ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Framework Decision 2001/220

(Council Framework Decision 2001/220, Arts 2 and 3)

Summary

Framework Decision 2001/220 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, while requiring Member States, first, to ensure that victims enjoy a high level of protection and have a real and appropriate role in their criminal legal system and, second, to recognise victims’ rights and legitimate interests and ensure that they can be heard and supply evidence, leaves to the national authorities a large measure of discretion with regard to the specific means by which they implement those objectives.

Thus, Articles 2 and 3 of that Framework Decision are to be interpreted as not obliging a national court to permit the victim to be heard as a witness in criminal proceedings instituted by a substitute private prosecution. However, in the absence of such a possibility, it must be possible for the victim to be permitted to give testimony which can be taken into account as evidence.

(see paras 46, 50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Variable refund

(Commission Regulations No 1501/95, as amended by Regulation No 1259/97, Art. 13, and No 800/1999, Art. 16(3))

Summary

Article 13 of Regulation No 1501/95 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals, as amended by Regulation No 1259/97, which releases operators from the obligation to provide proof of completion of customs formalities for release for consumption where refunds are fixed by invitation to tender on condition that the operator provides proof that a quantity of at least 1 500 tonnes of cereal product has left the customs territory of the Community on board a vessel suitable for sea transport, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the operator provides such proof does not release him from the obligation laid down in Article 16(3) of Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products to produce a copy or a photocopy of the transport documents.

(see para. 50, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (Art. 249 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 17, 21-23)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81) – Failure to have developed and/or implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports under the jurisdiction of the ‘Comunidades Autónomas’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to develop, implement and approve waste reception and handling plans for all Spanish ports, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Incineration – Directive 2000/76

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 3(1))

2. Environment – Waste – Incineration – Directive 2000/76

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 3(4))

3. Environment – Waste – Incineration – Directive 2000/76

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/76, Art. 3(4) and (5))

Summary

1. The definition of ‘waste’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste does not cover gaseous substances.

(see para. 17, operative part 1)

2. The definition of ‘incineration plant’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste relates to any technical unit and equipment in which waste is thermally treated, on condition that the substances resulting from the use of the thermal treatment process are subsequently incinerated. In that connection, the presence of an incineration line is not a necessary condition for the purposes of such classification.

(see para. 22, operative part 2)

3. As regards a power-generating complex in which a gas plant, sited next to a power plant, provides the latter with purified gas which is obtained by the gasification of waste and used in the power plant as a fuel alongside fossil fuels, a separate examination of the gas plant and the power plant should in principle be carried out for the purposes of applying Directive 2000/76 on the incineration of waste.

A gas plant whose objective is to obtain products in gaseous form, in this case purified gas, by thermally treating waste must be classified as a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/76; a power plant which uses as an additional fuel, in substitution for fossil fuels used for the most part in its production activities, a purified gas obtained by the co-incineration of waste in a gas plant does not fall within the scope of that directive. In that connection, for the purposes of classifying a unit as an incineration or co-incineration plant, there is no need to take account of which classification would enable the level of emissions most favourable to the environment to be achieved.

(see paras 25, 41-43, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Measures having equivalent effect – Meaning

(Art. 29 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 97/7, Art. 6)

Summary

Article 29 EC does not preclude national rules which prohibit a supplier, in cross-border distance selling, from requiring an advance or any payment from a consumer before expiry of the withdrawal period, but Article 29 EC does preclude a prohibition, under those rules, on requesting, before expiry of that period, the number of the consumer’s payment card.

Such a prohibition on the supplier, even if he undertakes not to use the payment card to collect payment before expiry of the period for withdrawal, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports. The consequences of such a prohibition are generally more significant in cross-border sales made directly to consumers, in particular, in sales made by means of the internet, by reason, inter alia, of the obstacles to bringing any legal proceedings in another Member State against consumers who default, especially when the sales involve relatively small sums. The actual effect of such a prohibition, even if it is applicable to all traders active in the national territory, is none the less greater on goods leaving the market of the exporting Member State than on the marketing of goods in the domestic market of that Member State.

