ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Premium for the maintenance of the suckler cow herd

(Council Regulation No 1254/1999, Art. 3(f))

Summary

Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Regulation No 1512/2001, does not preclude national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.

In the absence of a precise definition of the concept of ‘suckler cow’ in Regulation No 2342/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1254/1999, for the purpose of determining the conditions of eligibility for the premium and of checking that premium applications relate to eligible animals in compliance with the objectives of those regulations and of Regulation No 2419/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Regulation No 3508/92 it is open to the Member States to provide clarification of that concept by taking as a basis the usual animal husbandry practice within their territory.

Moreover, the application of conditions at the level of individual cows rather than at the level of the herd as a whole strengthens legal certainty because it is clear and facilitates the monitoring of the regularity of premium applications by the competent national authorities. In principle, such application is not therefore incompatible with those regulations.

(see paras 41, 45, 49, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products

(Council Regulation No 866/90, Art. 13)

Summary

Article 13 of Regulation No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products must be interpreted as meaning that payment of financial assistance is not excluded in cases of the marketing or processing of products including products originating beyond the territory of the Community, when the specific programme for which that financial assistance was granted has been observed, in so far as products originating within the Community have been marketed or processed in the quantities provided for.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 22-23)

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9) (see para. 24)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability – Scope

(Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a))

2. Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78 – Prohibition of harassment – Scope

(Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 1 and 2(1) and (3))

Summary

1. Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. The principle of equal treatment enshrined in that directive in the area of employment and occupation applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the grounds mentioned in Article 1.

Where an employer treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78.

(see paras 38, 50, 56, operative part 1)

2. Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to people who are themselves disabled. Under Article 2(3), harassment is deemed to be a form of discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(1) and the principle of equal treatment enshrined in that directive in the area of employment and occupation applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the grounds mentioned in Article 1.

Where it is established that the unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee, such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down by Article 2(3) of Directive 2000/78.

(see paras 38, 58, 63, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439

(Council Directive 91/439, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Arts 1(2), 7(1), and 8(2) and (4))

Summary

On a proper construction of Articles 1(2), 7(1) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, it is contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State beyond any period in which the person concerned is forbidden to apply for a new licence and, therefore, to recognise the validity of that licence, so long as the licence-holder has not satisfied the necessary conditions in that first Member State for the issue of a new licence following the withdrawal of a previous licence, including the examination of fitness to drive certifying that the grounds justifying the withdrawal are no longer in existence.

In the same circumstances, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State to refuse to recognise in its territory the right to drive stemming from a driving licence subsequently issued by another Member State, if it is established, on the basis of entries appearing in the driving licence itself or of other incontestable information supplied by the Member State of issue, that when that licence was issued its holder, who had been the object, in the territory of the first Member State, of a measure withdrawing an earlier licence, was not normally resident in the territory of the Member State of issue.

(see para. 70, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Disposal of waste – Meaning (Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Arts 2(1) and 4(1) and Annex I, point 9) (see paras 28-31)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 45-47, 49-51)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) – Authorisation of a heating installation for the production of energy which partly incinerates dangerous waste without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment – Waste disposal and waste recovery operations.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Age discrimination

(Art. 13 EC; Council Directive 2000/78)

Summary

The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law. No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, before the time-limit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.

(see para. 25, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-127/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/65/EC – Distance marketing of financial services – 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 to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑160/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/51/EC – Company law – Annual accounts of certain types of companies – 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. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on difficulties in application – Unlawful (Art. 226 CE) (see para. 10)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (OJ 2003 L 178, p. 16).

Operative part:

By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑218/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/87/EC – Supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate – Failure to implement 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. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. By failing to adopt within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04

Italy

v

Commission

dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 – Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council

(Case C‑6/06 P)

Appeal – Non‑contractual liability of the Community – Principles of relative stability, legal certainty and legitimate expectations – Admissibility – Appeal in part unfounded and in part inadmissible – Cross appeal – Application to set aside part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance inasmuch as it holds that it is not necessary to rule on a plea of inadmissibility brought against an action which it dismissed as unfounded – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – Res judicata

1. Appeals – Admissibility – Decisions capable of forming the subject-matter of an appeal (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.) (see paras 21-22)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 34-36, 60)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Inoperative plea (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 51)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Party requesting an expert report after the closure of the oral procedure (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 62) (see paras 69-71)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2005 in Case T‑415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council in which the Court dismissed the action for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Council’s authorisation of the transfer to the French Republic of part of the quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the principal appeal, brought by Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council.

Dismisses the cross appeal brought by the Council of the European Union.

Orders Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council, and the Council of the European Union, to bear their own costs.
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑419/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Obligation to recover

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with the obligation to recover aid granted – Grounds of defence – Absolute impossibility of implementation – Assessment criteria (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 39-40)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Commission’s power to leave the calculation of the exact amount to be repaid to the national authorities (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 44, 46, 48)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid – Grounds of defence – Legality of the decision called in question – Inadmissible (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC) (see para. 52)

4. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 53-55)

5. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions – Introduction of a procedure ensuring the immediate and effective implementation of the Commission’s decision (Art. 88(2), second para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 58-59)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take measures to comply with Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 of 14 September 2005 on the recovery of aid granted to Olympic Airlines.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 September 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 –

Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑227/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Measures having equivalent effect – Construction products – Directive 89/106/EEC – Absence of harmonised standards – National marks of conformity – Presumption of conformity

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 52-69, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – National law imposing a de facto obligation for economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity in order to market those products in Belgium.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by encouraging economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 – Commission v Netherlands

(Case C‑398/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Right of residence of nationals of Members States of the European Union and of the European Economic Area who are non-active and pensioned persons – National legislation and administrative practice requiring personal resources sufficient for a stay of at least a year in the host Member State

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. 26)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Right of entry and residence of nationals of Member States – Directives 68/360, 90/364 and 90/365 – Conditions for the issuing of a residence permit (Council Directives 68/360, Art. 9(1) and (3), 90/364 and 90/365) (see paras 29, 31, operative part)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the Community rules on the residence of citizens of the Union – National legislation and administrative practice requiring that, in order to obtain a residence permit, non‑active and pensioned persons must have adequate personal resources.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force national provisions under which, in order to obtain a residence permit, nationals of the European Union and of the European Economic Area who are non-active and retired must prove that they have sustainable resources, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence and Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;