ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

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 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 71 of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Citizenship of the European Union – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope ratione personae

(Arts 17(1) EC and 18 EC)

2. Citizenship of the European Union – Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38

(Art. 18 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 27)

Summary

1. A national of a Member State who has been repatriated from another Member State enjoys the status of a citizen of the Union under Article 17(1) EC and may therefore rely on the right pertaining to that status, including against his Member state of origin, and in particular the right conferred by Article 18 EC to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. In that regard, the right of freedom of movement includes both the right for citizens of the European Union to enter a Member State other than the one of origin and the right to leave the State of origin. The fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty would be rendered meaningless if the Member State of origin could, without valid justification, prohibit its own nationals from leaving its territory in order to enter the territory of another Member State.

(see paras 17-18)

2. Articles 18 EC and 27 of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there, provided that the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it. It is for the national court to establish, on the basis of the matters of fact and law justifying the request for a restriction on the right to leave the first Member State whether that is so in the case before it.

A measure limiting the exercise of the right of free movement must be adopted in the light of considerations pertaining to the protection of public policy or public security in the Member State imposing the measure. Thus it cannot be based exclusively on reasons advanced by another Member State to justify a decision to remove a Community national from the territory of the latter State. That does not however rule out the possibility of such reasons being taken into account in the context of the assessment which the competent national authorities undertake for the purpose of adopting the measure restricting freedom of movement.

(see paras 25, 28, 30, operative part)
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. 7)

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. 8)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, with corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Incineration – Directive 2000/76

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 3(4) and (5)

2. Environment – Waste – Incineration – Directive 2000/76

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 3(4) and (5)

Summary

1. For the purposes of applying Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste, where a co-generation plant comprises a number of boilers, each boiler and its associated equipment is to be regarded as constituting a separate plant.

(see para. 33, operative part 1)

2. It is on the basis of its main purpose that a plant is to be classified as an ‘incineration plant’ or a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste. It is for the competent authorities to identify that purpose on the basis of an assessment of the facts existing at the time at which that assessment is carried out. In the context of such an assessment, account must be taken, in particular, of the volume of energy generated or material products produced by the plant in question in relation to the quantity of waste incinerated in that plant and the stability and continuity of that production.

(see para. 46, operative part 2)
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. 26)

2. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use – Application for inclusion of a medicinal product in the list of medicinal products covered by the national health insurance system (Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(1), first para.) (see paras 33-39)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) – National legislation on social security establishing a list of medicinal products covered by the health insurance system comprising three categories of medicinal products with different conditions for reimbursement – Failure to have set a time-limit as required by Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105/EEC for decisions relating to the inclusion of medicinal products in the most favourable categories.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to lay down a time-limit, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, for the adoption of decisions relating to applications for inclusion of medicinal products in the yellow or green categories of the medicinal products reimbursement code provided for by the general Law on social insurance (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz), as amended by the Law of 2003 amending social insurance (Sozialversicherungs-Änderungsgesetz 2003), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover – Common system of value added tax – Supply of services – Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes

(Council Directives 77/388, Art. 9(2)(e) and 2006/112, Art. 56(1)(c))

Summary

Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 1999/59, and Article 56(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, which determine the place where services are deemed to be supplied for value added tax purposes for services of consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, must be interpreted as meaning that where the customer for consultancy services supplied by a taxable person established in another Member State carries out both an economic activity and an activity which falls outside the scope of those directives, that customer is to be regarded as a taxable person even where the supply is used solely for the purposes of the latter activity.

That article does not specify whether it applies only if the taxable person receiving the supply of services uses those services for the purposes of his economic activity. Thus, unlike other provisions of the Sixth Directive, such as Articles 2(1) and 17(2), Article 9(2)(e) does not indicate that such a condition must be satisfied in order for it to apply.

In the absence of any express provision in Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive that the services supplied must be used for the purposes of the customer’s economic activity, it must be concluded that the fact that the customer uses those services for activities which fall outside the scope of the Sixth Directive does not preclude the application of that provision.

(see paras 28-33, operative part)
It is clear from the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities that there are differences between the administrative status, recruitment requirements and conditions of engagement of auxiliary staff and those of officials and temporary staff. It follows from those differences that auxiliary staff are not recruited to fulfil a permanent role within the Community institutions. On the contrary, the outstanding feature of contracts for auxiliary staff is their precariousness since they may be used only to provide a temporary replacement or to ensure the performance of administrative duties which are of a transitory nature or which fulfil an urgent need or which are not clearly defined. Auxiliary staff therefore constitute a separate category which meets separate requirements of the institutions which employ such staff.

