ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Article 44 of Regulation No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems is not applicable to a refusal to credit child-raising periods for the purpose of an old-age pension adopted before the entry into force of Regulation No 987/2009. By Article 97 of that regulation, the legislature fixed the entry into force of that regulation at 1 May 2010 and there is nothing in the recitals in the preamble thereto or any other provision of that regulation which can be construed as meaning that Article 44 thereof is to take effect from a point in time before that measure was published. On the contrary, it is apparent from Article 87(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, which applies to situations governed by Regulation No 987/2009 pursuant to Article 93 of that regulation, that it does not give rise to any entitlement for the period prior to the date of its application, namely 1 May 2010.

In a situation where a person temporarily established his or her residence in a Member State other than his or her Member State of origin, Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it requires the competent institution of the Member State of origin, for the purposes of granting an old-age pension, to take account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State as though those periods had been completed on its national territory by a person who pursued employed or self-employed activity only in that first Member State and who, at the time of the birth of his or her child, had temporarily stopped working and had, solely on family-related grounds, established his or her place of residence in the territory of the second Member State.

National legislation which does not provide for such an obligation places some of its nationals at a disadvantage simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State and thereby gives rise to inequality of treatment, contrary to the principles which underpin the status of citizen of the Union, that is, the guarantee of the same treatment in law in the exercise of the citizen’s freedom to move.

(see paras 42, 45 and operative part)
Directive 91/440 on the development of the community’s railways as amended by Directive 2001/12 and Directive 2001/14 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the buying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58 do not require railways to be privatised. Consequently, the incumbent rail operator may remain public.

However, Directive 91/440 and Directive 2001/12 lay down the need to ensure that railway transport undertakings, whether private or public, are given a status independent of the State, and freedom to manage their internal affairs. While it is true that Article 5(3) of Directive 91/440 allows the Member States to lay down general policy guidelines, the fact remains that, in order to meet the objective of management independence of railway transport undertakings, the State must not exercise any influence over the individual decisions made by those undertakings concerning the transfer or acquisition of assets.

Therefore, a Member State whose national legislation makes any individual decision concerning the transfer or acquisition of shares of companies subject to government approval, and thereby subjects such an undertaking to external political control which does not correspond in any way to the procedures and means of action and control available to shareholders a share company under private law, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Directive 91/440.

(see paras 33, 37-39)
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-19/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulations (EC) Nos 273/2004 and 111/2005 – Drug precursors – Control and monitoring within the Union –Monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries – Penalties

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. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 273/2004, Art 12; Council Regulation No 111/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1) and Art. 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the national measures necessary for the implementation, first, of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and, secondly, of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those regulations;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Obligation — Duty to implement the Commission Decision immediately and effectively (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 27, 36)

2. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Application of national law — Conditions — Implementation of a procedure enabling the immediate and effective execution of the Commission decision (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 28, 29)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid — Duty to recover the aid granted — Reference period — Period fixed by the unimplemented decision or, subsequently, by the Commission (Arts 108(2)(2) TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 30, 31)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have taken, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on aid C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA (notified under number C(2008) 3118) (OJ 2008 L 225, p. 104).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary in order to implement Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on aid C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA, and by failing to provide the information listed in Article 19 of that decision to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 19 of that decision;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Commission v Spain

(Case C-375/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2007/36/EC – Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see paras 10-11)

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. 258 TFEU) (see para. 20)

3. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see point 21)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 thereof;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 – Union Investment Privatfond v OHIM

(Case C-308/10 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 74(2) – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Failure to take account thereof – Discretion of the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Taking into account – Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 42-43)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 in Case T‑392/06 Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM – Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito , by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the holder of the national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO for goods and services in Classes 35 and 36 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the appellant’s opposition to registration of the Community figurative mark unibanco for goods in Classes 36 and 38 – Misinterpretation of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Discretion of the Board of Appeal in respect of evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 – Commission v Greece

(Case C-601/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC – Public service contracts – Additional land registry and town planning services – Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Acknowledgement of its failure by the Member State concerned – No effect (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 28)

2. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directives 92/50 and 2004/18 – Derogations from common rules – Restrictive interpretation – Existence of exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 31(4)(a); Council Directive 92/50, Art. 11(3)(e)) (see paras 32-33)

3. 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. 258 TFEU) (see para. 40)

4. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 41)

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 8 and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and of Articles 20 and 31(4) of 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) – Award of a contract without prior publication of a contract notice – Contract relating to additional land-registry and town-planning services – Municipalities of Vasilika, Kassandra, Egnatia and Arethousa.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by awarding, by means of a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, public contracts for additional land registry and town planning services which do not appear in the initial contract concluded by the municipalities of Vasilika, Kassandra, Egnatia and Arethousa, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 11(3) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1997, and Articles 20 and 31(4) of 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;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2011 – Commission v Italy

