ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 November 2010 – Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission

(Case C‑36/09 P)

Appeal – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Service station market in Spain – Long-term exclusive fuel supply agreements – Commission decision – Right of purchase granted to certain service stations – Conditions of supply by Repsol – List of the service stations concerned – Action for annulment – Time-limits for commencing proceedings – Starting point

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run –Date of publication of the measure at issue – Interested person concerned later – No effect (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 37-40)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Concepts that cannot concern the point from which time starts to run (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 40, 43)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2008 in Case T‑45/08 Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission , by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings given by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 – Commission v Austria

(Case C-441/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Application of a reduced rate – Live animals normally intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs for human and animal consumption – Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals, in particular horses

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Discretionary power of the Member States to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 96 and 98 and Annex III) (see paras 40, 43-50)

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 96 and 98, read in conjunction with Annex III, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Reduced rate – Supply, importation and acquisition of certain live animals (in particular horses) not intended for the preparation or production of foodstuffs for human or animal consumption.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to all supplies, imports and intra-Community acquisitions of horses, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C-518/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services – Carrying on real property activities

1. Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions –National legislation not drawing a distinction between freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services for real property brokers and estate agents – Real property brokers and estate agents established in another Member State obliged to set up an estate agency in the Member State concerned in order to be permitted to carry on business there – Not permissible – No justification (Arts 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU) (see paras 61-75, 87, operative part)

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation, first, requiring real property brokers and estate agents to take out insurance compatible with that Member State’s legislation and to hold positive equity and, secondly, making those brokerage firms subject to the full disciplinary control of the national body responsible for the construction sector – Not permissible – No justification (Art. 56 TFEU) (see paras 76-84, 87, operative part)

3. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation requiring real estate brokerages to carry out that business exclusively, with the exception of the management of property on behalf of third parties, and estate agents to carry on that business exclusively – Not permissible – No justification (Art. 56 TFEU) (see paras 64-66, 85-87, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU – Carrying on business in property transactions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by permitting the business of real property brokerage to be carried out only within estate agencies;

– by requiring real property brokerages and estate agents established in other Member States to cover their professional liability by taking out insurance compatible with Portuguese legislation;

– by requiring real property brokerages established in other Member States to hold positive equity in accordance with that legislation, and

– by making real property brokerages and estate agents established in other Member States subject to the full disciplinary control of the Instituto de Construção e do Imobiliário IP,

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU, and

– by requiring real property brokerages to carry out exclusively the business of real property brokerage, with the exception of the management of real property on behalf of third parties, and

– by requiring estate agents to carry out exclusively the business of estate agency,

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 – A2A, formerly AEM v Commission

(Case C-320/09 P)

Appeal – State aid – Aid granted to public utilities – Tax exemptions – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Locus standi – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Article 87 EC – Concept of ‘aid’ – Article 88 EC – Concept of ‘new aid’ – Article 10 EC – Duty to cooperate in good faith – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Articles 1 and 14 – Lawfulness of a recovery order – Principle of legal certainty – Duty to state reasons

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme – Action brought by an undertaking having received individual aid granted under that scheme and that must be recovered – Admissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 55-60)

2. Actions for annulment – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it – Commission decision on the recovery of State aid (see paras 68-70)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Inadequate statement of reasons – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 97)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 103-105)

5. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary in order to support the operative part –Plea in law ineffective (see para. 109)

6. Appeals – Pleas in law – Distortion of national law relied on as evidence – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.) (see para. 125)

7. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 131)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑301/02 AEM v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the main appeal and the cross‑appeal;

2. Orders A2A SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;
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. 12)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 9-11, 13)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1).

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 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Own resources of the European Union – Regulation on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Proceedings relating to irregularities – Limitation period – Irregularities committed in tendering procedures in the butter market

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1), first subpara, and Art. 3(3); Commission Regulation No 2571/97)

2. Own resources of the European Union – Regulation on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Proceedings relating to irregularities – Limitation period – Irregularities committed in tendering procedures in the butter market

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Arts 1 and 3(3); Commission Regulation No 2571/97)

Summary

1. Inasmuch as it does not lay down a limitation rule for bringing proceedings applicable to the clearing to an appropriate account of securities provided in tendering procedures in the butter, concentrated butter and cream market, Regulation No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs does not constitute sectoral rules providing for a ‘shorter period’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. The four‑year limitation period established in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 therefore applies to the clearing to an appropriate account of such securities, subject, however, to the possibility retained by the Member States, under Article 3(3) of that regulation, of providing for longer limitation periods.

