ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 April 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑417/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/36/EC – Safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States –Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 10)

3. 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. 12)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76).

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 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that by maintaining provisions under which the age at which officials have the right to receive the old-age pension varies according to whether they are men or women, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑530/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisance – Urban waste water treatment – Articles 3 and 4

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 paras 25, 54)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 29)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Production of evidence showing failure (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 32)

4. Environment – Urban waste-water treatment – Directive 91/271 – Implementation by Member States – Obligation to achieve a result – Failure to satisfy that obligation – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 91/271, Arts 3 and 4) (see para. 55)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to provide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the agglomerations of Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde and Santa Cita with collection systems, and by failing to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of that directive, the urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alverca, Bacio do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Nazaré/Famalicão, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real de Santo António, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

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

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Inheritance tax

(Arts 56 EC and 58 EC)

Summary

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which – as regards the assessment of inheritance tax payable by an heir who is resident in that Member State in respect of capital claims against a financial institution in another Member State – does not provide for inheritance tax paid in that other Member State to be credited against inheritance tax payable in the first Member State where the person whose estate is being administered was, at the time of death, resident in the first Member State.

That fiscal disadvantage is the result of the exercise in parallel by the two Member States concerned of their fiscal sovereignty, which is demonstrated by the fact that one State has decided to make capital claims subject to domestic inheritance tax where the creditor is resident in that Member State, while the other has decided to make such claims subject to domestic inheritance tax where the debtor is established in that other Member State. Community law, in the current stage of its development and in a situation that concerns the payment of inheritance tax, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community. It follows from this that, in the current stage of the development of Community law, the Member States enjoy a certain autonomy in this area provided they comply with Community law, and are not obliged therefore to adapt their own tax systems to the different systems of tax of the other Member States in order, inter alia, to eliminate the double taxation arising from the exercise in parallel by those Member States of their fiscal sovereignty and, in consequence thereof, to allow the inheritance tax paid in a Member State other than that in which the heir is resident to be deducted.

These considerations are not liable to be affected by the fact that national legislation lays down more favourable offsetting rules where the person whose estate is being administered was, at the time of death, residing in another Member State, since that difference in treatment, as regards the inheritance of a person who was not resident at the time of death, arises equally from the choice by the Member State concerned – made pursuant to the exercise of its fiscal sovereignty – of the place of residence of the creditor as a connecting criterion for the purposes of establishing the ‘foreign’ nature of the estate and, therefore, for the ability to offset inheritance tax paid in another Member State.

(see paras 28, 30-32, 34, 36, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Gateway, Inc. to pay the costs.
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. 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)

Subject of the case

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

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;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Variable refund

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 3(5), 11(1) and 47(1) and (2))

Summary

Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 495/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a differentiated refund, the differentiated part of the refund is requested not at the time of presentation of the application provided for in Article 47(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 or of the documents relating to payment of the refund provided for in Article 47(2) of that regulation, but as soon as the document referred to in Article 3(5) of the regulation is presented. The inclusion in that document of information capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable and which is found to be incorrect gives rise, as a result, subject to the cases laid down in the third and seventh subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of that regulation, to the imposition of the penalty prescribed in the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1).

(see para. 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374

(Council Directive 85/374, Arts 9 and 13)

Summary

Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted to mean that it does not preclude the interpretation of domestic law or the application of settled domestic case-law according to which an injured person can seek compensation for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose, where the injured person simply proves the damage, the defect in the product and the causal link between that defect and the damage.

Compensation for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that use is not covered by the scope of application of Directive 85/374.

As the harmonisation brought about by that directive does not cover compensation for damage to an item of property intended for professional use and employed for that purpose, that directive does not prevent a Member State from providing in that respect for a system of liability corresponding to that established by that directive.

(see paras 28, 31-32, operative part)
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. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to communicate, within the prescribed period, the information required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57) – Information relating to national projections concerning greenhouse gas emissions and measures adopted to limit and/or reduce such emissions.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate, by 15 March 2007, the information required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78

(Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 1, 2 and 6)

Summary

Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in order not to treat general education less favourably than vocational education and to promote the integration of young apprentices into the labour market, excludes periods of employment completed before the age of 18 from being taken into account for the purpose of determining the incremental step at which contractual public servants of a Member State are graded.

