ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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. 12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies (OJ 2003 L 221, p. 13).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(4), (5) and (6) of Directive 2003/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 amending Council Directive 68/151/EEC, as regards disclosure requirements in respect of certain types of companies, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Fermented beverages containing distilled alcohol, produced from fruit or from a natural product, to which various substances have been added

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Annex I, headings 2206 and 2208; Commission Regulation No 2587/91)

Summary

Fermented alcohol-based beverages corresponding originally to heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2587/91, to which a certain proportion of distilled alcohol, water, sugar syrup, aromas, colourings and, in some cases, a cream base have been added, resulting in the loss of the taste, smell and/or appearance of a beverage produced from a particular fruit or natural product, do not come under heading 2206 of the Combined Nomenclature but rather under heading 2208 thereof, given, first of all, their essential objective characteristics and properties, in particular their distilled alcohol content; second, their organoleptic characteristics; and, lastly, their intended use as spirituous beverages.

(see paras 35-40, operative part)
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987, Arts 3 and 4)

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987, Arts 4 and 5)

3. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Directive 80/987

(Council Directive 80/987)

Summary

1. Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer do not preclude national legislation which allows employees’ outstanding claims to be classified as ‘social security benefits’ where they are paid by a guarantee institution.

(see para. 31, operative part 1)

2. Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer does not preclude national legislation which uses the employee’s initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison for the determination of the benefit to be guaranteed by the intervention of a guarantee fund.

(see para. 35, operative part 2)

3. In the context of an application by an employee for payment by a guarantee fund of outstanding claims relating to pay, Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer does not preclude the application of a limitation period of one year (principle of equivalence). However, it is for the national court to examine whether it is framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights recognised by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

(see para. 50, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Goods and services used for the purposes of transactions of the taxable person carried out abroad

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 17(3)(a))

Summary

Article 17(3)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that a supplier of telecommunications services, which is established in the territory of a Member State, is entitled under that provision to deduct or obtain a refund in that Member State of input value added tax on telecommunications services that have been supplied to an undertaking having its principal place of business in another Member State, since such a supplier would have had that right if the services at issue had been supplied in the territory of the former Member State.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Meaning (Art. 28 EC) (see paras 81-82)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Regulation No 338/97; Commission Regulation No 865/2006) (see paras 84-88, 91-93, 96-103, 110-113)

3. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Scope (Council Directive 79/409) (see para. 106)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 28 EC – Protection of species of wild fauna and flora – Prohibition of keeping certain birds legally placed on the market in other Member States.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States subject to restrictive conditions that require the market participants concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to satisfy the conditions specifically required by the Belgium legislation, and by failing to recognise the marking accepted in other Member States or certificates issued in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; and

– by denying traders the opportunity to obtain exemptions from the prohibition of keeping indigenous European birds legally placed on the market in other Member States,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC

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

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon obtained after filleting of the fish

Summary

The Combined Nomenclature to the Common Customs Tariff, which constitutes Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon (salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, must be classified under subheading 0303 22 00 of the Combined Nomenclature if the goods are fit for human consumption at the time that they are cleared through customs, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para. 21)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 24-25)

3. 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. 27)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of that directive;

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

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in insurance matters

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 9(1)(b) and 11(2))

Summary

The reference in Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) thereof must be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, acting as the statutory assignee of the rights of the party directly injured in a motor accident, may not bring an action directly in the courts of its Member State of establishment against the insurer of the person allegedly responsible for the accident, where that insurer is established in another Member State. In that regard, Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation No 44/2001 establishes an autonomous system for the conferral of jurisdiction in matters of insurance with the purpose of protecting the weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for. However, a social security institution cannot be considered to be an economically weaker party and less experienced legally than a civil liability insurer, meaning that no special protection is justified in relations between those professionals in the insurance sector.

(see paras 40-43, 47, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Single payment scheme

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 42(4); Commission Regulation No 795/2004, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, Art. 21)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Single payment scheme

(Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 42(4))

Summary

1. Article 42(4) of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations No 2019/93, No 1452/2001, No 1453/2001, No 1454/2001, No 1868/94, No 1251/1999, No 1254/1999, No 1673/2000, No 2358/71 and No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as giving the Member States such discretion as to permit them to establish a reference amount of EUR 0 and not to allocate any payment entitlements from the national reserve to a farmer who finds himself in a special situation as described in Article 21 of Regulation No 795/2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Regulation No 1974/2004, provided that that amount is based on objective criteria, does not prejudice the equal treatment of farmers and does not create market or competition distortions.

(see para. 34, operative part 1)

2. Community law and, in particular, Article 42(4) of Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations No 2019/93, No 1452/2001, No 1453/2001, No 1454/2001, No 1868/94, No 1251/1999, No 1254/1999, No 1673/2000, No 2358/71 and No 2529/2001 does not preclude the application of a national provision under which any increase in the amount of additional payments arising as a result of an investment in production capacity or a purchase of land is subject to a deduction of EUR 500 before a reference amount is established as the basis for the allocation of entitlements to payments from the national reserve.

