larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2005-04-14
24. It must first be borne in mind that, according to established case-law, Community law does not preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another Member State which provides services in the territory of the first Member State to pay its workers the minimum remuneration laid down by the national rules of that State (Joined Cases 62/81 and 63/81 Seco and Desquenne & Giral  [1982] ECR 223, paragraph 14; Case C-272/94 Guiot  [1996] ECR I-1905, paragraph 12; Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Arblade and Others  [1999] ECR I-8453, paragraph 33; Case C-165/98 Mazzoleni and ISA  [2001] ECR I‑2189, paragraphs 28 and 29; and Case C-164/99 Portugaia Construções [2002] ECR I-787, paragraph 21).  The application of such rules must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue, that is to say, the protection of posted workers, and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see to that effect, inter alia, Arblade and Others , cited above, paragraph 35, Mazzoleni and ISA , cited above, paragraph 26, and Case C‑60/03 Wolff & Müller  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34).
33. It is, however, necessary to point out that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C‑63/02 Commission  v United Kingdom  [2003] ECR I-821, paragraph 11, and judgment of 16 December 2004 in Case C-313/03 Commission  v Italy , not published in the ECR, paragraph 9).  Subsequent changes cannot be taken into account by the Court (see, inter alia, judgment of 18 November 2004 in Case C-482/03 Commission  v Ireland , not published in the ECR, paragraph 11).
35. According to settled case-law, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations it is for the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled.  It is the Commission which must provide the Court with the evidence necessary for the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and it may not rely on any presumption (see, inter alia, Case 96/81 Commission  v Netherlands  [1982] ECR 1791, paragraph 6, and Case C-194/01 Commission  v Austria  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34).
39. Contrary to what the Commission submits, allowances and supplements which are not defined as being constituent elements of the minimum wage by the legislation or national practice of the Member State to the territory of which the worker is posted, and which alter the relationship between the service provided by the worker, on the one hand, and the consideration which he receives in return, on the other, cannot, under the provisions of Directive 96/71, be treated as being elements of that kind.
Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2005-04-14
68. According to established case-law, where the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was incurred as a result of a breach of Community rules for which a Member State can be held responsible, the Commission is not required to demonstrate exhaustively that the checks carried out by the Member States are inadequate or that the figures supplied by them are incorrect, but to provide evidence of the serious and reasonable doubt it entertains concerning the checks carried out by the national authorities or concerning the correct application of the Community law in force.  The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the State which is best placed to collect and check the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, and which is consequently required to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its checks are actually carried out and, if appropriate, that the Commission’s assertions are incorrect (see, inter alia, Case C‑278/98 Netherlands  v Commission  [2001] ECR I-1501, paragraphs 39 to 41; Case C-377/99 Germany  v Commission  [2002] ECR I-7421, paragraph 95; Case C-329/00 Spain  v Commission  [2003] ECR I-6103, paragraph 68).
79. With regard to the possibility of extrapolation to other regions of Portugal, the Court has already held that extrapolation of data is not prohibited in principle (see Case C-344/01 Germany  v Commission  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 61).  Such extrapolation must, however, always be justified by the evidence.  In the present case, the fact that Alentejo constitutes the main cattle breeding region justifies that extrapolation.
83. It has been consistently held that the extent of the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC depends on the nature of the measure concerned and the context in which it was adopted (see, inter alia, Case C-54/91 Germany  v Commission  [1993] ECR I-3399, paragraph 10).
84. In the particular context of the drafting of decisions relating to the clearance of accounts, the reasons given for a decision are to be considered sufficient when the relevant Member State was closely involved in the process under which that decision was drawn up and knew the reasons why the Commission considered that the disputed amount should not be charged to the EAGGF (see, inter alia, Case C‑329/00 Spain  v Commission , cited above, paragraph 83).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2005-04-14
23. As the Court stated in paragraphs 33 and 34 of its judgment in Case C-127/02 Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging  [2004] ECR I-0000, it is clear from Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 that in every case of a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, the competent authorities are required to carry out an appropriate assessment in that respect. That assessment must relate to the implications of the plan or project for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
26. Within the procedural context thus outlined, it is only where the assessment required under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 is negative and in the absence of alternative solutions that, where the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, the examination laid down in Article 6(4) must be undertaken. It is stated in Article 6(3) that the decision is to be adopted by the competent authorities ‘subject to the provisions of paragraph 4’.
