ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent right – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Field of application – Product placed on the market before marketing authorisation obtained in accordance with Directive 65/65 – Not included

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 2; Council Directive 65/65)

2. Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent right – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Issuing of such a certificate for a product outside the scope of Regulation No 1768/92 – Invalidity of the certificate

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Arts 2, 3 and 15)

Summary

1. Article 2 of Regulation No 1768/92, concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product, which was placed on the market in the European Community as a medicinal product for human use before a marketing authorisation was obtained in accordance with Directive 65/65 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products and, in particular, without undergoing safety and efficacy testing, does not fall within the field of application of Regulation No 1768/92 and may not, therefore, be the subject of a supplementary protection certificate.

It follows from Article 2 of Regulation No 1768/92 that only a product which is protected by a valid patent in the territory of the Member State concerned and which obtained a marketing authorisation after being subject, prior to being placed on the market in the Community as a medicinal product, to an administrative authorisation procedure as laid down in Directive 65/65, which included safety and efficacy testing, could be the subject of a supplementary protection certificate.

(see paras 44, 51, operative part 1)

2. A supplementary protection certificate granted for a product not falling within the field of application of Regulation No 1768/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as that scope is defined in Article 2 of that regulation, is invalid.

Even if it is not possible to infer from the wording or the origin of Article 15(1) of the regulation that the list of grounds of invalidity of a supplementary protection certificate set out therein is not exhaustive, the infringement of an article of that regulation not referred to in Article 15(1) can render a supplementary protection certificate invalid owing to the connection between the provision in question and Article 3 of the regulation. The concept of ‘product’ in Article 3 refers necessarily to a product within the scope of Regulation No 1768/92, as defined in Article 2 thereof. Consequently, issuing a supplementary protection certificate for a product outside the scope of that regulation disregards the meaning of ‘product’ and, in such circumstances, the certificate is invalid pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation No 1768/92.

(see paras 55-57, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions – Setting in motion a procedure ensuring that effect is immediately and effectively given to the Commission’s decision (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 35-36, 38)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to perform the duty of recovering unlawful aid – Defences – Absolute impossibility of implementation – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Duty of the Commission and of the Member State to collaborate in seeking a solution compatible with the Treaty (Arts 10 EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 40-42)

3. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Interim suspension measures adopted by the national court – Lawfulness – Conditions (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 45-47)

4. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Obligation – Duty to implement immediately and effectively the Commission’s decision – Legislative steps, intended to ensure the implementation of the Commission’s decision, taken belatedly – Breach of that obligation (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC) (see paras 53-55)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under the aid scheme declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – 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 34-36)

2. Appeals – Classification of an application made by the respondent seeking only the replacement of grounds – Application inadmissible if there is no legal interest in bringing proceedings (see para. 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T‑300/02 AMGA v Commission , by which that court rejected as inadmissible an application 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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Iride SpA to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings;

3. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the request for replacement of grounds.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 March 2010 – Commission v Greece

(Case C-169/09)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Ecodesign requirements for energy-using products – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 191, p. 29).

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 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2011 – Commission v Cyprus

(Case C-251/09)

Public works contracts and supply contracts – Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Directive 93/38/EEC – Contract notice – Award criteria – Equal treatment of tenderers – Principle of transparency – Directive 92/13/EEC – Review procedure – Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer

1. Approximation of laws – Procedure for awarding public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Directive 93/38 – Award of contracts – Principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Extent (Council Directive 93/38, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 38-40)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission – Production of evidence showing failure – Presumptions – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 46-47)

3. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directives 89/665 and 92/13 – Member States' duty to provide for a review procedure (Council Directives 89/665 and 92/13, Art. 1(1)) (see paras 56-58)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 4(2) and 31(1) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) – Infringement of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) – Requirement to state reasons for a decision to eliminate a tenderer – Requirement to ensure that decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible – Principles of equal treatment and transparency.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 – Italy v Commission

(Case C-458/09 P)

Appeal – Aid granted by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies – Legislation granting fiscal advantages

1. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Appeals – Copy of the original appeal sent in ‘Word’ format together with a document in ‘PDF’ format bearing the lawyer’s signature – Original sent later within the prescribed period – Admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(6)) (see paras 25-26)

2. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Opening of a formal examination procedure – Duty first to raise the subject of the aid measure with the Member State concerned and examine the situation in the light of the information provided by that State (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 47-48)

3. State aid – Definition – Selective nature of the measure – Selectivity of a tax relief measure applicable to companies newly listed on the stock exchange arising from its short duration (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 56, 60)

4. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a superfluous ground – Ineffective ground – Challenging of the Commission’s appraisal with regard to the selectivity of State aid – Acknowledgement that one of the criteria of selectivity was met being proved to be free of any error in law – Plea directed against other criteria of selectivity – Ineffective ground (see paras 57-58)

5. State aid – Prohibition – Derogations – Aid eligible for the derogation provided for by Article 87(3)(c) EC – Operating aid – Excluded (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 63-64)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission , by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;
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; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 273/2004, Art 12; Council Regulation No 111/2005, Art. 31) (see paras 15-18

)

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 Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1) and Art. 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

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

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

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Maritime transport – Freedom to provide services – Maritime cabotage – National legislation which makes maritime cabotage services subject to prior authorisation

(Council Regulation No 3577/92, Arts 1 and 4)

Summary

Article 1 in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which establishes a system of prior authorisation for maritime cabotage services providing for the adoption of administrative decisions imposing observance of certain timeslots for reasons relating, first, to the safety of ships and order in ports and, second, to public service obligations, provided that such a system is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria known in advance, particularly in cases in which several shipowners wish to enter the same port at the same time. With respect to the administrative decisions imposing public service obligations, it is in addition necessary that a genuine public service need arising from the inadequacy of the regular transport services under conditions of free competition can be demonstrated. It is for the national court to determine whether in the main proceedings those conditions are met.

(see para. 63, 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; Council Directive 1999/30, Art. 5(1)

)

Subject of the case

Re

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) – PM10 particles exceeding limit values in ambient air in zones SW 2 and SW 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by exceeding the limit values for concentrations of PMlO in ambient air from 2005 to 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
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 TFUE; European Parliament and Council Directive 2007/36) (see paras 11-14

)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

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 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the 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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory – Tax applicable to imported second-hand vehicles but without any equivalent for vehicles of the same age and the same condition present on the national market – Not permissible (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 28-29, operative part)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation – Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation – Retroactive effect – Limitation by the Court – Conditions – Importance for the Member State concerned of the financial consequences of the judgment – Criterion not conclusive (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 32-36)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunalul Gorj – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State – Classification of the criterion of ‘date of first registration’ – Whether the national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU – Whether exemption from payment of the tax, introduced for certain categories of vehicle, is lawful – Possible application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that tax is arranged in such a way as to discourage the putting into circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States but without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services – Directive 98/34 – Technical regulation – Meaning

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48, Art. 1(11))

Summary

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that provisions setting out general requirements relating to the carrying out of electrical installations, the design of electrical equipment and forms of protection attached to that equipment in order to ensure the safety of workers, such as those contained in the Belgian legislation on the minimum safety requirements for certain old electrical installations at places of work, do not amount to technical regulations, within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be the subject of the communication provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of that directive.

(see para. 22, 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; Commission Directive 2005/81) (see paras 31, 39)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – Assessment of the expediency of bringing proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 258 TFEU) (see para. 32)

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 Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2005 L 312, p. 47).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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