ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Under Article 12(1) of Directive 89/369 and Article 10(1) of Directive 89/429, the Member States were to bring into force the measures necessary to comply with the directives by 1 December 1990 and to inform the Commission immediately they had done so. Since the Italian Republic had not informed the Commission that it had implemented the directives by the expiry of the prescribed period, by a letter of formal notice of 25 April 1991 the Commission initiated infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty. By a letter of 11 July 1991 to the Commission, Italy's Permanent Representative to the European Communities stated that the Italian authorities were in the course of drafting the rules necessary to comply with the directives and that they would be transposed by way of the ‘Legge Comunitaria [Community Law] 1990’. ( 3 ) Since it was apparent to the Commission that the said directives had not been transposed into Italian law either by the ‘Legge Comunitaria 1990’ or by the ‘Legge Comunitaria 1991’, ( 4 ) the Commission set out its views in a reasoned opinion of 18 June 1993. No reply from the Italian Government to that reasoned opinion was received and the Commission therefore lodged the present application.
2.

The Coöperatieve Rabobank ‘Vecht en Plassengebied’ BA (hereinafter ‘Rabobank’) was the bank financing the holding company Holland Data Groep BV (hereinafter ‘HDG’) and five of its subsidiaries. On 23 October 1989, Rabobank concluded with those companies an agreement concerning the calculation of interest on joint accounts and the offsetting of debit balances against credit balances. Under that agreement the companies concerned were jointly and severally liable to Rabobank. On 21 November 1989, HDG and Stichting Nieuwegein (Nieuwegein Foundation) established a new company, Mediasafe BV (hereinafter ‘Mediasafe’) in which HDG, appointed sole director, held 99 shares and Stichting Nieuwegein one share. On the proposal of Stichting Nieuwegein two company commissioners were also appointed to exercise control over the management of Mediasafe. Article 12(3) and (4) of the statutes of Mediasafe provide that: ‘3. In the event of a conflict of interests between the company and one or more of its directors, the remaining director(s) shall be empowered to bind the company. 4. If there is only one director or if there is a conflict of interest involving all its directors, the company shall be represented by the board of commissioners.’ On 11 December 1989, Rabobank concluded a fresh agreement with HDG and its subsidiaries, including Mediasafe, which was represented by HDG itself as director of Mediasafe. Under that agreement, which was identical in content to the earlier agreement of 23 October 1989, the individual companies in the group declared themselves jointly and severally liable for their debts to Rabobank. On 22 May 1990, Mediasafe was declared bankrupt and Mr Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud was appointed receiver in bankruptcy. At that date, Mediasafe's account with Rabobank showed a credit balance of HFL 447117.60. By letter of 5 June 1990, Rabobank informed the receiver in bankruptcy that, on the basis of the abovementioned agreement of 11 December 1989 and Article 53 of the Netherlands Law on Bankruptcy, it had exercised its right to offset the debt against the credit balances on the current accounts in respect of which Mediasafe was joint and several co-debtor. The letter stated that, following that operation, Mediasafe's credit balance with Rabobank amounted to HFL 67337.36 at the date of the bankruptcy. By judgment of 31 July 1990, HDG and its five other operating companies were also declared bankrupt. The receiver in bankruptcy has sought payment from Rabobank of the difference, amounting to HFL 379780.24, between Mediasafe's credit balances before and after the offsetting operation. That claim is based on the contention that Mediasafe is not bound by the agreements of 11 December 1989 on the ground that HDG — which, as its sole director, concluded the agreements on behalf of Mediasafe also — was actually involved in a conflict of interests with Mediasafe within the meaning of Article 12(3) and (4) of the company statutes and Article 2: 256 of the Netherlands Civil Code. HDG therefore had no authority to act on behalf of Mediasafe at the time when the agreements were concluded.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 23 October 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/36/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. - Case C-341/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-07271



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 The present infringement action concerns the alleged (and partially admitted) failure by the Federal Republic of Germany fully to transpose Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (1) (hereinafter `the Directive'), or to inform the Commission of its implementing measures.

I - Pre-litigation proceedings

2 The Directive has as one of its objectives the establishment of an updated text of the much-amended Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2) (hereinafter `the 1976 Directive'), incorporating a number of drafting changes aimed at improving the clarity of existing provisions. (3) It also introduces a number of substantive changes, regarding the definition of the contracting authority, (4) the imposition of requirements that reasons be given for the rejection of an application or tender and that a written report be drawn up by contracting authorities in respect of each contract awarded, (5) and the rules on participation in and the award of contracts. (6) Article 34(1) of the Directive requires the Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with it before 14 June 1994, and immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

3 Having recei

(1) - OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.

(2) - OJ 1977 L 13, p. 1. This Directive was amended by Council Directives 80/767/EEC of 22 July 1980, OJ 1980 L 215, p. 1, 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, OJ 1988 L 127, p. 1, and 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

(3) - See the first and fourth recitals in the preamble to the Directive.

(4) - Article 1(b) of the Directive.