27. As to the examination which must be carried out within the framework of Article 6(4), it should be noted that the complex factors to which it relates, such as the absence of alternative solutions and the existence of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, are intended to enable a Member State to take all compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is preserved. Furthermore, where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, only a limited number of such imperative reasons may be relied on in order to justify a plan or project nevertheless being carried out.
28. In those circumstances, having regard to the particular characteristics of each of the stages referred to in Article 6 of Directive 92/43, it must be held that the various requirements set out in Article 6(4) cannot constitute elements that the competent national authorities are obliged to take account of where they carry out an appropriate assessment provided for in Article 6(3).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2005-04-21
21. It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation obtaining in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that account cannot be taken of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C‑103/00 Commission  v Greece  [2002] ECR I-1147, paragraph 23, and Case C‑97/01 Commission  v Luxembourg  [2003] ECR I-5797, paragraph 30).
27. According to settled case-law, Article 43 EC precludes any national measure which, even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hinder or render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals of the freedom of establishment that is guaranteed by the Treaty (see, in particular, Case C-19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32, and Case C‑299/02 Commission  v Netherlands  [2004] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 15).
34. A national measure which, even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to hinder or render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty may be justified by overriding reasons of general interest, provided that the measure in question is appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see, in particular, Kraus , cited above, paragraph 32).
Novartis AG, University College London and Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom (C-207/03) and Ministre de l'Économie v Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (C-252/03).
Date: 2005-04-21
2. The purpose of Regulation No 1768/92 is to compensate for the long period which elapses between the filing of a patent application in respect of a medicinal product and the granting of authorisation to place that product on the market by providing, in certain circumstances, for a supplementary period of patent protection.
Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.
Date: 2005-04-21
31. In that respect, it must be recalled that the Court has already held that the fiction by which the failure of the authorities to reply is deemed to constitute an implied refusal cannot, as such, be considered incompatible with the requirements of Directive 90/313 on the sole ground that a tacit refusal, by definition, does not include any reasons (Case C-233/00 Commission  v France  [2003] ECR I-6625, paragraph 111).
32. On the other hand, the Court found that, in the case of an implied refusal of a request for information relating to the environment, the reasons for that refusal must be notified, even if after the date of the implied refusal, within two months of the submission of the initial request since that notification must, in that situation, be regarded as a ‘response’ for the purposes of Article 3(4) of the directive ( Commission  v France , cited above, paragraph 118).
Stichting "Goed Wonen" v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2005-04-26
26. First of all, it should be noted that the deduction system is meant to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities. The common system of VAT consequently ensures that all economic activities, whatever their purpose or results, provided that they are themselves subject to VAT, are taxed in a wholly neutral way (Case 50/87 Commission v France [1988] ECR 4797, paragraph 15).
32. The principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty form part of the Community legal order. They must accordingly be observed by the Community institutions (Case 74/74 CNTA v Commission  [1975] ECR 533), but also by the Member States when they exercise the powers conferred on them by Community directives ( Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep , cited above, paragraph 57).
33. Although in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected (see, to that effect, Case C-368/89 Crispoltoni [1991] ECR I-3695, paragraph 17; Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep , cited above, paragraph 59; see also the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in National & Provincial Building Society v. United Kingdom  of 23 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, § 80).
34. The same principle must be observed by the national legislature when it adopts legislation within the sphere of Community law.
St. Paul Dairy Industries NV v Unibel Exser BVBA.
Date: 2005-04-28
10. A preliminary point to note is that Article 24 can be relied on to bring within the scope of the Convention only those provisional, including protective, measures in areas which fall within its scope as defined in Article 1 thereof (see Case 143/78 De Cavel  [1979] ECR 1055, paragraph 9; Case 25/81 C.H.W.  [1982] ECR 1189, paragraph 12; and Case C-391/95 Van Uden  [1998] ECR I-7091, paragraph 30).  It is therefore for the national judge to verify whether that is the case in the main proceedings.
