ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all 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 French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑321/08)

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

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

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of 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, 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

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;
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑427/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/100/EC – 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. 9)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/100, Art. 2) (see paras 10-11, operative part)

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

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 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 – Commission v Spain

(Case C‑266/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/81/EC – Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities – Failure to transpose completely – Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive

1. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

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 paras 14-16)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third‑country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Transports Schiocchet – Excursions v Commission

(Case C‑335/08 P)

Appeal – Action for damages – Regulations (EEC) Nos 517/72 and 684/92 – International carriage of passengers by coach and bus – Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability – Limitation period

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras. 30-31)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for a legislative act (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 32-35)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 in Case T-220/07 Transport Schiocchet v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible, on the ground of limitation, the action brought by the appellant seeking a declaration of non-contractual liability and compensation for harm sustained as a result of various illegal acts committed by the Community institutions – Conditions for bringing an action for damages – Concepts of regular service and special regular service within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for regular and special regular services by coach and bus between Member States (OJ English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 143), repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2009 – Commission v Austria

(Case C-477/08)

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

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. 8)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the 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 (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

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 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 – Commission v Germany

(Case C‑275/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/36/EEC – Public supply contracts – Supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration – Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Exercise of that right not dependent on a specific interest in bringing an action (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

2. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 89/665) (see paras 30-42)

3. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Derogations from common rules (Council Directive 93/36, Art. 6(2) and (3)) (see paras 54-56)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6, in conjunction with Article 9, of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) – Contract for the supply of a software application designed for motor vehicle registration concluded without contracting procedures between two bodies governed by public law responsible for data-processing on behalf of local authorities.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by reason of the fact that the Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg (Central Data Office of Baden-Württemberg) awarded a contract for the supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration by a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2010 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑571/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 95/59/EC – Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco – Article 9(1) – Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products – National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes – Justification – Protection of public health

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (Council Directive 95/59, Art. 9(1)) (see paras 39-40, 43, 47-52)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) – Fixing minimum prices – Approval of prices.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing for a minimum price for cigarettes, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-491/08)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – Site of Community importance – System of protection – Tourism complex ‘Is Arenas’

1. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 (Council Directive 92/43, Arts 3(1), and 4(1)) (see paras 30-31)

2. Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 (Council Directive 92/43, Art. 6(2)) (see paras 38-40, 42-43)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) – Sites of Community importance – Site ‘Is Arenas’ – Development of a golf course.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, having regard to the tourism and property complex ‘Is Arenas’ that affects the site ‘Is Arenas’;

– by failing to adopt, before 19 July 2006, the date on which the site ‘Is Arenas’ was included in the list of sites of Community importance, preservation measures that, having regard to the conservation aim of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, are suitable for the purpose of preserving the relevant ecological interest represented at national level by the proposed site of Community importance, and in particular by failing to prevent an activity likely seriously to endanger the ecological characteristics of the site; and

– by failing to adopt, after 19 July 2006, appropriate measures to prevent the deterioration of natural habitats in respect of which that site of Community importance was designated;

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/43 and, more specifically, with regard to the second plea in law, Article 6(2) thereof;
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. 11

)

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 Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/17/EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, procurement and testing of human tissues and cells, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 – Commission v Netherlands

(Case C-79/09)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 13 and 132 – Bodies governed by public law – Capacity as public authorities – Activities – Treatment as non-taxable persons – Exemptions – Socio-cultural, health and education sectors – ‘Euroregions’ – Promotion of work mobility – Making available of personnel – Burden of proof

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Subject-matter (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 21-24)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 132(1)(b), (g) and (i), and 134) (see paras 54, 60-64)

3. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable persons – Bodies governed by public law – Treatment as non-taxable persons in respect of activities in which they engage as public authorities (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 13, (1), first para. and second para.) (see paras 79, 82-84, 89, 91-95)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Articles 2(1)(c), 13, 24(1) and 132 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Making available of personnel in the health, education and socio-cultural sectors – Promotion of work mobility – Euroregion.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions and limits

(Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3))

Summary

Article 14(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances in which amounts corresponding to the aid in question have already been recovered, annulment for formal defects by the national court of assessments issued in order to recover the unlawful State aid, when it is possible to rectify that procedural defect under national law. That provision does, however, preclude those amounts being paid once again, even provisionally, to the beneficiary of that aid.

Article 14(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 reflects the requirements of the principle of effectiveness, according to which a Member State that, pursuant to a decision of the Commission, is obliged to recover unlawful aid is free to choose the means of fulfilling that obligation, provided that the measures chosen do not adversely affect the scope and effectiveness of Union law.

Review by the national court of the formal legality of an assessment issued for the recovery of unlawful State aid and possible annulment of the assessment on grounds of non-compliance with the formal requirements of national law must be viewed simply as an expression of the principle of effective judicial protection, which is a general principle of Union law. However, such annulment might, in principle, confer an advantage on a recipient of aid who has been successful in legal proceedings in the form of the right to claim, under national law, that sums corresponding to the previously-reimbursed aid be paid out to him once again. It is therefore necessary for national law to have the mechanisms necessary to ensure that annulment of an assessment will not automatically lead to immediate restoration of the amount reimbursed by the person liable in order to comply with the assessment. The competent authority must therefore be able to rectify the procedural defect vitiating those assessments, without being required to pay once again to the recipient of the unlawful aid, even provisionally, the sums reimbursed by the latter pursuant to that assessment.

(see paras 20-21, 25-27, 33, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – First Yaoundé Convention – General trade arrangements

(Art. 90 EC; First Yaoundé Convention of 20 July 1963, Art. 14)

2. International agreements – Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention – General trade arrangements

(Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention of 15 December 1989, Protocol No 5, Art. 1)

Summary

1. Article 14 of the Convention of Association between the European Economic Community and the African States and Madagascar associated with the Community, signed at Yaoundé on 20 July 1963, did not preclude a tax on bananas originating in Somalia. According to its wording, that provision simply imposes a prohibition on discriminatory taxation of like products, using terms resembling those in the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, and does not therefore relate to unlike products that are in competition with each other.

If the Community and the African States and Madagascar associated with the Community had intended to address the problem of the internal taxation of unlike products in competition with each other, instead of adopting a provision similar only to the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, they would have adopted a provision that was also modelled on the second paragraph of Article 90 EC.

(see paras 24-25, 37-38, operative part 1)

2. A national court is not required to examine the specific effects of increases of a tax on imports of bananas originating in Somalia by comparison with the situation before 1 April 1976, the date when the First ACP‑EEC Lomé Convention entered into force, in order to determine whether such increases are compatible with the standstill clause in Article 1 of Protocol No 5 on bananas annexed to the Fourth ACP‑EEC Lomé Convention.

Such increases lead to increases in the price of the bananas concerned and, accordingly, make it more difficult to sell them on the market in question. Accordingly, in order to examine such an increase from the perspective of the standstill clause, it is not normally necessary to examine the specific effects of the increase on imports.

However, increases of such a tax which simply adjust it to take account of inflation are not incompatible with that Article 1 of Protocol No 5.

(see paras 43, 45, 47, 48, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights –Directive 2002/22

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Art. 30(2))

Summary

Article 30(2) of Directive 2002/22 of the European Parliament and of the Council on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) is to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive. However, it retains the power to fix the maximum amount of that charge levied by operators at a level below the costs incurred by them, when a charge calculated only on the basis of those costs is liable to dissuade users from making use of the portability facility.

(see para. 28, operative part)