ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeals before the Community judicature

–

Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 39, 42-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2005 in Joined Cases T‑160/02 to T‑162/02 Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM (intervener: France Cartes SAS), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions brought against three decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 February 2002, allowing the applications for declarations of invalidity brought by France Cartes SAS in respect of three figurative marks of which the applicant is proprietor.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions

(Arts 45 EC, 49 EC and 55 EC; Council Regulation No 2092/91)

Summary

A Member State which requires private inspection bodies of organically farmed products approved in another Member State to maintain an establishment in national territory in order to be able to provide inspection services there fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

In the first place, the auxiliary and preparatory role conferred on private bodies by Regulation No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs vis-à-vis the supervisory authority cannot be regarded as a direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority for the purposes of Article 55 EC read in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, justifying an exception by virtue of those provisions, but as an additional activity separable from the exercise of such authority. Moreover, such a requirement goes beyond what is objectively necessary to attain the objective of consumer protection capable of justifying interference with the freedom to provide services.

(see paras 37-38, 44, 48, 52, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Regulatory framework – Directive 2002/21

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, Arts 4(1) and 16(3))

2. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Regulatory framework – Directive 2002/21

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, Art. 4)

Summary

1. The terms user ‘affected’ or undertaking ‘affected’ for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, which grants any user or undertaking providing such networks and/or services a right to appeal against a decision taken by a national regulatory authority by which it is affected, and the term party ‘affected’ within the meaning of Article 16(3) of that directive, which grants to the latter, in the case of a decision to withdraw obligations placed on the undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market, the right to be given an appropriate period of notice of that withdrawal, must be interpreted as being applicable not only to an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market which is subject to a decision of a national regulatory authority taken in the context of a market analysis procedure referred to in Article 16 of that directive and which is the addressee of that decision, but also to users and undertakings in competition with such an undertaking which are not themselves addressees of that decision, but the rights of which are adversely affected by it.

(see paras 43, 48, operative part 1)

2. A provision of national law which, in the context of non-adversarial market analysis proceedings, grants party status only to undertakings (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market and in respect of which specific regulatory obligations are imposed, amended or withdrawn is not, in principle, contrary to Article 4 of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services. However, it is for the national court to ensure that national procedural law guarantees the safeguarding of the rights which users and undertakings in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market derive from the Community legal order in a manner which is not less favourable than that in which comparable domestic rights are safeguarded and which does not prejudice the effectiveness of the legal protection of those users and undertakings guaranteed in Article 4 of that directive.

(see para. 57, operative part 2)
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C-118/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – Community policy in the field of water – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1. 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)

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

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)

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 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 June 2006 − Commission v Italy

(Case C-207/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC – Aid incompatible with the common market – Duty to recover – Non-fulfilment

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a decision of the Commission relating to State aid (Arts 88(2), second subpara., EC and 226 EC) (see paras 31, 33, 35)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a decision of the Commission relating to State aid – Grounds of defence (Arts 88(2), second subpara., EC, 226 EC, 227 EC, 230 EC and 232 EC) (see paras 40-43)

3. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid (Art. 88(2), first subpara., EC) (see para. 44)

4. Actions for failure to fulfil obligation – Failure to comply with a decision of the Commission relating to State aid – Grounds of defence (Arts 10 EC and 88(2), EC) (see paras 45, 47-48, 50)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 3 and 4 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 [C-27/99 (ex NN 69/98)] (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21) – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to recover aid declared incompatible with the common market.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to recover from the recipients aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by 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, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006 – Commission v France

(Case C-164/05)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/19/EC – General system for the recognition of professional qualifications – Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications – Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor – 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) (cf. points 14-15)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC concerning the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications, and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Articles 1 to 4 and 9 to 13 of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications, and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC on the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
By failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Freedom of establishment – Citizens of the European Union – Tax legislation

(Arts 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 28 and 31)

Summary

A Member State which adopts and maintains in force tax provisions which make entitlement to deferral of taxation on capital gains arising from the sale of a private residential property or of a right to reside in a private cooperative property conditional on the newly-acquired residence also being in national territory fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and under Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement.

A taxable person who decides to sell a residential property that he owns in that Member State in order to transfer his residence to another Member State and to purchase a new property there for the purposes of his accommodation, in the exercise of the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, which finds specific expression in Article 43 EC with regard to freedom of establishment and in Article 39 EC with regard to freedom of movement for workers, but also of rights conferred by Article 28 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the free movement of workers and by Article 31 of the EEA Agreement on the freedom of establishment, is thereby subjected to less favourable tax treatment than that enjoyed by a person who maintains his residence in the Member State concerned.

The need to maintain the coherence of a tax system cannot justify that difference in treatment since, for an argument based on such a justification to succeed, a direct link must be established between the tax advantage concerned and the offsetting of that advantage by a particular tax levy.

Since the provisions of the Treaty and the EEA Agreement on freedom of movement for persons preclude such legislation, there is no need for a separate examination of that legislation in the light of Article 56(1) EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement concerning the free movement of capital

(see paras 15, 22, 26, 35, 37, operative part)
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. 10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic 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. 8)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the internal order – Unlawful (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. By failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. The French Republic is ordered 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 paras 18-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 54 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) – Absence of provisions enabling the implementation of all appropriate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past or old practice or work activity.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. By not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to allow for appropriate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation.

2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 14)

2. Acts of the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC; Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directives 91/156, and 91/689) (see paras 19, 34-35, 37-39)

3. 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. 25)

4. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 47), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) – Obligation to communicate waste management plans.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up:

– a waste management plan in accordance with Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, for the Province of Rimini;

– waste management plans including suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste in accordance with the fourth indent of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, for the Region of Lazio;

– waste management plans in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste for the Regions of Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Puglia, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano Alto-Adige and the Province of Rimini,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

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

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Male and female workers – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Directive 76/207 – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Workers who are pregnant, have just given birth, or are breastfeeding – Directive 92/85

(Council Directives 76/207, Art. 2, and 92/85, Arts 8 and 11)

Summary

Article 2 of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73, which prohibits all direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards working conditions, and Articles 8 and 11 of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, concerning maternity leave, preclude national provisions governing child-care leave which, in so far as they fail to take into account changes affecting the worker concerned as a result of pregnancy during the period of at least 14 weeks preceding and after childbirth, do not allow the person concerned to obtain at her request an alteration of the period of her child-care leave at the time when she claims her rights to maternity leave and thus deprive her of the rights attaching to that maternity leave.

(see para. 58, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Art. 9; Commission Regulation No 1223/2002)

Summary

By classifying under sub-heading 0207 14 10, by Regulation No 1223/2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, chicken meat with a salt content by weight of between 1.2% and 1.9%, the Commission restricted the scope of heading 0210, which, in accordance with Additional note 7 to chapter 2 of Section I of Part Two of the Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from Regulation No 1832/2002, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, covers boneless chicken cuts, frozen, impregnated with salt in all parts and with a salt content of at least 1.2%. It therefore exceeded the powers conferred upon it by Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87. Consequently, Regulation No 1223/2002 must be declared invalid.

(see paras 24-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Economic activities within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(1) and (4))

Summary

For the purposes of applying the second paragraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, a natural person carrying out all work in the name and on behalf of a company that is a taxable person pursuant to a contract of employment binding him to that company of which he is also the sole shareholder, the sole manager and the sole member of staff, is not himself a taxable person within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive.

In such a situation, the natural person cannot be regarded as independently carrying out an economic activity within the meaning of that latter provision where there is a relationship of employer and employee, for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive, between that person and the company as regards working conditions, remuneration and the employer’s liability.

(see paras 18-19, 21, 32, operative part)