13. In accordance with that aim, the expression ‘provisional, including protective, measures’ within the meaning of Article 24 of the Convention is to be understood as referring to measures which, in matters within the scope of the Convention, are intended to preserve a factual or legal situation so as to safeguard rights the recognition of which is otherwise sought from the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the case (see Case C-261/90 Reichert and Kockler  [1992] ECR I‑2149, paragraph 34, and Van Uden , cited above, paragraph 37).
14. The granting of this type of measure requires on the part of the court, in addition to particular care, detailed knowledge of the actual circumstances in which the measures are to take effect.  Generally, the court must be able to make its authorisation subject to all conditions guaranteeing the provisional or protective character of the measure ordered (see Case 125/79 Denilauler  [1980] ECR 1553, paragraph 15, and Van Uden , paragraph 38).
19. The principle of legal certainty, which constitutes one of the aims of the Convention, requires, in particular, that the jurisdictional rules which derogate from the basic principle of the Convention laid down in Article 2, such as the rule in Article 24 thereof, be interpreted in such a way as to enable a normally well-informed defendant reasonably to foresee before which courts, other than those of the State in which he is domiciled, he may be sued (see, to that effect, Case C‑440/97 GIE Groupe Concorde and Others  [1999] ECR I-6307, paragraphs 23 and 24; Case C-256/00 Besix  [2002] ECR I-1699, paragraph 24; and Case C‑281/02 Owusu  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 38 to 40).
20. The grant of a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings may also lead to a multiplication of the bases of jurisdiction in relation to one and the same legal relationship, which is contrary to the aims of the Convention (Case C-295/95 Farrell  [1997] ECR I-1683, paragraph 13).
23. Moreover, an application to hear a witness in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings could be used as a means of sidestepping the rules governing, on the basis of the same guarantees and with the same effects for all individuals, the transmission and handling of applications made by a court of a Member State intended to have an inquiry carried out in another Member State (see Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1)).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2005-04-28
30. As a preliminary point, it is appropriate to recall that whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, for example, Case C-71/99 Commission  v Germany  [2001] ECR I‑5811, paragraph 29, and Case C-110/00 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I‑7545, paragraph 13). Therefore, Community Law No 306 of 31 October 2003 cannot be taken into consideration by the Court.
32. As the Court has consistently held, Member States must, in order to secure the full implementation of directives in law and not only in fact, establish a specific legal framework in the area in question (see Case C‑360/87 Commission  v Italy  [1991] ECR I-791, paragraph 13, and Case C-429/01 Commission  v France  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 40).
38. It is clear from the Court’s case-law that a provision which concerns only relations between a Member State and the Commission or the other Members States need not, in principle, be transposed (see Case C‑296/01 Commission  v France  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 92, and Case C-429/01 Commission  v France , cited above, paragraph 68).
39. It should be recalled that, according to equally settled case-law, each of the Member States to which a directive is addressed is obliged to adopt, within the framework of its national legal system, all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective it pursues (see, in particular, Case C‑336/97 Commission  v Italy  [1999] ECR I-3771, paragraph 19; Case C‑97/00 Commission  v France  [2001] ECR I-2053, paragraph 9; and Case C‑478/99 Commission  v Sweden  [2002] ECR I-4147, paragraph 15).
60. As regards this complaint, it must be recalled that it is settled law that transposing a directive into national law does not necessarily require its provisions to be reproduced verbatim in a specific express legal rule; a general legal context may be sufficient, provided that it does effectively ensure the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner, in order that, where that directive seeks to create rights for individuals, those entitled to such rights are put in a position to ascertain the full extent of their rights and to invoke them, where appropriate, before the national courts (Case C-131/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-825, paragraph 6, and Case C-49/00 Commission v Italy  [2001] ECR I-8575, paragraphs 21 and 22).
