ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-48/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/90/EC – Facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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. 5)

Re:

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17).

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
1.

Declares that, by failing to transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 – Commission v Luxembourg





(Case C-77/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2001/42/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment – Failure to implement within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 6)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

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 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 May 2007 – Commission v Ireland

(Case C‑391/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 2003/4/EC – Freedom of access to information – Environmental information – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2007 – T.I.M.E. ART v OHIM

(Case C‑171/06 P)

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 − Article 8(1)(b) − Figurative mark − Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier national trade mark – Likelihood of confusion

1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible (see paras 22-24)

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-41)

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 51)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 January 2005 in Case T-147/03 Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc v OHIM annulling, upon application by the proprietor of the national figurative mark QUANTIEME for goods in Classes 14 and 18, Decision R 109/2002-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the figurative Community trade mark QUANTUM for goods in Class 14.

Operative part

The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2007 – Commission v Portugal

(Case C‑410/06)

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/15/EC – Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

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. 10)

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

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed all the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Heading 0406 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be construed in such a way that it can accommodate the classification of a product, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, obtained from curdled milk from which a great deal of the serum has been extracted and the albumin content of which has been reduced, by the effect of an enzyme, to 2% of the total quantity of the albumins during a drying process lasting 24 to 36 hours and consisting of casein and more than 50% humidity.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Commission v Finland

(Case C‑523/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/59/EC – Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues – Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports

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. Acts of the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC) (see para. 12)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 2000/59 – Ship-generated waste and cargo residues (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/59, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 13-14)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – 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 implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Finland.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by failing to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the Republic of Finland 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;
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v Italy

(Case C‑119/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts – Award of a contract without a call for tenders – Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany

1. Approximation of laws – Procedures for awarding public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Scope (Council Directive 92/50) (see paras 34-52)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 57, 65-66)

3. Approximation of laws – Procedures for awarding public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Award of contracts (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC; Council Directive 92/50) (see paras 63-64)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 11, 15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) – Award of a contract without publication of the appropriate notice – Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany.

Operative part

Action dismissed;
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2008 – Commission v Finland

(Case C‑387/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Telecommunications sector – Article 8(1), (2)(b) and (3)(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC (‘Framework’ Directive) – Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Access’ Directive) – Electronic communications networks and services – Fixed and mobile telephone networks – Termination of calls – Incoming traffic – Limit on the powers of the national authority for communications regulation

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 226 CE) (see paras 24-25)

Re:

Action for failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and (3)(c) 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 (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 – Commission v Greece

(Case C‑481/06)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public procurement – Infringement of Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36/EC – General principles of the Treaty – Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency – National rules allowing use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts relating to certain medical equipment

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. 15)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition – National provision placing all material for medical use into categories and setting a specific maximum price for each category – Provision forming part of a legislative framework which allows use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts in respect of whole groups of products of that nature which are not comparable.

Operative part

The Court:

Declares that, by retaining in force Article 7(2) of Law 2955/2001 relating to the ‘Supplies of hospitals and other health units of regional health and pension schemes and other provisions’ and Joint Ministerial Decisions DY6a/oik.38611 and DY6a/oik.38609 of 12 April 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 and has infringed general principles of the Treaty, in particular equal treatment and the obligation of transparency;
1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force rules for the deduction of costs relating to research and development and technological innovation which are less favourable in respect of costs incurred abroad than costs incurred in Spain – such rules deriving from Article 35 of the Law on corporation tax, as amended by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 – the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the corresponding articles in the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 36 of that Agreement;
Operative part



Operative part

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

1. Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland 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. 8

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, 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, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions 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, 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 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

)

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 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC 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 (OJ 2002 L 270, p 10).

The Court:

1.

Operative part

Operative part

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC 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, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain 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. 7)

2. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

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 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 2005 L 58, p. 19).

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 Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, 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

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

Summary

Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an insurance broker or agent does not have a direct relationship with the parties to the insurance or reinsurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental, but merely an indirect relationship with them through the intermediary of another taxable person who is, himself, in a direct relationship with one of those parties, and to whom the insurance broker or agent is contractually bound does not prevent the service provided by the latter from being exempt from value added tax under that provision.

(see para. 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin – Directive 2000/43

(Council Directive 2000/43, Art. 2(2)(a))

2. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin – Directive 2000/43

(Council Directive 2000/43, Art. 8(1))

3. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin – Directive 2000/43

(Council Directive 2000/43, Art. 15)

Summary

1. The fact that an employer declares publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin, something which is clearly likely to strongly dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market, constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. The existence of such direct discrimination is not dependent on the identification of a complainant who claims to have been the victim of that discrimination.

(see paras 25, 28, operative part 1)

2. Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that, under its recruitment policy, it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. It is then for that employer to prove that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment. It can do so by showing that the undertaking’s actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements.

It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of the employer’s contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.

(see para. 34, operative part 2)

3. Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin requires that rules on sanctions applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.

(see para. 40, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality

(Art. 12 EC)

Summary

Community law precludes legislation of a Member State which excludes nationals of other Member States who live and work in its territory from the grant of compensation intended to make good losses resulting from offences against the person where the crime in question was not committed in the territory of that State, on the sole ground of their nationality.

(see para. 16, operative part)