larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2002-03-07
83 As regards the Commission's argument that it is necessary to apply by analogy in this case the case-law of the Court mitigating the burden of proof in connection with the clearance of EAGFF accounts, it should be observed that that case-law, inasmuch as it relates to the shortcomings in the controls carried out by a Member State, concerns Commission decisions based on Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1), and imposing flat-rate corrections expressed, in principle and barring exceptional circumstances, in the form of a percentage of the costs which Member States ask the Community to bear (see, in particular, the judgment of 6 December 2001 in Case C-373/99 Greece v Commission [2001] ECR I-9619, paragraphs 5 to 7 and 10 to 13).
88 In that connection, it should be borne in mind that it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the Member States are required, under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), to facilitate the achievement of the Commission's tasks, which consist in particular, pursuant to Article 155 of the EC Treaty (now Article 211 EC), in ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied (see, in particular, Case C-408/97 Commission v Netherlands [2000] ECR I-6417, paragraph 16).
89 In the light of that case-law, it should be observed that, in the circumstances of the present case, the implementation of the arrangements relating to imports destined for San Marino creates an obligation on the part of the Italian Republic to take, in sincere cooperation with the Commission, the measures needed to ensure the application of the Community provisions relating to establishment of possible own resources.
90 That obligation was given more specific expression, with regard to verifications, in Article 18 of Regulations Nos 2891/77 and 1552/89. That provision aims, in particular, to ensure that own resources are not lost by reason of unjustified determinations of duties as accruing to Member States.
91 In particular, it follows from that obligation that where, as here, the Commission is largely dependent on the information provided by the Member State concerned, that Member State is required to make supporting documents and other relevant documentation available to the Commission under reasonable conditions, to enable it to verify whether, and, as the case may be, to what extent the amounts concerned relate to Communities' own resources.
Caterina Insalaca v Office national des pensions (ONP).
Date: 2002-03-07
16 The Court has consistently held that a national rule must be regarded as a provision on reduction of benefit, within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, if the calculation which it requires to be made has the effect of reducing the amount of the pension which the person concerned may claim, because he receives a benefit from another Member State (see, in particular, Case C-442/97 Van Coile [1999] ECR I-8093, paragraph 25, and Case C-161/98 Platbrood [1999] ECR I-8195, paragraph 25).
22 In replying to that question it must be borne in mind at the outset that it follows from Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 that provisions on reduction laid down in the legislation of a Member State may, unless that regulation provides otherwise, be invoked against persons who receive a benefit from that Member State if they can claim other social security benefits, even when those benefits are acquired under the legislation of another Member State.
23 An exception to the principle laid down in Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 is contained in Article 46b(1) of that regulation, which provides that, in the case of overlapping of benefits of the same kind, provisions on reduction laid down by the legislation of a Member State do not apply to benefits calculated in accordance with Article 46(2) of that regulation.
24 In that regard, first, the Court has consistently held that social security benefits must be regarded as being of the same kind when their purpose and object, as well as the basis on which they are calculated and the conditions for granting them, are identical (see, in particular, Case C-366/96 Cordelle [1998] ECR I-583, paragraph 19). Consequently, the Belgian and Italian pensions for survivors which are at issue in the main proceedings constitute benefits of the same kind within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71.
27 However, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the provisions of Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 must be applied in their entirety if the application of the legislation of the Member State in question alone proves less favourable to the person concerned than that of the Community scheme set out in that article (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-90/91 and C-91/91 Di Crescenzo and Casagrande [1992] ECR I-3851, paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.
Date: 2002-03-07
34 A strict interpretation is even more appropriate in this case as point 2 of Annex F to the Sixth Directive is not a harmonised exemption that is an integral part of the VAT regime, but an exemption authorised only for a transitional period.
Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- und Produktions GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg.
Date: 2002-03-07
22 The Explanatory Notes drawn up by the Commission, as regards the CN, and by the Customs Cooperation Council as regards the HS, significantly contribute to interpretation of the scope of the various customs headings without, however, having binding legal force (Laboratoires Sarget, paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2002-03-07
9 Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, the Member States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. Such action includes directives which, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which they are addressed. That obligation involves, for each Member State to which a directive is addressed, the adoption, within the framework of its national legal system, of all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective which it pursues (Case C-119/00 Commission v Luxembourg [2001] ECR I-4795, paragraph 12).