64. Nevertheless, given that the Member States are under an obligation to ensure full compliance with Community law, the Commission may show that compliance with the provision of a directive governing such relations requires the adoption of specific measures transposing that provision into the national legal order (see Case C-296/01 Commission v France , cited above, paragraph 92, and Case C-429/01 Commission v France , cited above, paragraph 68).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2005-05-12
13. As a preliminary point, from the outset the Italian Government’s argument that the Italian Republic has committed no infringement of Community law since its legislation complies with that law and the failure to fulfil obligations in the present case is the result of a mere practice adopted by the competent authorities or of delay on their part in adopting the measures necessary to recognise experience acquired by Community nationals in teaching outside Italy must be rejected. A failure to fulfil obligations may arise due to the existence of an administrative practice which infringes Community law, even if the applicable national legislation itself complies with that law (see to that effect, inter alia, Case C-212/99 Commission  v Italy  [2001] ECR I‑4923, paragraph 31).
14. Furthermore, with regard to the factual nature of the alleged infringement of Article 39 EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 1612/68, it should be recalled that, according to the first of those two articles as interpreted by the Court, where a public body of a Member State, in recruiting staff for posts which do not fall within the scope of Article 39(4) EC, provides for account to be taken of candidates’ previous employment in the public service, that body may not, in relation to Community nationals, make a distinction according to whether such employment was in the public service of that particular State or in the public service of another Member State (see, inter alia, Scholz , cited above, paragraph 12).
21. In those circumstances, even though professional experience acquired by Community nationals outside Italy is indeed taken into account in recruitment of supply teachers from lists, it is not always taken into account in the same manner as similar experience acquired within Italy, without the slighte st justification in that regard having been given by the Italian Government.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2005-05-12
14. It should be recalled that, although it is true that the excessive duration of the pre-litigation procedure is capable of constituting a defect rendering an action for failure to fulfil obligations inadmissible, it is clear from the case-law that such a conclusion is inevitable only where the conduct of the Commission has made it difficult to refute its arguments, thus infringing the rights of the defence, and that it is for the Member State concerned to provide evidence of such a difficulty (see, to that effect, Case C-96/89 Commission  v Netherlands  [1991] ECR I-2461, paragraphs 15 and 16, and Case C-207/97 Commission  v Belgium  [1999] ECR I-275, paragraphs 24 and 25).
27. In that regard, it must first be noted that it is established case-law that, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose (see, in particular, Case 96/81 Commission  v Netherlands  [1982] ECR 1791, paragraph 6; Case C-62/89 Commission  v France  [1990] ECR I-925, paragraph 37; Case C-300/95 Commission  v United Kingdom  [1997] ECR I-2649, paragraph 31; and Case C-217/97 Commission  v Germany  [1999] ECR I-5087, paragraph 22).
28. With regard in particular to an action concerning the implementation of a national provision and as the Advocate General observes in points 41 and 43 of his Opinion, proof of a Member State’s failure to fulfil its obligations requires production of evidence different from that usually taken into account in an action for failure to fulfil obligations concerning solely the terms of a national provision.  In those circumstances, the failure to fulfil obligations can be established only by means of sufficiently documented and detailed proof of the alleged practice of the national administration and/or courts, for which the Member State concerned is answerable.
29. It is necessary to add in this regard that, although a State’s action consisting in an administrative practice contrary to the requirements of Community law can amount to a failure to fulfil obligations for the purposes of Article 226 EC, that administrative practice must be, to some degree, of a consistent and general nature (see Case C-387/99 Commission  v Germany  [2004] ECR I-3773, paragraph 42, and Case C‑494/01 Commission  v Ireland  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 28).
30. It must be held that the Commission has not shown the existence in Belgium of an administrative practice with the characteristics required by the Court’s case-law.  The Commission refers solely to a complaint lodged by an undertaking which organises a customer loyalty programme, without adducing evidence of a ‘discriminatory and disproportionate’ application of the conditions of ‘similarity’ and ‘sole vendor’ under Article 57(4) of the Law.