(5) - Article 7 of the Directive.

(6) - Title IV of the Directive.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 16 July 1998. - Commission of the European Communities v Ireland. - Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directive 94/57/EC - Failure to transpose. - Case C-431/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-05055



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 In these proceedings the Commission seeks a declaration, under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations. (1)

2 Article 16 of the Directive provides that:

`1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive no later than 31 December 1995.

...

3. The Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission the text of all the provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.'

3 Ireland has not disputed its failure to implement the Directive and states in its defence that the necessary measures are in the course of being adopted.

4 In these circumstances the Commission's application is clearly well founded.

Conclusion

5 Accordingly I am of the opinion that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;

(2) order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings.

(1) - OJ 1994 L 319, p. 20.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General La Pergola delivered on 31 March 1998. - Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 80/68/EEC. - Case C-183/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-04005



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 By application lodged pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty on 12 May 1997 the Commission has requested the Court to declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary provided for in Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (1) (`the Directive'), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and the Directive.

2 According to Article 21, the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive within two years of its notification and inform the Commission thereof.

3 Articles 392 and 395 of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Portuguese Republic to the European Community (2) place that Member State under an obligation to comply with the Directive.

4 Since the Portuguese Republic did not fulfil that obligation, the Commission initiated against that State the infringement procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty. The Portuguese Republic has not, in substance, denied the complaints made by the applicant but has confined itself to pointing out that a draft decree-law, currently being adopted, would supplement the relevant provisions currently in force and would, therefore, fulfil the obligations under the Directive.

5 However, it is clear that the decree-law in question has not so far been adopted. The Court has consistently held that the existence of a decree-law in the course of adoption does not constitute a ground of justification for a failure to fulfil obligations (3) and, in any event, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations laid down in the EC Treaty and Community directives. (4)

Conclusion

6 In the light of the foregoing facts and considerations, I propose that the Court:

- declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

- order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) - OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.

(2) - OJ 1985 L 302.

(3) - See, for example, Case C-147/94 Commission v Spain [1995] ECR I-1015.

(4) - See, among others, Case C-303/93 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR I-1901, Case C-135/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] ECR I-1061 and Case C-294/96 Commission v Belgium [1997] ECR I-1781.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 23 November 2000. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure not contested - Directive 95/16/EC. - Case C-219/99.



European Court reports 2001 Page I-01093



Opinion of the Advocate-General

1. In this case the Commission seeks a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to lifts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

2. Directive 95/16 seeks to harmonise the safety standards required for lifts prior to their being placed on the market. Article 15(1) provided that Member States were to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 1 January 1997 and were forthwith to inform the Commission thereof; Member States were to apply those measures with effect from 1 July 1997.

3. The French Government accepts that there has been a delay in the transposition of the Directive and does not contest the order sought by the Commission. It explains the difficulties which have caused that delay, but recognises that those difficulties cannot be relied upon to resist the Commission's application: the Government wishes rather, by explaining the circumstances, to demonstrate its good faith.

4. After the close of the written procedure the French Government, by letter of 3 October 2000, informed the Court that the decree designed to transpose the Directive had been published in the French Official Journal of 27 August 2000.

5. The Commission has not responded to that information and it is not necessary for the Court to reach a view on whether the decree constitutes full if belated implementation of the Directive. According to the Court's well-settled case-law the Commission is entitled to a declaration in proceedings for failure to implement a directive even where the directive is subsequently fully implemented.

Conclusion

6. The Court should therefore in my opinion:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
((Appeal – Competition – Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty – Normal competition – Adoption of a decision by the Commission – Fine in ecus – Turnover reference year))
((Tax provisions – Harmonisation of legislations – Excise duties – Directive 92/12/EEC – Article 20 – Exportation to non-member countries of products under duty-suspension arrangements – Products having to be considered not to have arrived at their destination by reason of the falsification of the accompanying document – Place of the offence or irregularity unknown – Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable))
31.