As regard whether such a measure can be justified by the objective of ensuring consumer protection, the prohibition on requiring an advance is clearly an appropriate and proportionate measure to ensure the effective exercise of the right to withdraw. In that regard, first, the Member States must determine, in compliance with Community law, how the risk of non-performance which is a feature of distance-selling contracts because of the gap between the performance by each party of his contractual obligations ought to be allocated between supplier and consumer. Secondly, even if the prohibition on requiring a payment during the period for withdrawal increases the uncertainty of suppliers as to whether the price for the delivered goods will be paid, that prohibition is none the less clearly necessary to ensure a high level of consumer protection. In fact, a consumer who has made an advance payment to a supplier will be less inclined to exercise his right of withdrawal, even if he finds the delivered goods to be not entirely in accordance with his requirements.

However, the value of the prohibition on a supplier requiring a consumer’s payment card number resides only in the fact that it eliminates the risk that the supplier may collect the price before expiry of the period for withdrawal. If, however, that risk materialises, the supplier’s action is, in itself, a contravention of the prohibition on requiring a payment before expiry of the period for withdrawal, and consequently the imposition on a supplier of a prohibition on requiring that a consumer provide his payment card number goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.

(see paras 42-43, 52, 54-56, 60-62, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Directive 96/61

(Council Directive 96/61, Annex I, subheading 6.6(a))

2. Environment – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Directive 96/61

(Council Directive 96/61, Annex I, subheading 6.6(a))

Summary

1. The term ‘poultry’, which appears in subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to Directive 96/61 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as including quails, partridges and pigeons.

(see para. 34, operative part 1)

2. As the purpose of Directive 96/61 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, is the prevention and control of pollution arising from certain activities, including intensive rearing of poultry, the use of a method of ‘animal-equivalents’ should be permitted only if it is fully consistent with that objective. Use of that method must not, by contrast, have the effect of excluding from the system established by that directive installations set up under that method in relation to their total number of places.

Therefore, subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to Directive 96/61 precludes national legislation which calculates the thresholds for authorisation of installations for intensive rearing on the basis of a system of ‘animal-equivalents’ founded on a weighting of animals by places according to species so that account may be taken of the amount of nitrogen actually excreted by the various bird species.

(see paras 40, 45, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Art. 31(1))

2. Approximation of laws – Electronic communications networks and services – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Art. 31(1))

Summary

1. Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which requires a cable operator to provide access to its analogue cable network to television channels and services that are already being broadcast terrestrially, thereby resulting in the utilisation of more than half of the channels available on that network, and which provides, in the event of a shortage of available channels, for an order of priority of applicants which results in full utilisation of the channels available on that network, provided that those obligations do not give rise to unreasonable economic consequences, which is a matter for the national court to establish.

(see para. 56, operative part 1)

2. The concept of ‘television services’ within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services includes services of broadcasters of television programmes or providers of media services, such as teleshopping, provided that the conditions laid down in that provision are met, which is a matter for the national court to establish.

(see para. 69, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments – Recognition and enforcement – Definition of ‘judgment’ – Judgments by default – Included – Conditions

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 25)

2. Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Grounds for refusal – Infringement of public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought – Assessment by the court of the State in which enforcement is sought

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(1))

Summary

1. Article 25 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Conventions on Accession of 1978, 1982, 1989 and 1996, refers, without distinction, to all judgments given by a court or tribunal of a Contracting State. For such decisions to fall within the scope of the Convention, it is sufficient if, before their recognition and enforcement are sought in a State other than the State of origin, they have been, or have been capable of being, the subject in that State of origin and under various procedures, of an inquiry in adversarial proceedings. Where the decisions of the national court took the form of a judgment and an order given in default of appearance in civil proceedings which, as a rule, adhere to the adversarial principle, the fact that the court entered judgment as if the defendant, who had entered appearance, was in default, cannot suffice to call into question the categorisation of those decisions as judgments.