(see paras 42, 48)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directive 92/51

(Council Directive 92/51, Arts 1(a), 3 and 4)

Summary

Articles 1(a), 3 and 4 of Directive 92/51 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under Article 3 of that directive, subject to the application of Article 4 of that directive, to recognise a diploma awarded by a competent authority in another Member State even though that diploma attests to education and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment.

First, Directive 92/51 does not contain any limitation as regards the Member State in which an applicant must have acquired his professional qualifications and, second, it is for the competent authorities awarding diplomas giving access to a regulated profession alone to verify, in the light of the rules applicable within the framework of their professional education and training system, whether the conditions necessary for their award are fulfilled, inter alia, those relating to the educational establishment in which the holder received his education and training. That interpretation does not cast doubt on the responsibility of the host Member State for the content of teaching and the organisation of the education system, since the diploma in question is covered, in the context of that directive, not by the host Member State’s education system but rather the education system of the Member State to which the competent authority which awarded the diploma belongs. It is, therefore, for that latter authority to ensure the quality of the training and education at issue.

Furthermore, the fact that a national of a Member State who wishes to pursue a regulated profession chooses to take up that profession in his preferred Member State cannot of itself constitute an abuse of the general system of recognition laid down by Directive 92/51, and the right of nationals of a Member State to choose the Member State in which they wish to acquire their professional qualifications is inherent in the exercise, in a single market, of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

(see paras 30-32, 34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy

–

Male and female workers

–

Equal pay (Art. 141 EC; Social Policy Agreement 1992, Art. 6(3)) (see paras 35-59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 141 EC – Infringement of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers – National legislation providing for a retirement age for public officials which varies according to sex.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions

–

Harmonisation of laws

–

Turnover taxes

–

Common system of value added tax

–

Obligations of persons liable for the tax (Art. 10 EC; Council Directives 77/388, Arts 2 and 22, and 2006/112, Arts 2(1)(a), (c) and (d), and 193 to 273) (see paras 34-37, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2 and 22 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), replaced, as from 1 January 2007, by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Obligations under domestic rules – National law which discontinues the monitoring of taxable transactions carried out during a series of tax periods.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by extending, by Article 2(44) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2004) (legge n. 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004)), to 2002 the tax amnesty provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)), and consequently providing generally and indiscriminately that the assessment of taxable transactions effected in the 2002 tax period is to be discontinued, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a), (c) and (d) and Articles 193 to 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, which as from 1 January 2007 replaced Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and under Article 10 EC;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship – Directive 91/533

(Council Directive 91/533, Art. 8(1))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship – Directive 91/533

(Council Directive 91/533, Art. 8(2), second para.)

3. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship – Directive 91/533

(Council Directive 91/533, Art. 8(2), second para.)

Summary

1. Article 8(1) of Directive 91/533 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship must be interpreted as meaning that it does not prohibit national rules which provide that a collective agreement which is intended to transpose the provisions of the directive into national law are to apply to an employee even though he is not a member of an organisation which is a party to that agreement.

(see para. 30, operative part 1)

2. The second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/533 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship must be interpreted as meaning that it does not prevent an employee who is not a member of a union which is a party to a collective agreement governing his employment relationship being regarded as ‘covered by’ that agreement within the meaning of the abovementioned provision.

(see para. 38, operative part 2)

3. The words ‘a temporary contract or employment relationship’ in the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/533 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship must be interpreted as referring to contracts and employment relationships entered into for a short period. If no norm has been laid down for that purpose in a Member State’s rules, it is for the national courts to determine the duration in each case in the light of the specific characteristics of certain sectors or certain occupations or activities. That duration must, however, be fixed so as to provide effective protection of the rights conferred on workers by the directive.

(see para. 54, operative part 3)
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)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (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 provisions necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing, for all calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, to make caller location information available, to the extent technically feasible, to the authorities handling emergencies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 76)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and supervise fishing activities in the light of the prohibition on drift nets for the capture of certain species, and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those responsible for infringements of the Community legislation on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998 and Articles 23(1) and (2), 24 and 25(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.