Since it considered that the dispute raises a problem of interpretation of Community law, the Hof van Beroep decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘On a proper construction of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC (formerly the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty), where (i) an application is made with a view to requiring the Commission of the European Communities to intervene in proceedings before an expert already ordered as against the Belgian State and to obtaining a declaration that those proceedings and the expert's final report can be considered together and used against the Commission of the European Communities, (ii) where the expert's tasks in that connection include examination of the responses of and action taken by the Commission of the European Communities and its departments and officials from the time it became aware of the dioxin contamination, and of the appropriateness of the measures taken by it and their contribution to the adverse consequences for and the damage sustained by the respondents, and (iii) where the application in question has been made with a view to subsequent proceedings in respect of a substantive claim relating to the liability of the Belgian State and the European Community respectively in the dioxin crisis, does that application fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities or the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in respect of non-contractual liability?’
((Public contracts – Procedure for the award of public supply contracts – Action against a clause in the invitation to tender – Time-limit))
((Common agricultural policy – Free movement of goods – Freedom to provide services – State aid – Agricultural products – Imposition of a contribution to finance a system of insurance against damage resulting from natural disasters and epidemics))
((Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof – Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on turnover taxes – Common system of valued added tax: uniform basis of assessment – Other cultural bodies recognised by the Member State concerned – Soloist (included thereunder?) – Activities in the public interest – Concert with primarily commercial aims (included thereunder?)))
((EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Arable crops – Beef and veal – 1996, 1997 and 1998 financial years))
((Failure to fulfil obligations – Recovery of sums paid but not due – Unjust enrichment – Burden of proof in accordance with national case-law and administrative practices – Proof that the taxpayer has not passed on to his customers the sum paid but not due))
((Sixth VAT Directive – Article 5 – Fuel management agreement – Person having been supplied with fuel))
((Failure to fulfil obligations – Directive 98/5/EC – Reasoned opinion – Failure to take into account observations submitted by the Member State in response to the formal notice – Inadmissibility))
((Trade Mark Directive – Signs capable of constituting a trade mark – Signs consisting exclusively of the shape of a product – Distinctive character – Criteria))
((Directive 89/686 – Material scope – Derogations – Personal protective equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order))
((Appeal against order of the Court of First Instance – Access to Council documents – Refusal of access to documents relating to the Basle/Nyborg Agreement on the reinforcement of the European Monetary System – Admissibility of the application to the Court of First Instance))
((Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets in cereals – Standing invitation to tender procedure – Cereal products for export to ACP countries – Event causing time to begin to run for production of proof of entry for consumption in the destination State – Second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87))
((Environment – Directive 90/313/EEC – Access to information on the environment – Definition – Information relating to compliance with the rules on the labelling of foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms))
((Interpretation of Article 39 EC and Directive 89/48/EEC – Recognition of higher-education diplomas – Admission to the hospital managers' corps – Freedom of movement for workers))
((Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal – Freedom of movement for persons – Community national who is married to a national of a non-Member State and leaves her State of origin and settles with her husband for a limited period in another Member State in order on their return to the Member State of origin to be entitled to claim rights under Community law))
((Free movement of workers – Officials and other servants of the European Communities – Protocol on Privileges and Immunities – Domicile for tax purposes in the Member State of origin – National income tax – Deductible expenditure))
((Interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now Article 39 EC) – Concept of (migrant) worker – Conditions relating to period of employment relationship and/or intensity of the search for employment – Social advantages within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 – Study finance – Citizenship of the Union))
((Freedom to provide services – Directive 64/427/EEC – Skilled services in the plastering trade – National rules requiring foreign skilled-trade undertakings to be entered on the trades register – Proportionality))
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms))
((Agriculture – EAGGF – Recovery of co-financed aid – Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Whether Commission or national authorities competent))
((Social security – Old-age pensions – Recalculation – Recovery of sums paid though not due – Limitation – Law applicable))
((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption))
((Free movement of goods – Article 29 EC – Vehicle registration – Transfer by road to one Member State of a vehicle purchased in another Member State – Disproportionate criminal penalties))
(Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Transfer of tax residence – Arrangements for taxing capital gains on securities)
((Customs duty – Classification of goods – Binding tariff information – Conditions governing revocation – Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing a Community Customs Code – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty))
(Directive 91/156/EEC – Waste – Management plan – Suitable waste disposal sites and installations – Permit granted in the absence of a management plan containing a map specifying planned locations for disposal sites)
(Directive 89/552 – Television advertising – Freedom to provide services – Television advertising of alcoholic beverages – Prohibition in a Member State – Possible incompatibility with Community law)
(Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Italian Republic – Protection of the environment – Environmental impact assessment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Checking whether a project will affect the natural environment – Decision not to make a project subject to study of the environmental impact – Decision not explained by reasons)
(Freedom of movement for workers – Equal treatment in collective agreements – Interim assistance – Discrimination against persons formerly employed in Germany and resident in France)
(Officials – Staff Regulations – Article 85a – The European Communities' right of subrogation – Scope of the subrogation rule)
iv) Interpretation of the concept of public policy in the light of the importance and scope of human dignity
(Interpretation of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association – Right of residence of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force – Adult stepson)
(Directive 96/9/EC – Databases – Legal protection – Sui generis right – Beneficiaries – Substantial investment – Obtaining, verification and presentation of the contents of a database – (In)substantial part of the contents of a database – Extraction and re-utilisation – Normal exploitation – Unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the maker – Sport – Betting)
(Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Trade mark composed of a colour per se (shade of orange) – Distinctive character – Obligation to state reasons – Right to a hearing)
(Tax law – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(f) – Games of chance – Card games and gaming machines – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Similarity of games of chance)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports – Incorrect transposal – Partial withdrawal)
(Member State which has allowed taxable persons a right of option for the taxation of transactions of leasing or letting of immovable property – Full deduction of input tax paid conditional upon prior approval of the tax authorities)
(Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – Proposed sites of Community importance)