ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 12)

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

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Operative part

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not having adopted within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 2(1) of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
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 8-10, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
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. 9)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 15).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Telecommunications sector

–

Universal service and users’ rights

–

Directive 2002/22 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Arts 8(2), 12 and 13, and Annex IV) (see paras 30-34, 45-46

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incorrect transposition [of Articles 8, 12 and 13] 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) – Obligation to use an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory mechanism to designate undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service – National legislation excluding a priori economic operators which are not capable of ensuring the provision of that service throughout the national territory.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by transposing into national law in the manner in which it did so the provisions concerning the designation of the undertakings capable of guaranteeing the provision of universal service, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(2), 12 and 13 of and Annex IV to 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’);

2. Orders the French Republic to bear the costs.
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. 11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 26(3) 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).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that undertakings which operate public telephone networks make, in so far as it is technically feasible, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) 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);

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

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Water pollution – Directive 2006/11 – Implementation of specific programmes incorporating environmental quality standards in order to reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/11, Art. 6 and Annex I, List II)

Summary

Article 6 of Directive 2006/11 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, which requires Member States to subject all discharges which are liable to contain any substances in List 2 of Annex I to the directive to prior authorisation, in which emission standards are laid down, cannot be interpreted as allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality standards have been adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in nature, subject to a reference to those standards and a right for the administrative authority to object to the commencement of operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned.

First, prior specific examination of each planned discharge liable to contain List II substances is necessary to implement programmes to reduce water pollution established by the Member States in accordance with Article 6(1) of that directive, under which subjecting all discharges of that nature to prior authorisation constitutes one of the means of implementing those programmes. Such an examination is also necessary to fix in each case of authorised discharge the emission standards determined on the basis of the environmental quality standards included in those programmes and intended to reduce discharges containing one or more List II substances. That examination requires, moreover, an assessment of the actual state of the waters affected which must be taken into account in determining the emission standards. Secondly, tacit authorisation cannot be compatible with the requirement to specify, in the prior authorisation, the emission standards.

(see paras 27, 35, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Member States

–

Obligations

–

Implementation of directives

–

Failure to fulfil obligations

–

Justification

–

Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 16-21

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 26(3) 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).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that by not making, for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) 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);

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

3. Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directive 75/442 – Disposal and recovery of waste

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Art. 4, first para.; Commission Decision 2000/532)

2. Environment – Disposal of waste – Directives 75/442 and 91/689 – Decision establishing a list of wastes

(Council Directives 75/442, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Art. 1(a)) and 91/689, Art. 1(4); Commission Decision 2000/532)

Summary

1. Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, and Decision 2000/532 replacing Decision 94/3 establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 on waste and Decision 94/904 establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 on hazardous waste do not preclude a producer of waste mixing together items of waste covered by different codes in the list annexed to Decision 2000/532 during their temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where they are produced.

However, the Member States are required to adopt measures requiring producers of waste to sort and store waste separately during its temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where it is produced, using, for that purpose, the codes from that list, if they consider such measures to be necessary to achieve the objectives laid down in the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 75/442, which provides that Member States are to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

(see paras 24, 27, operative part 1)

2. Decision 2000/532 replacing Decision 94/3 establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 on waste and Decision 94/904 establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 on hazardous waste does not contain any stipulation relating to the temporary storage of waste, pending collection, on the site where it is produced. It is merely designed to establish a waste nomenclature in accordance with Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 and Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 on hazardous waste and does not create any obligation.

Nevertheless, since the national rules repeat the list of waste annexed to Decision 2000/532, code 15 01 06 corresponding to ‘mixed packaging’ may be used to cover waste consisting of packaging of various materials grouped together.

(see paras 29, 33, operative part 2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Article 141 EC – Effects of a judgment of the Court finding there to be discrimination (Art. 141 EC) (see para. 26)

2. Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Remuneration –Meaning – Pensions regime for officials and civil servants (Art. 141 EC) (see paras 42, 44, 46-47, 49-50, 55, 60)

3. Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Pensions regime for officials and civil servants (Art. 141 EC) (see paras 62, 66-68)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 141 EC – Infringement of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers – National civil and military retirement pensions regime prescribing a retirement age that can vary according to sex.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions which provide for differences between male and female workers with regard to retirement age and minimum required service under the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code instituted by Presidential Decree No 166/2000 of 3 July 2000, in the version applicable to the present case, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Waterford Wedgwood plc to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 67-69)

2. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 98)

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. 187)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that,

– by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose completely and correctly Article 1(2)(b); the second subparagraph of Article 1(2)(c), Article 1(2)(d); the second subparagraph of Article 1(13); Article 14(4); Article 17(10)(a) and (c); Article 34(8), Article 36(2); Article 39(2); Article 45(1) and (3)(a) and (c); Article 48(1) to (4) and (6)(c); the second indent of Article 49(2); Article 49(3) to (5); the first subparagraph of Article 50(1)(c); Article 52(1); the second subparagraph of Article 57(1)(d) and (e); the first sentence of Article 57(3), and Article 65(2) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, and

– by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 9, Article 34(2), Article 52(3) and the second sentence of Article 57(3) of Directive 2004/17,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

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

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive – Exemption for lettings of immovable property

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13(B)(b))

Summary

Even if the cleaning services of the common parts of an apartment block accompany the use of the property let, they do not necessarily fall within the concept of letting for the purposes of Article 13(B)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

Consequently, where the letting of apartments and the cleaning of the common parts of an apartment block can be separated from each other, in particular where the landlord invoices the cleaning services to the tenants separately from the rent, such letting and such cleaning must, for the purposes of applying Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive, be regarded as independent, mutually divisible operations, so that the service in question does not fall within that provision.

(see paras 21, 23-25, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Explanatory notes to the Combined nomenclature

(Council Regulation No 2658/87; Commission Regulations No 1776/2001, No 2031/2001 and No 1810/2004)

Summary

Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulations No 1776/2001, No 2031/2001 and No 1810/2004, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, is invalid to the extent that it excludes natural apple juice concentrate from heading 2009.

The broad logic of subheading 2009 79 clearly suggests that natural apple juice concentrates, of a Brix value slightly below 67, have not lost their character as fruit juices, contrary to what is stated in that note. That note excludes apple juice concentrates by means of a notional calculation of the added sugar content, giving a result of over 50% by weight, whereas apple juice concentrates, which have undergone water extraction and therefore have high Brix values, retain their original character. Since there is no sugar added and the high level of added sugar, giving a result of over 50% by weight, is produced solely by the concentration brought about by the extraction of water, the Additional Note at issue definitely amends the content of the tariff headings at issue by excluding apple juice concentrates from heading 2009, thereby exceeding the powers which Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87 confers upon the Commission.

(see paras 40-42, operative part)
By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑4/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2003/110/EC – Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air – 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)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26).

Operative part

By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) of that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C‑263/07)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition – Directive 96/61/EC – Article 9(4) – Article 13(1) – Annex I – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Concepts of ‘application of the best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration of the conditions for an operating permit’

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. 14)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incorrect transposition of Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) and of Annex I thereto – Concepts of application of the ‘best available techniques’ and ‘periodic reconsideration’ of the conditions for an operating permit.

Operative part

By failing correctly to transpose Articles 9(4) and 13(1) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and of Annex I thereto, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.