ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by failing to make applications for Review of Mineral Planning lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Measures for the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market in electricity – Directive 2003/54 – Organisation of access to networks

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54, Art. 23(2)(a))

Summary

A Member State which fails to make the regulatory authorities responsible for approving, in advance, at least the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for access to national networks, including transmission and distribution tariffs in accordance with Article 23(2)(a) of Directive 2003/54 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92, fails to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Even if the transposition or the interpretation put forward by a Member State serves, or better serves, certain aims pursued by that directive, that Member State may not disregard the provisions expressly laid down in that directive. In order to comply with the requirements of Directive 2003/54, a Member State cannot merely apply a system in which review of the methodology used to establish, inter alia, the electricity transmission and distribution tariffs is carried out a posteriori, even if that review were as effective as a system of prior review, since the directive expressly provides for use of a system of prior approval and does not allow the Member States the possibility of applying a different system. It is apparent from the very wording of Article 23(2)(a) of that directive that, firstly, the national regulatory authorities are to fix or approve, before their entry into force, at least the methodologies used to calculate or establish the terms and conditions for connection and access to national networks, including transmission and distribution tariffs, and, secondly, that those tariffs or methodologies must allow the necessary investments in the networks to be carried out in a manner allowing these investments to ensure the viability of the networks. Accordingly, the objective of the directive can be achieved only by the establishment of precise tariffs or of elements of a methodology of tariff calculation of a level of precision such as to allow economic operators to estimate their cost of access to the transmission and distribution networks.

(see paras 33-34, 37, 40, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Action in respect of an administrative practice contrary to Community law – Whether permissible – Conditions (Arts 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 21-22, 26-28, 58)

2. Protection of public health – Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption – Member States obliged to provide the suitable infrastructure and to adopt all measures necessary in order to comply with those rules – Obligation of result (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1774/2002, Arts 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26) (see paras 34-37, 48-49, 56-59, 66, 68)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 4(2), 5(2), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1) – Burial of animal by-products without prior treatment – Lack of official controls.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not correctly applying and imposing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, in so far as it regards burial in landfills without prior treatment, lack of official controls, authorisation of plants for the management of animal by-products and incineration of specified risk materials, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2)(a) and (c), 5(2)(c), 6(2)(b), 10 to 15, 17, 18 and 26 of Regulation No 1774/2002;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Origin of goods – Determination

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 24)

2. Origin of goods – Determination – Substantial process or operation

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 24)

Summary

1. When interpreting Article 24 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, the courts of the Member States may have recourse to criteria resulting from the list rules drawn up by the Commission with the aim of defining the terms in Article 24 thereof, and contributing to the determination of the non-preferential origin of goods, provided that that does not result in an alteration of that article. Those list rules, which do not have binding legal force, must have a content compatible with the rules of origin as set out in Article 24 thereof and may not alter the scope thereof.

(see paras 13, 20-23)

2. For the purpose of determining the origin of goods classified under heading 7312 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 1719/2005, ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, may cover not only such processing or working as leads to the goods which have undergone the process being classified under a different heading of the Combined Nomenclature, but also such processing or working as results, without such a change of heading, in the creation of a product with properties and a composition of its own which it did not have before the process.

In the interpretation of the term ‘substantial processing or working’ in Article 24 of the Customs Code, the application of a single criterion, namely that of a change of tariff heading of a product, without any indication of the specific processing or working undergone by those goods, is liable to restrict the scope of that article. That criterion is not based on a real and objective distinction between the basic product and the processed product or on the specific material qualities of each of those products, and does not take account of the specific processing or working which resulted in the manufacture of the processed product. Although it constitutes an indication of the substantial nature of the processing or working of the product and it covers most situations, that criterion does not in itself enable all the situations in which the processing or working of the goods is substantial to be identified.

(see paras 33-37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Customs union – Arising of a customs debt on importation following removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duty – Concept of removal

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 203(1); Commission Regulations No 2454/93, Art. 865, first para., and No 1677/98)

2. Customs union – Customs declarations – Post-clearance examination – Application for revision – Obligations of the customs authorities

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 78)

Summary

1. The use in the export declarations of customs code 10 00 indicating the export of Community goods, instead of code 31 51 used for goods for which duties are suspended under the inward processing procedure, gives rise to a customs debt pursuant to Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and the first paragraph of Article 865 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1677/98.

