ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run

(Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46)

Summary

The five-year limitation period for bringing proceedings against the Community in matters relating to non-contractual liability laid down in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice cannot begin to run until all the requirements governing the obligation to provide compensation for damage are satisfied and, in particular, until the damage to be made good has materialised. Therefore, in cases where the liability of the Community has its origin in a legislative measure, that period of limitation does not begin until the damaging effects of that measure have arisen and, therefore, until the time at which the persons concerned were bound to have suffered certain damage.

In that connection, the conditions to which the obligation to make good the damage referred to in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is subject, and, therefore, the rules on limitation periods which govern actions for compensation in respect of that damage may be based only on strictly objective criteria. If it were otherwise, there would be a risk of undermining the principle of legal certainty on which the rules on limitation periods specifically rely and which require that legal rules be clear and precise in order that interested parties can ascertain their position in situations and legal relationships governed by Community law.

Furthermore, preventing the limitation period for proceedings against the Community for non-contractual liability from starting to run as long as the party who has allegedly been harmed is not personally convinced that he has suffered damage has the result that the point in time at which those proceedings become time-barred varies according to the individual perception that each party may have as to the reality of the damage, something which is at variance with the requirement of legal certainty necessary for the application of limitation periods. In that connection, knowledge of the facts is not one of the conditions which must be met in order for the limitation period to start running. The subjective appraisal of the reality of the damage cannot therefore be taken into consideration in order to determine the moment at which that period starts to run.

(see paras 54, 59-61)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 – Commission v Austria

(Case C‑133/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

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. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply, at federal level, with the provisions on discrimination based on disability in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and, at Länder level, with the exception of the Länder of Vienna and Lower-Austria, with all the provisions of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1.

Declares that, by treating the process of final baking or reheating of ‘bake-off’ products in the same way as the full process of manufacturing bread and by making it subject to the conditions prescribed by the national legislation with regard to bakeries, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 – Commission v Austria

(Case C-226/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/82/EC – Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure fully to transpose Articles 8(2)(b), 11, 12 and 24(1) of 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).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the period prescribed:

– the provisions of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances into the national legislation on blasting supplies and explosives and the legislation of the Land Salzburg on electricity;

– Article 11 of Directive 96/82 in the Länder of Salzburg, Styria and Tirol;

– Article 12 of Directive 96/82 in the Land of Upper Austria; and

– Article 8(2)(b) of Directive 96/82 in the Länder of Upper Austria, Salzburg and Tirol,

the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 – Commission v Ireland

(Case C‑175/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/100/EEC – Copyright – Rental and lending right – Exclusive public lending right – Derogation – Condition of remuneration – Exemption – Scope

Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Protected rental and lending right for works – Directive 92/100 – Remuneration of authors in the event of public lending (Council Directive 92/100, Arts 1 and 5) (see para. 32 and operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 6) – Derogation from the exclusive public lending right – Scope

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by exempting all categories of public lending establishments, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, from the obligation to remunerate authors for the lending carried out by them, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;

Orders Irelands to pay the costs;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 – Poland v Parliament and Council

(Case C‑460/05)

Directive 2005/36/EC – Recognition of professional qualifications – Nurses responsible for general care – Midwives – Specific provisions applicable to Polish qualifications – Validity – Duty to give reasons – Introduced by Act of Accession

Acts of the Community institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36) (see paras 18-21)

Re:

Annulment of Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) – Special rules for the recognition of the acquired rights of nurses responsible for general care and midwives who have Polish qualifications.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.
Declares that, by prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages by private individuals acting by their designated independent intermediaries or professional transporters, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC and that prohibition cannot be regarded as being justified under Article 30 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Meister v OHIM

(Case C-12/05 P-REV)

Procedure – Application for revision – Application concerning an order made under Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Conditions – Appeals – New fact – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Revision of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof – New fact – Meaning – Fact known before delivery of the judgment – Not included – Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44) (see paras 15-18)

Re:

Application of revision concerning the Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case C-12/05 P.

Operative part

The application for revision brought by Mr Meister is dismissed as inadmissible;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Keypad membranes of polycarbonate intended for incorporation into mobile telephones

Summary

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1789/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that keypad membranes of polycarbonate which have moulded keys on their upper side and non-conductive contact pins on their underside and are intended for incorporation into mobile telephones, which are unquestionably an essential component for the operation of those mobile telephones and the structure and method of operation of which preclude any use other than as a component of those telephones, fall under subheading 8529 90 40 as part of a mobile telephone in accordance with heading 8525.

(see paras 33, 37-38, 40, operative part 1)
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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to draw up or to transmit to the Commission the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, 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

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 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

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 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duties – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Exemption from the harmonised excise duty

(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 27(1)(f))

Summary

1. The need for a uniform application, and therefore interpretation, of the provisions of Community law makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation, but requires, on the contrary, that it 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 a Community 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 13-14)

2. Article 27(1)(f) of Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages should be understood as imposing an obligation on Member States to exempt from harmonised excise duty ethyl alcohol imported into the customs territory of the European Union and contained in chocolate products intended for direct use, where the alcohol content does not exceed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilograms of the chocolate products.