(see paras 22-23, 25)

2. Article 27(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Conventions on Accession of 1978, 1982, 1989 and 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may take into account, with regard to the public policy clause referred to in that article, the fact that the court of the State of origin ruled on the applicant’s claims without hearing the defendant, who entered appearance before it but who was excluded from the proceedings by order on the ground that he had not complied with the obligations imposed by an order made earlier in the same proceedings, if, following a comprehensive assessment of the proceedings and in the light of all the circumstances, it appears to it that that exclusion measure constituted a manifest and disproportionate infringement of the defendant’s right to be heard. Review by the national court must relate not only to the circumstances in which the decisions – the enforcement of which is sought – were taken, but also to the circumstances in which, at an earlier stage, the injunctive orders were adopted, and in particular to verifying, first, the legal remedies made available to the defendant and, second, that the abovementioned decisions offered the defendant the possibility of being heard, in compliance with the adversarial principle and the full exercise of the rights of defence.

(see paras 41, 46, 48, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Consumer protection in respect of consumer credit – Directive 87/102

(Council Directive 87/102, Art. 11(2))

Summary

Article 11(2) of Directive 87/102 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement between a supplier and a grantor of credit whereunder credit is made available exclusively by that grantor of credit to customers of that supplier is not a necessary condition for the right of those customers to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit – where the supplier is in breach of contract – in order to obtain the termination of the credit agreement and the subsequent reimbursement of the sums paid to the grantor of credit.

In a situation where the national legislation applicable to contractual relations provides that the consumer is entitled to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit in order to obtain the termination of the credit agreement and the reimbursement of the sums already paid, the directive does not make the exercise of such remedies subject to the requirement of exclusivity that has been referred to. By contrast, such a condition may need to be satisfied in order to assert other rights, not covered by national measures on contractual relations, such as the right to damages for loss caused by a breach of obligations by the supplier of goods or services in question.

Making the consumer’s pursuit of remedies against the grantor of credit subject to the condition that there be a pre-existing exclusivity clause between the grantor of credit and the supplier would be at variance with the aim of Directive 87/102, which is primarily to protect the consumer as the weaker contracting party.

(see paras 29-31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent right – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1610/96, Art. 3(2); Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 3(c))

Summary

Article 3(c) of Regulation No 1768/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, which provides that a certificate is to be granted if, in the Member State in which the application is submitted and at the date of that application, the product has not already been the subject of a certificate, considered in the light of the second sentence of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, which states that where two or more applications concerning the same product and emanating from two or more holders of different patents are pending, one certificate for this product may be issued to each of these holders, must be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product for which, at the time the certificate application is submitted, one or more certificates have already been granted to one or more holders of one or more other basic patents.

(see para. 43, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents

(Art. 255 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), third indent; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to justify refusal of access to a document the disclosure of which has been requested, it is not sufficient, in principle, for that document to fall within an activity mentioned in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The institution concerned must also supply explanations as to how access to that document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by an exception laid down in that article. However, the Court has acknowledged that it is, in principle, open to the Community institution to base its decisions in that regard on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar kind are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature. It is, in principle, open to the Commission to base its decisions in that regard on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar kind are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature.

As regards procedures for reviewing State aid, such general presumptions may arise from Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] and from the case-law concerning the right to consult documents on the Commission’s administrative file. Regulation No 659/1999, and, in particular, Article 20 thereof, does not lay down any right of access to documents in the Commission’s administrative file for interested parties, with the exception of the Member State which granted the aid. If those interested parties were able to obtain access, on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001, to the documents in the Commission’s administrative file, the system for the review of State aid would be called into question.

Thus, for the purposes of interpreting the exception laid down in Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, account should be taken of the fact that interested parties other than the Member State concerned in the procedures for reviewing State aid do not have the right to consult the documents in the Commission’s administrative file, and, therefore, the existence of a general presumption should be acknowledged that disclosure of documents in the administrative file in principle undermines protection of the objectives of investigation activities.

That general presumption does not exclude the right of those interested parties to demonstrate that a given document disclosure of which has been requested is not covered by that presumption, or that there is a higher public interest justifying the disclosure of the document concerned by virtue of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

(see paras 53-56, 58, 61-62)
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – Commission v Belgium

(Case C‑90/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/12/EC – Packaging and packaging waste – 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. 11)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.