The purpose of the use of the customs code indicating the re-export of goods under the inward processing procedure is to ensure effective monitoring by the customs authorities and to give them the power to identify, solely on the basis of the customs declaration, the status of the goods concerned without the need for subsequent assessments and findings. That use seeks, in particular, to permit the customs authorities to decide at the last minute to carry out a customs check pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Customs Code, namely, to check whether the re-exported goods in fact correspond to the goods placed under the inward processing procedure. Consequently, when, in an individual case, the use of customs code 10 00 in the export declarations erroneously conferred the status of Community goods on the goods concerned and therefore directly affected the ability of the customs authorities to carry out controls pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Customs Code, the use of those codes must be classified as ‘removal’ of those goods from customs supervision, a removal incurring a customs debt.

(see paras 44-47, operative part 1)

2. Article 78 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code permits the revision of the export declaration of the goods in order to correct the customs procedure code given to them by the declarant, and the customs authorities are obliged, first, to assess whether the provisions governing the customs procedure concerned have been applied on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information and whether the objectives of the inward processing regime have not been threatened, in particular in that the goods subject to that customs procedure have actually been re-exported, and, second, where appropriate, to take the measures necessary to regularise the situation, taking account of the new information available to them.

(see para. 65, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 17 EC)

2. Citizens of the European Union – Provisions of the Treaty – Nationality of a Member State

(Art. 17 EC)

Summary

1. The situation of a citizen of the European Union who is faced with a decision withdrawing his naturalisation, adopted by the authorities of one Member State, and placing him, after he has lost the nationality of another Member State that he originally possessed, in a position capable of causing him to lose the status conferred by Article 17 EC and the rights attaching thereto falls, by reason of its nature and its consequences, within the ambit of European Union law.

(see para. 42)

2. It is not contrary to European Union law, in particular to Article 17 EC, for a Member State to withdraw from a citizen of the Union the nationality of that State acquired by naturalisation when that nationality was obtained by deception, on condition that the decision to withdraw observes the principle of proportionality.

A decision withdrawing naturalisation because of deception corresponds to a reason relating to the public interest. In this regard, it is legitimate for a Member State to wish to protect the special relationship of solidarity and good faith between it and its nationals and also the reciprocity of rights and duties, which form the bedrock of the bond of nationality. That consideration on the legitimacy, in principle, of a decision withdrawing naturalisation on account of deception remains, in theory, valid when the consequence of that withdrawal is that the person in question loses, in addition to the nationality of the Member State of naturalisation, citizenship of the Union.

It is, however, for the national court to ascertain whether the withdrawal decision observes the principle of proportionality so far as concerns the consequences it entails for the situation of the person concerned in the light of European Union law, in addition, where appropriate, to examining the proportionality of the decision in the light of national law. Having regard to the importance which primary law attaches to the status of citizen of the European Union, when examining a decision withdrawing naturalisation it is necessary, therefore, to take into account the consequences that the decision entails for the person concerned and, if relevant, for the members of his family with regard to the loss of the rights enjoyed by every citizen of the Union, and to establish, in particular, whether that loss is justified in relation to the gravity of the offence committed by that person, to the lapse of time between the naturalisation decision and the withdrawal decision and to whether it is possible for that person to recover his original nationality.

(see paras 51, 54-56, 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. 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 para. 12)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Not permissible in the case of an express requirement that reference be made to a directive (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 13-14)

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 Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third‑country nationals for the purposes of scientific research (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15).

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 Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, 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

Environment – Prevention and remedying of environmental damage – Environmental liability – Directive 2004/35 – ‘Polluter pays’ principle

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/35, Arts 3(1), 4(5), 11(2) and 16(1))

Summary

Where, in a situation entailing environmental pollution, the conditions for the application ratione temporis and/or ratione materiae of Directive 2004/35 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage are not met, such a situation is governed by national law, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty, and without prejudice to other secondary legislation.

Directive 2004/35 does not preclude national legislation which allows the competent authority acting within the framework of the directive to operate on the presumption, also in cases involving diffuse pollution, that there is a causal link between operators and the pollution found on account of the fact that the operators’ installations are located close to the polluted area. However, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, in order for such a causal link thus to be presumed, that authority must have plausible evidence capable of justifying its presumption, such as the fact that the operator’s installation is located close to the pollution found and that there is a correlation between the pollutants identified and the substances used by the operator in connection with his activities.