(Case C-379/10)

Failure to fulfil obligations – General principle that Member States are liable for the infringement of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance – Exclusion of any liability on the part of the Member State for an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by a court adjudicating at last instance – Limitation by the national legislature of the Member State’s liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct committed by such a court

Union law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Conditions in the case of infringement ascribable to a supreme court – Whether the infringement is obvious – National legislation under which liability is incurred only in cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct – Unlawful (see paras 40-42, 46, 48 and operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the general principle that Member States are liable for the infringement of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance – Liability limited to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by excluding all liability of the Italian State for damage caused to individuals through an infringement of European Union law on the part of a court adjudicating at last instance when that infringement results from an interpretation of the rules of law or an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court and

– by limiting that liability to cases of intentional fault or serious misconduct,

pursuant to Article 2(1) and (2) of Law No 117 on the reparation of damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges [legge n. 117 (sul) risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell’ esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità civile dei magistrati], of 13 April 1988 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the general principle that Member States are liable for the infringement of European Union law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 – Commission v France

(Case C-624/10)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Taxation – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 – Legislation of a Member State obliging a seller or provider established outside the national territory to designate a tax representative and to identify himself for VAT purposes in that Member State – Legislation allowing deductible VAT paid by the seller or provider established outside the national territory to be offset against the VAT collected by him in the name and for the account of his customers

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Persons liable to pay the tax – Derogations from a national reverse charge system – National legislation requiring of a seller or provider established outside the Member State concerned the designation of a tax representative and identification for value added tax purposes in that Member State – Legislation additionally authorising that seller or provider to offset the deductible tax paid against that collected in the name and for the account of its customers – Failure to fulfil obligations (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214) (see paras 39, 42, 46, 50)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – National legislation imposing the designation of a tax representative by a seller or provider established outside the national territory – Duty of identification for VAT purposes – Nature and extent of the right to deduct.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing in Title IV of Administrative Instruction 3 A-9-06 No 105 of 23 June 2006 for an administrative concession derogating from a value added tax reverse charge scheme and necessitating, among other things, the designation of a tax representative by a seller or provider established outside France, the identification of that seller or provider for value added tax purposes in France and the offsetting of the deductible value added tax that he has paid against that which he has collected in the name and on behalf of his or her customers, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and, in particular, Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214 thereof;
1.

The provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) and of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty of 20 December 1996 are applicable in the legal order of the European Union. As the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, adopted at Rome on 26 October 1961, does not form part of the legal order of the European Union it is not applicable there; however, it has indirect effects within the European Union. Individuals may not rely directly either on that convention or on the agreement or the treaty mentioned above. The concept of ‘communication to the public’ which appears in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property and Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted in the light of the equivalent concepts contained in the convention, the agreement and the treaty mentioned above and in such a way that it is compatible with those agreements, taking account of the context in which those concepts are found and the purpose of the relevant provisions of the agreements as regards intellectual property.
15

Article 81 of the concrete regulations, entitled ‘Warranty levels and quality labelling’, is worded as follows: ‘For products and production processes to comply with the basic requirements set out in these regulations they must meet a set of specifications to a sufficient guaranteed level. [Producing States] may, in respect of their products and processes, introduce a warranty level higher than the minimum requirement, by adopting systems (such as, for example, labels of quality) which guarantee, by means of relevant audits, inspections and tests, that their quality systems and production controls meet the requirements necessary for such labels to be awarded. Such additional warranty levels which are higher than the legal minimum levels can be demonstrated by any of the following procedures: (a) by obtaining a label of quality officially recognised in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex 19 to these regulations; or (b) in the case of products manufactured on site or processes carried out on site, by an equivalent system validated and supervised under the responsibility of the Dirección Facultativa which ensures that warranties equivalent to those required under Annex 19 for officially recognised labels of quality are provided. These regulations contemplate the application of certain special criteria for acceptance of those products and processes which offer a higher level of warranty vouched for using either of the two procedures referred to in the previous paragraph. Acceptance control may take into account warranties associated with possession of a quality label, provided that this satisfies certain conditions. Thus, in the case of both production processes and products which do not require the EC mark under Directive 89/106/EEC, these regulations permit certain special criteria to be applied to approval when these bear a label of quality of a voluntary nature which is officially recognised by an authoritative body with competence in the field of construction or public works forming part of the public authorities of any Member State of the European Union or of any State which is a signatory to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The provisions of the previous paragraph shall also apply to construction products lawfully manufactured or marketed in a State which has a customs Association Agreement with the European Union provided that the agreement accords such products the same treatment as those manufactured or marketed in a Member State of the European Union. In these cases the level of equivalence shall be determined by applying the procedures set out in the abovementioned Directive. For the purposes of complying with the basic requirements of these regulations, quality labelling must satisfy the conditions for official recognition set out in Annex 19 …’