/628 has been exceeded.

Where the duration of transport by roll-on/roll-off ferry on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals is less than the maximum duration of 28 hours, a period of transport by road can begin immediately after the animals are unloaded at the port of destination. In order to calculate the duration of that period, the duration of the period of transport by road which preceded transport by roll‑on/roll-off ferry should be taken into account, unless a rest period of at least 24 hours, in application of point 48.5 of the annex to Directive 91/628, has neutralised the period of transport by road preceding the transport by sea. It is for the national court to ascertain whether, in the dispute in the main proceedings, the journey at issue meets the abovementioned conditions.

(see para. 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Air transport – Establishment of common rules in the field of civil aviation security – Regulation No 622/2003 – Annex

(Art. 254(2) EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2320/2002, Arts 4(2) and 8; Commission Regulation No 622/2003, Annex)

Summary

The annex to Regulation No 622/2003 laying down measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security, as amended by Regulation No 68/2004, which was not published in the Official Journal of the European Union , has no binding force in so far as it seeks to impose obligations on individuals. In particular, the measures adapting the list of articles prohibited in the security restricted areas and on board an aircraft attached as an annex to Regulation No 2320/2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security, in so far as they are set out in the annex to Regulation No 622/2003, cannot be enforced against individuals.

In that regard, it is evident from the very wording of the provisions of Article 254(2) EC that a Community regulation cannot take effect in law unless it has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union .

Moreover, an act adopted by a Community institution cannot be enforced against natural and legal persons in a Member State before they have the opportunity to make themselves acquainted with it by its proper publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . In particular, the principle of legal certainly requires that Community rules enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which are imposed on them. Individuals must be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly.

The measures for the adaptation of the list of prohibited articles attached as an annex to Regulation No 2320/2002 must in any event be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in so far as they seek to impose obligations on individuals. The issue of whether those measures and the rules they concern directly impose obligations on individuals, or oblige the Member States to do so, is irrelevant in this connection. In both cases the measures must be published in the Official Journal.

In addition, Regulation No 2320/2002, specifically Article 4(2) thereof, does not grant the Commission, in the exercise of its power of implementation under that provision, any legal basis for applying the rules on confidentiality laid down in Article 8 of that regulation to the measures for the adaptation of the list of prohibited articles attached as an annex to Regulation No 2320/2002. It follows that, if Regulation No 622/2003 had in fact made adaptations to that list of prohibited articles, that regulation would, for that reason, have to be held invalid.

(see paras 42-44, 59-63, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-100/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/66/EC – Energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on national considerations – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (OJ 2003 L 170, p. 10).

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 Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 February 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑324/06)

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2004/116/EC – Inclusion of the yeast Candida guilliermondii in Annex I to Directive 82/471/EEC – Failure to adopt necessary measures

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. 13)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii (OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001, amending Council Directive 89/655/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) regarding Burgenland and the Land of Carinthia, and with regard to the Land of Lower Austria, by not, at the very least, informing the Commission of the European Communities of those provisions within that period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑465/06)

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

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑381/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/14/EC – Informing and consulting employees – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all 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

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all 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, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 October 2007 – Greece v Commission

(Case C‑332/06 P)

Appeal – EAGGF – Exclusion of expenditure from financing owing to failure to comply with Community rules

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 729/70, as amended by Regulation No 1287/95, Art. 5(2)(c), fifth para., and No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)(a); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1), first para.) (see paras 46-48, 52)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see para. 59)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Greece v Commission by which the Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2004) 1706) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48).

Operative part:

The Court:

Dismisses the appeal;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

29 November 2007

Case C-7/06 P

Beatriz Salvador García

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-205/02 Salvador García v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑285 and II‑1311, 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 (Eighth Chamber)

24 January 2008

Case C-211/06 P

Herta Adam

v

Commission of the European Communities

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

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T‑342/04 Adam v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-23 and II-A-2-107, dismissing an action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 2 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Adam is ordered to pay the costs.





Summary

Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Work done for another State or an international organisation

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑503/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 79/409/EEC – Conservation of wild birds – Derogations from the system of protection of wild birds – Region of Liguria

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 22-23)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9) (see para. 24)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Commission v France

(Case C‑226/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/391/EEC – Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work – Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) – Defective transposition

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (Council Directive 89/391, Arts 9(1)(c), 10(1) and (3)(b), 13(2)(a), (c), (e) and (f)) (see paras 44-46, 48-54, 58)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 10(1), and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;