Even if aims of that kind must, in principle, be considered to justify objectively and reasonably, within the context of national law, as provided in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78, a difference in treatment on the ground of age prescribed by Member States, such legislation cannot, however, be regarded as appropriate for achieving those aims within the meaning of that provision. The criterion of the age at which the vocational experience was acquired does not appear appropriate for achieving the aim of not treating general education less favourably than vocational education, as that criterion applies irrespective of the type of education pursued. As regards the aim of promoting integration into the labour market of young people who have pursued a vocational education, such national legislation, since it does not take into account people’s age at the time of their recruitment, is not appropriate for the purposes of promoting the entry into the labour market of a category of workers defined by their youth.

(see paras 43, 48-51, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Active matrix liquid crystal devices of a certain type

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I; Commission Regulation No 1789/2003)

Summary

Subheading 8528 21 90 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1789/2003, must be interpreted as not applying, as at 29 December 2004, to active matrix liquid crystal devices (LCD) principally made up of the following elements:

– two glass plates;

– a layer of liquid crystal inserted between the two plates;

– vertical and horizontal signal drivers;

– backlight;

– inverter providing high-voltage power for backlight;

– control block – data transmission interface (control PCB or PWB) to ensure sequential transmission of data to each pixel (dot) of the LCD unit using specific technology – LVDS (low-voltage differential signalling).

Since their end use depends on the additional parts added to them during the next stage of manufacture, such devices do not have the essential character of the complete or finished article, for the purposes of subheading 8528 21 90 of the Combined Nomenclature.

However, those devices may, as parts which can be used in apparatus coming under heading 8528, be classified under heading 8529 of the Combined Nomenclature (‘Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of headings 8525 to 8528’) and more specifically under subheading 8529 90 81 thereof. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those devices have the objective characteristics and properties necessary to be regarded as parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of headings 8525 to 8528 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(see paras 27-32, operative part)
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, within the prescribed period, the measures 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), which repeals Directive 89/49/EEC (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting 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 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
The Court does not have jurisdiction, under Article 234 EC, to rule on a possible infringement, by a contracting Member State, of provisions of bilateral conventions entered into by the Member States designed to eliminate or to mitigate the negative effects of the coexistence of national tax regimes. Nor may the Court examine the relationship between a national measure and the provisions of a double taxation convention, since that question does not fall within the scope of the interpretation of Community law.

In so far as Community law, in its current state, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Community, Article 56 EC does not preclude a bilateral tax convention under which dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a shareholder residing in another Member State are liable to be taxed in both Member States, and which does not provide that the Member State in which the shareholder resides is unconditionally obliged to prevent the resulting juridical double taxation.

The dividends distributed by a company established in one Member State to a shareholder residing in another Member State are liable to be subject to judicial double taxation where the two Member States choose to exercise their tax competence and to subject those dividends to taxation in the hands of the shareholder. The disadavantages which could arise from the parallel exercise of tax competences by different Member States, to the extent that such an exercise is not discriminatory, do not constitute restrictions prohibited by the Treaty.

In a situation where both the Member State in which the dividends are paid and the Member State in which the shareholder resides are liable to tax those dividends, to consider that it is necessarily for the Member State of residence to prevent that double taxation would amount to granting a priority with respect to the taxation of that type of income to the Member State in which the dividends are paid. Although such an attribution of powers would comply, in particular, with the rules of international legal practice as reflected in the model tax convention on income and on capital drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it is not in dispute that Community law, in its current state and in such a situation, does not lay down any general criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the Community. Consequently, if a Member State cannot rely on a bilateral convention in order to avoid the obligations imposed on it by the Treaty, the fact that both the Member State in which the dividends are paid and the Member State in which the shareholder resides are liable to tax those dividends does not mean that the Member State of residence is obliged, under Community law, to prevent the disadvantages which could arise from the exercise of competence thus attributed by the two Member States.

(see paras 26, 27, 32-35, operative part)
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. 8

)

Subject of the case

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

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;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Visas, asylum, immigration – Crossing of the external borders of the Member States – Common rules on standards and procedures for border controls – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement – Community Code on movement across borders – Unlawful stay of an individual in the territory of a Member State – Obligation on that Member State to adopt an expulsion order – None

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, as amended by Regulation No 2133/2004, Arts 6b and 23; European Parliament and Council Directive 562/2006, Art. 11)

Summary

Articles 6b and 23 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement as amended by Regulation No 2133/2004 on the requirement for the competent authorities of the Member States to stamp systematically the travel documents of third‑country nationals when they cross the external borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement and the common manual to this end, and Article 11 of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national is unlawfully present on the territory of a Member State because he or she does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the conditions of duration of stay applicable there, that Member State is not obliged to adopt a decision to expel that person.

(see para. 66, operative part)