(see para. 50, operative part 1)

2. When bringing proceedings concerning an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, Member States retain the possibility of applying longer limitation periods within the meaning of Article 3(3) of that regulation, which extends, in the context of Regulation No 2571/97 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs, to situations in which the irregularities for which the successful tenderer is liable were committed by the persons with whom the tenderer has entered into contracts.

Under the derogation provided for in Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95, Member States retain wide discretion in fixing longer limitation periods which they intend to apply in cases involving an irregularity that is detrimental to the European Union’s financial interests.

(see paras 54, 62, 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. 258 TFEU; Council Directive 96/82, Art. 12(1), para. 2) (see paras 10-12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt all the measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures to transpose correctly the second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Case C-30/10

Lotta Andersson

v

Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Article 10(c) — National provision — Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims — Exclusion of persons who, in the six months before the application for a declaration of insolvency by the undertaking employing them was lodged, owned an essential part of that undertaking and had a considerable influence over it’

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 10 February 2011 I - 515

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy — Approximation of laws — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Option for Member States to refuse or reduce the liability or guarantee obligation — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/94, Art. 12(c))

Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which excludes an employee from entitlement to the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims on the ground that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had a considerable influence on its activities. Indeed, in such circumstances, it cannot be excluded that an employee, who is refused entitlement to the guarantee, could be responsible for the insolvency of the undertaking in question.

(see paras 27-28 and 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. 258 TFEU) (Art. 56 TFEU)

2. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation making the activities of temporary work agencies subject to, first, the obligation to have as their sole company object the provision of workers and, second, the obligation to have a particular legal form – Not permissible – No justification (Art. 56 TFEU) (see para. 13)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 56 TFEU – Restriction of freedom to provide services – National legislation making the activities of temporary work agencies established in other Member States subject to a set of requirements – Unjustified obstacles.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by making the temporary work agencies providing their services in the territory of the Brussels Capital Region subject to the following requirements:

– that they have as their sole company object that of the provision of workers, and

– that they have a particular legal form,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. European Union law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Differences between the various language versions – General scheme and purpose of the rules at issue taken into account

2. Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – ‘Surreptitious advertising’

(Council Directive 89/552, Art. 1(d))

Summary

1. The need of uniform application and, accordingly, uniform interpretation of the provisions of EU law makes it impossible for one version of the text of a provision to be considered, in case of doubt, in isolation, but requires it, on the contrary, to be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages.

Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

(see paras 23-24)

2. Article 1(d) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36, is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is not a necessary condition for establishing the element of intent in surreptitious advertising.

Although that provision establishes a presumption in accordance with which a representation of goods, services, the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a provider of services in programmes is to be considered to be intentional if that representation is done in return for payment or for similar consideration, it should not, however, be narrowly construed, for such an interpretation could compromise the full and proper protection of the interests of television viewers that that directive is intended to ensure and, furthermore, could deprive the prohibition of surreptitious advertising provided for in Article 10(4) of Directive 89/552 of its effectiveness, given the difficulty, or even the impossibility, in certain cases of proving that there has been provision of payment or of consideration of another kind for advertising which nevertheless displays all the characteristics of surreptitious advertising, as set out in Article 1(d) of that directive.

In addition, it is possible for the legislation of a Member State to lay down other criteria, besides the provision of payment or of consideration of a similar kind, for establishing the intentional nature of surreptitious advertising.

(see paras 30-37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Special areas of conservation forming part of the Natura 2000 Network – National rules prohibiting the location of wind turbines not intended for self‑consumption on those sites

(Arts. 193 TFEU and 194(1) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directives 2001/77 and 2009/28; Council Directives 79/409, Art. 14, and 92/43, Art. 6(3))

Summary

Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Directive 2001/77 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market and Directive 2009/28 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77 and 2003/30 must be interpreted as not precluding legislation which prohibits the location of wind turbines not intended for self‑consumption on sites forming part of the Natura 2000 European Ecological Network, without any requirement for a prior assessment of the environmental impact of the project on the site specifically concerned, on condition that the principles of non‑discrimination and proportionality are respected.

(see para. 75, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Customs union – Customs declarations – Subsequent verification

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 66, as amended by Council Regulation No 1791/2006)

Summary

The provisions of European Union law in customs matters must be interpreted as meaning that a declarant cannot request a court to annul a customs declaration made by it when that declaration has been accepted by the customs authorities. By contrast, under the conditions laid down in Article 66 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, that declarant may request those authorities to invalidate that declaration, even after they have released the goods. Their assessment concluded, the customs authorities must, subject to the possibility of a court action, either reject the declarant’s application by reasoned decision or proceed with the invalidation requested.

(see para. 48, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mediaset SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission and of Sky Italia Srl.