Since it is applicable to all farmers calling on the national reserve, the national provision at issue is a general measure which is based on objective criteria and does not infringe the principle of equal treatment or entail market or competition distortions, in accordance with the aforementioned Article 42(4).

(see paras 38, 40, 46, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances –Directive 67/548 – Adaptation to technical progress

(Council Directive 67/548; Commission Directive 2004/73)

Summary

Where the Community authorities have a broad discretion, as is the case when the Commission adopts measures to adapt to technical progress the Annexes to Directive 67/548 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, in particular as to the assessment of highly complex scientific and technical facts in order to determine the nature and scope of the measures which they adopt, review by the Community judicature is limited to verifying whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers, or whether those authorities have manifestly exceeded the limits of their discretion. In such a context, the Community judicature cannot substitute its assessment of scientific and technical facts for that of the institutions on which alone the Treaty has placed that task. In addition, when a Community authority is called upon, in the performance of its duties, to make complex assessments, its discretion applies also, to a certain extent, to the finding of facts underlying its action.

Thus, when the Commission, by Directive 2004/73 adapting to technical progress for the 29th time Directive 67/548, to classify n-propyl bromide as a highly flammable substance, follows the opinion of the flammability expert group, which is based on the results of a number of tests carried out using different methods, confirmed by information taken from specialist publications, or where it classifies the same substance as toxic for reproduction in category 2 following the opinion of experts, itself based on the criteria set out in point 4.2.3 of Annex VI to Directive 67/548 and, in particular, in point 4.2.3.3 of that annex, the Commission’s exercise of its discretion is not vitiated by manifest error or by an abuse of power and does not manifestly exceed the limits of its discretion.

(see paras 47, 62, 64, 70-71, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility – Appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance in the sphere of competition (see paras 22-23, 25, 31)

2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Turnover taken into account – Value of deliveries internal to the undertaking – Included (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2) (see para. 30)

3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Division of the undertakings in question into categories with a specific starting point – Whether permissible (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission notice 98/C 9/03, point 1 A) (see paras 43, 45, 49, 56)

4. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Challenge on grounds of fairness to the Court of First Instance’s assessment concerning the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Excluded – Review limited to ascertaining whether the General Court took into account all the factors essential to the assessment of the gravity of the infringement and all the arguments raised against the fine imposed (see paras 58-59)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 in Case T-68/04 SGL Carbon v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application brought by the appellant for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products or, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant – Failure to take into consideration, by classifying it as a new and inadmissible complaint, the appellant’s argument concerning the taking into account of the value of the captive use in calculating the turnover and market shares of the undertakings concerned – Breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Consumer protection in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises – Directive 85/577 – Consumer’s right to cancel

(Council Directive 85/577, Arts 4 and 5(1))

Summary

Article 4 of Directive 85/577 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises does not preclude a national court from declaring, of its own motion, that a contract falling within the scope of that directive is void on the ground that the consumer was not informed of his right to cancel, even though the consumer at no stage pleaded that the contract was void before the competent national courts.

On the one hand, that provision comes under the public interest in justifying a positive intervention by the national court in order to compensate for the imbalance between the consumer and the trader in the context of contracts concluded away from business premises.

On the other hand, a measure which consists in declaring the contract in dispute void can be categorised as ‘appropriate’ within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 85/577, in that it penalises the failure to comply with an obligation which is essential to create binding intent on the part of the consumer and to attain the level of protection sought by the Community legislature.

However, that finding does not rule out the possibility that other measures might also ensure that level of protection, such as, for example, the resetting of the relevant time‑limits relating to the cancellation of the contract, thus placing the consumer in a position to exercise the right which is granted to him by Article 5(1) of the directive. In addition, the national court seised may also have to take account, in certain circumstances, of the consumer’s wish not to have the contract at issue cancelled.

(see paras 28, 34-36, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC – Definition

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Scope

(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, Arts 2(1) and 4(1), and Annex I, para. 20)

Summary

1. The Umweltsenat, which meets the criteria that it be established by law, be permanent and have compulsory jurisdiction, apply rules of law and be independent and the criteria which guarantee the inter parties nature of the proceedings, has to be considered to be a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC.

(see paras 36, 38-39)

2. Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35, are to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a Member State must make a project referred to in point 20 of Annex I to the Directive, such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure even where the project is transboundary in nature and less than 15 km of it is situated on the territory of that Member State.

The purpose of Directive 85/337 cannot be circumvented by the splitting of projects and the failure to take account of the cumulative effect of several projects must not mean in practice that they all cease to be covered by the obligation to carry out an assessment, when, taken together, they are likely to have ‘significant effects on the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337.

It follows that projects listed in Annex I to Directive 85/337 which extend to the territory of a number of Member States cannot be exempted from the application of the Directive solely on the ground that it does not contain any express provision in regard to them.

(see paras 53-54, 58, operative part)