Articles 3(1), 4(5) and 11(2) of Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as meaning that, when deciding to impose measures for remedying environmental damage on operators whose activities fall within Annex III to the directive, the competent authority is not required to establish fault, negligence or intent on the part of operators whose activities are held to be responsible for the environmental damage. On the other hand, that authority must, first, carry out a prior investigation into the origin of the pollution found, and it has a discretion as to the procedures, means to be employed and length of such an investigation. Second, the competent authority is required to establish, in accordance with national rules on evidence, a causal link between the activities of the operators at whom the remedial measures are directed and the pollution.

Moreover, since Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/35, in the same way as Article 176 EC, expressly states that the directive is not to prevent Member States from maintaining or adopting more stringent measures in relation to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, a Member State may decide, inter alia, that operators engaged in activities other than those set out in Annex III to the directive can be held strictly liable for environmental damage, that is to say, as defined in Article 2(1)(a) to (c) of the directive, not only damage to protected species and habitats but also water damage and land damage.

(see paras 44, 57, 65, 68-70, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Transitional arrangements for the taxation of trade between Member States

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(2) and (3), and 28b(A)(2))

Summary

Articles 17(2) and (3) and 28b(A)(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person coming within the situation referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 28b(A)(2) does not have the right immediately to deduct the input value added tax charged on an intra-Community acquisition.

Since the goods taxed as intra-Community acquisitions deemed to have been made in the Member State which issued the identification number, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive, did not actually enter that Member State, those transactions cannot be regarded as giving rise to a ‘right to deduct’ within the meaning of Article 17 of the Sixth Directive, which makes deduction of the input value added tax charged on intermediary goods and services acquired by a taxable person, inter alia within the context of intra-Community acquisitions, subject to the condition that the goods and services thus acquired are to be used for the purpose of the taxable person’s taxable transactions. Consequently, such intra-Community acquisitions cannot benefit from the general regime of deduction set out in that article.

In that regard, the general regime for the deduction of tax, as set out in Article 17 of the Sixth Directive, is not intended to replace, in such a situation, the specific regime referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 28b(A)(2) of that directive, which is based on the mechanism of reducing the taxable amount in order to make it possible to correct the double taxation.

(see paras 40-43, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities – Establishment and making available by the Member States

(Council Regulations No 1552/89, Arts 2, 6 and 9 to 11, No 2913/92, Art. 220(1), and No 1150/2000, Arts 2, 6 and 9 to 11)

Summary

Pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulations Nos 1552/89 and 1150/2000 implementing, respectively, Decisions 88/376 and 94/728 on the system of the Communities’ own resources, the Member States are to establish entitlement to the own resources as soon as the conditions provided for by the customs regulations have been met concerning the entry of the entitlement in the accounts and the notification of the debtor.

It follows from Article 220(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code that the conditions for the subsequent entry into the accounts of the amount of duty to be recovered or which remains to be recovered are fulfilled when the customs authorities become aware of the situation and are in a position to calculate the amount legally owed and to determine the debtor.

In that context, when the customs authorities notify an administrative measure, regardless of how it is designated, to a debtor, finding that there has been a total or partial non-payment of customs debts and indicating the amount of customs duties which they consider to be legally owed, they are, at that time, in a position to calculate the amount of duties arising from a customs debt and to determine the debtor.

Consequently, the subsequent entry into the accounts of the amount of duty to be recovered or which remains to be recovered must take place, in principle, pursuant to Article 220(1) of the Customs Code, within two days of the date on which the minute which fulfils the conditions set out in the previous paragraph was notified to the debtor.

With regard to default interest, the obligation to establish the Communities’ own resources, the obligation to credit them to the Commission’s account within the prescribed time-limit and the obligation to pay default interest are inseparably linked, the last being payable regardless of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the Commission’s account.

A Member State that fails to comply with the time-limits for entry of the Communities’ own resources in the event of subsequent recovery and delays payment of those resources has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 and the same articles of Regulation No 1150/2000 and under Article 220 of Regulation No 2913/92.

(see paras 37-38, 41-42, 49, 51, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment

–

Conservation of wild birds

–

Directive 79/409 (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 4(4)) (see paras 40, 43-44

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) – Incorrect transposition – Derogations – Requirements

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, the legislation transposing Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds into Italian law not being quite consistent with that directive, and the system for transposing Article 9 of that directive failing to ensure that the derogations adopted by the competent Italian authorities satisfy the conditions and requirements referred to in that article, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 7, 9 to 11, 13 and 18 of the Directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings.