ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Declares that, by failing: — to classify, since 6 April 1981, in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997, all the most suitable territories in number and size for the species mentioned in Annex I to that directive, with the exception of those intended to ensure conservation of the Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris), as well as for regularly occurring migratory species not mentioned in Annex I, with the exception of those intended to ensure protection of the lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), the redshank (Tringa totanus), the snipe (Gallinago gallinago) and the curlew (Numenius arquata); — to ensure that, since 6 April 1981, the provisions of the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, are applied to areas requiring classification as special protection areas under that directive; — to transpose and apply the provisions of the second sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, fully and correctly; — to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in respect of all special protection areas classified under Article 4(1) of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, or recognised under Article 4(2) of that directive; — to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 in respect of recreational use of all sites intended to be subject to that article; — to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43 in respect of plans; — to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 in respect of authorisation of aquaculture programmes; — to take all the measures necessary to comply with of Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43 in respect of the drain maintenance works in the Glen Lough special protection area; and — to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 10 of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1), (2) and (4), and 10 of Directive 79/409, as amended by Directive 97/49, and Article 6(2) to (4) of Directive 92/43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-319/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 and 30 EC - Directive 2001/83/EC - Garlic preparation in capsule form - Preparation legally marketed as a food supplement in a number of Member States - Preparation classified as a medicinal product in the Member State of importation - Definition of ‘medicinal product’ - Obstacle - Jurisdiction - Public health - Proportionality)

(2008/C 8/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Schima, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC — National administrative practice classifying a garlic preparation in capsule form as a medicinal product — Concept of medicinal product under Community rules

Operative part of the judgment

1) By classifying as a medicinal product a garlic preparation in capsule form not satisfying the definition of a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC;

2) The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/2

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) — Centro Europa 7 Srl v Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni

(Case C-380/05) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Electronic communications - Television broadcasting activities - New common regulatory framework - Allocation of radio frequencies)

(2008/C 79/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Centro Europa 7 Srl

Defendants: Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Autorizzazioni e Concessioni Ministero delle Comunicazioni

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Interpretation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Obligation on Member States, in the sector of television broadcasting activities, to ensure access to networks and maintain multiplicity of undertakings on the market — National regulations allowing the grant of individual rights to undertakings not authorised under the national plan determining the licensees of television broadcasting services and not allowing an undertaking authorised under the national plan to carry on its activities

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC and, from the date on which they became applicable, Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), and Article 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services must be interpreted as precluding, in television broadcasting matters, national legislation the application of which makes it impossible for an operator holding rights to broadcast in the absence of broadcasting radio frequencies granted on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Council of the European Union

(Case C-137/05) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Passports and travel documents issued by the Member States - Standards for security features and biometrics - Validity)

(2008/C 51/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by C. Jackson and C. Gibbs, Agents, A. Dashwood, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, and A. Collins, SC, and P. McGarry, BL), Slovak Republic, (represented by R. Procházka, J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. J. Schutte, R. Szostak and G. Giglio, Agents,

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain, (represented by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands, (represented by H.G. Sevenster, Agent) Commission of the European Communities, (represented by C. O'Reilly, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson, Joakim Roos

(Case C-142/05) (1)

(Directive 94/25/EC - Approximation of laws - Recreational craft - Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Access to the market - Impediment - Protection of the environment - Proportionality)

2009/C 180/02

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Luleå tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Åklagaren

Defendant: Percy Mickelsson, Joakim Roos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Luleå tingsrätt — Interpretation of Articles 28 to 30 EC and of Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (OJ 2003 L 214, p. 18) — Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003, does not preclude national regulations which, for reasons relating to the protection of the environment, prohibit the use of personal watercraft on waters other than designated waterways.

Articles 28 EC and 30 EC do not preclude such national regulations provided that:

— the competent national authorities are required to adopt the implementing measures provided for in order to designate waters other than general navigable waterways on which personal watercraft may be used;

— those authorities have actually made use of the power conferred on them in that regard and designated the waters which satisfy the conditions laid down in the national regulations, and

— such measures have been adopted within a reasonable period after the entry into force of those regulations.

It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force a reduced rate of value added tax of 5 % applicable to road tolls for crossing the Tagus at Lisbon, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/4/EC of 19 January 2001;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-262/06) (1)

(Telecommunications sector - Universal service and users' rights - Definition of ‘obligations’ which are to be provisionally maintained - First paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) - Tariffs for the supply of voice telephony services - Requirement for administrative authorisation)

(2008/C 22/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Meaning of ‘obligations’ to be provisionally maintained by the Member States — Pre-existing requirement for authorisation of charges for the supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an undertaking with a dominant position

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a statutory requirement for the approval of tariffs for the supply of retail voice telephony services provided by undertakings with a dominant position in that market, such as that provided for in Paragraph 25 of the Law on Telecommunications (Telekommunikationsgesetz) of 25 July 1996, enacted by national law and preceding the regulatory framework resulting from those directives, together with administrative measures confirming that requirement, must be temporarily maintained.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/24

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs BV

(Case C-526/06) (1)

(Community Customs Code and implementing regulation - Community transit - Offence - Proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place of the offence - Failure to grant a period of three months in which to furnish such proof - Repayment of customs duties - Concept of ‘legally owed’)

(2008/C 51/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Road Air Logistics Customs BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Reimbursement or remission of customs duties — Amount not legally owed — Determination of the place in which the customs debt was incurred

Operative part of the judgment

Article 236(1), first subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted to mean that the failure of the national customs authorities to determine, in accordance with Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, the place where the customs debt was incurred does not have the effect of rendering the amount of customs duties not legally owed.

Nevertheless, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs can proceed to recovery of import duties only if, pursuant to Article 379(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, it has first informed the principal that it has a period of three months in which to furnish proof of the place where the infringement or the irregularity was actually committed and such proof has not been provided within that period.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/12

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda

(Case C-62/06) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 - Article 3 - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings - Competent authority for classifying the act)

(2008/C 51/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas

Defendant: ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ministério Público

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — ‘Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ — Concept and classification

Operative part of the judgment

Classification of an act as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties, falls within the competence of the customs authorities required to determine the exact amount of the import duties or export duties in question.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament

(Case C-135/06 P) (1)

(Appeal - Remuneration - Dependent child allowance - Deduction of the amount of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources - Unlimited jurisdiction - Disputes of a financial character)

(2008/C 51/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Roderich Weißenfels (represented by: G. Maximini, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, M. Ecker and U. Rösslein, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v Parliament, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 June 2003 deducting from the sum of the double dependent child allowance, granted to the appellant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, the amount of an allowance of like nature received from another source — Conditions for the application of the rule against overlapping referred to in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations — meaning of ‘allowances of like nature’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich Weißenfels v European Parliament.

2. Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 26 June 2003 and 28 April 2004.

3. Orders the European Parliament to pay to Mr Weißenfels the arrears of dependent child allowances which he should have received as from 1 July 2003, together with interest at the statutory rate.

4. Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Weißenfels before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the Court of Justice of the European Communties.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/10

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-398/06) (1)

(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)

(2008/C 128/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. O'Neill, Agent, and J. Stratford, Barrister)

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 which require that, in order to obtain a residence permit, non-active and pensioned persons must have adequate personal resources

Operative part of the judgment

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;

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

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.