The place where the ethyl alcohol is used for the production of those products is irrelevant in this regard.

(see paras 16, 19, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Air transport – Access to the groundhandling market at Community airports

(Council Directive 96/67, Art. 16(3) and Annex, point 1)

Summary

Community law precludes rules of national law which provide for the payment to the airport managing authority by providers of groundhandling services of a fee for ground administration and supervision, unless the fee for ground administration and supervision provided for by that legislation is payable as the consideration for some or all of the services defined in paragraph 1 of the Annex to Council Directive 96/67 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports and does not constitute a second charge for services already paid for through another fee or tax. If the examination carried out by the referring court discloses that that fee constitutes a fee for access to the airport installations, it is a matter for that court to ascertain whether the fee at issue meets the criteria of relevance, objectivity, transparency and non-discrimination as specified in Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – Communities-Poland Association Agreement – Products originating in the Community

(Communities-Poland Association Agreement, Protocol No 4, Art. 7(1)(b))

Summary

Since Article 7(1)(b) of Protocol No 4 to the Communities-Poland Association Agreement, as amended by Decision No 1/97 of the Association Council established by that agreement, does not make it possible to draw a distinction between simple and more complex matching operations, matching operations of clothing and other used textile products are covered by the concept of simple operations of matching for the purposes of that provision.

(see para. 33, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Camcorders with DV-in function capable of being activated after customs clearance

Summary

A camcorder may be classified under subheading 8525 40 99 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, only if the function for recording images and sounds from sources other than the integrated camera or microphone (the ‘DV-in’ function), which constitutes the essential characteristic of a camcorder classified under that subheading, is active at the time of customs clearance or if, even though the manufacturer did not intend to emphasise that characteristic, that function may be activated subsequently by simple modification of the apparatus by a user who does not have special skills, without modification of the camcorder’s hardware. Where the camcorder is activated subsequently, it is also necessary, first, that, once activated, it functions in a manner similar to that of another camcorder whose DV-in function is active at the time of customs clearance and, second, that it functions independently. The existence of those conditions must be capable of being ascertained at the time of customs clearance. It is for the national court to establish whether those conditions are fulfilled. If those conditions are not fulfilled the camcorder must be classified under subheading 8525 40 91 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(see paras 35, 44, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds

(Commission Regulation No 800/1999, Art. 5)

Summary

Article 5 of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 90/2001, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent customs authorities from accepting an export declaration for agricultural products which was transmitted by fax, where that transmission took place before loading for export transport, where the declaration transmitted contains all the information necessary to enable physical checks to be carried out on the goods exported and the export operation concerned is not vitiated by any fraud or attempted fraud. Such is the case where the goods covered by the export declaration transmitted by fax have arrived in the third country of destination and the original declaration subsequently transmitted is identical to the declaration transmitted by fax. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

(see para. 26, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 729/70, as amended by Regulation No 1287/95, Art. 5(2)(c), fifth para., and No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)(a); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, as amended by Regulation No 2245/1999, Art. 8(1), first para.) (see paras 46-48, 52)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the legal classification of the facts – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC) (see para. 59)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Greece v Commission by which the Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2004) 1706) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 48).

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – New submission of an argument – Admissibility – Limits

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))

2. Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

1. It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that, on appeal, an appellant may put forward any relevant argument, provided only that the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not changed in the appeal.

2. Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State, that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that respect, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent representation of that State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State. For the same reason, activity in the service of a publicly owned company falling within one of the categories of commercial undertakings cannot be considered to be work done for a State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Medicinal preparations

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 11 and 13)

Summary

A national prohibition on the advertising of non-approved medicinal products, the sale of which is authorised only on an exceptional basis in the Member State concerned, but which are legally marketed in another Member State or in a non-member State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’) must be assessed in the light not of the provisions on advertising of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27, but of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement.

Article 28 EC and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement preclude such a prohibition in so far as it applies to the distribution to pharmacists of lists of non-approved medicinal products, the importation of which from another Member State or a non‑Member State which is a party to the EEA Agreement is authorised only on an exceptional basis, which contain no information other than that concerning the trade name, packaging size, dose and price of those medicinal products.

That prohibition cannot be regarded as justified or necessary for the purpose of protecting the health and life of humans, in accordance with Article 30 EC and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement, since, by prohibiting those lists which do not contain substantive information on the properties or effects of the medicinal products, it goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring that the importation of non-approved medicinal products remains exceptional, in order to preserve the practical effect of the marketing authorisation procedure.

(see paras 35, 37, 41, 44, operative part)