11 Moreover, 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 prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2002-03-07
7 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 prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26).
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2002-03-14
39 According to the established case-law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of Community law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives of the rules of which it forms part (see Case 337/82 St Nikolaus Brennerei und Likörfabrik [1984] ECR 1051, paragraph 10, and Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 50).
42 Next, it must be remembered that the Directive seeks to create the instruments needed in order to ensure that watercourses in the Community are protected against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (see Case C-293/97 Standley and Others [1999] ECR I-2603, paragraph 39).
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 2002-03-19
5 An intervener has no standing to raise a plea of inadmissibility not set out in the forms of order sought by the defendant (see Case C-313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraphs 21 and 22, and Case C-225/91 Matra v Commission [1993] ECR I-3203, paragraphs 11 and 12).
13 The action for failure to fulfil obligations can have as its subject only the failure to comply with obligations under Community law, so it is necessary, before deciding whether there has been a substantive failure, to examine whether the obligations devolving on Ireland and forming the subject-matter of the present action come within the scope of Community law.
14 The Court has ruled that mixed agreements concluded by the Community, its Member States and non-member countries have the same status in the Community legal order as purely Community agreements, as these are provisions coming within the scope of Community competence (see, to that effect, Case 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 9).
15 From this the Court has concluded that, in ensuring respect for commitments arising from an agreement concluded by the Community institutions, the Member States fulfil, within the Community system, an obligation in relation to the Community, which has assumed responsibility for the due performance of the agreement (Demirel, cited above, paragraph 11).
18 The Court has, moreover, had occasion to rule that copyright and related rights fall within the scope of application of the Treaty (Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92 Phil Collins and Others [1993] ECR I-5145, paragraph 28).
20 It follows that the requirement of adherence to the Berne Convention which Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the EEA Agreement imposes on the Contracting Parties comes within the Community framework, given that it features in a mixed agreement concluded by the Community and its Member States and relates to an area covered in large measure by the Treaty. The Commission is thus competent to assess compliance with that requirement, subject to review by the Court.
21 With regard to the substantive nature of the failure to fulfil obligations, it has consistently been held that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined solely by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26). Further, a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations within its internal legal order in order to justify its failure to fulfil obligations under Community law.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2002-03-19
12 As regards the poor quality of bathing waters, the Commission argues that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case C-56/90 Commission v United Kingdom [1993] ECR I-4109, paragraph 43, Case C-198/97 Commission v Germany [1999] ECR I-3257, paragraph 35, and Case C-307/98 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-3933, paragraphs 48 and 49), Article 4(1) of the Directive is not to be understood as meaning that the Member States need only endeavour to adopt all reasonably feasible measures. On the contrary, that provision imposes upon Member States an obligation to achieve a particular result, requiring them to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the quality of bathing water within their territory actually conforms to the limit values by no later than 10 years after notification of the Directive, that period being longer than the two-year period laid down generally for implementation of the Directive in order to give the Member States time to satisfy the requirement.
13 The Netherlands Government acknowledges in its defence that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of the Directive as regards the quality of bathing water and sampling frequency and defers to the judgment of the Court.
14 Given that the Directive has not been implemented within the periods prescribed therein, the Commission's action must be held to be well founded.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2002-03-21
23 As regards the Italian Government's argument concerning the direct effect of Articles 4(1), second subparagraph, 4(2), 11(k), seventh indent, and 14 of Directive 85/384, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, a Member State cannot rely on the direct effect of a directive in order to absolve itself from taking in due time implementing measures sufficient to meet the purpose of that directive (see, to that effect, Case 102/79 Commission v Belgium [1980] ECR 1473, paragraph 12; and Case C-96/95 Commission v Germany [1997] ECR I-1653, paragraph 37).
24 The complaint of failure to implement Articles 4(1), second subparagraph, 4(2), 11(k), seventh indent, and 14 of Directive 85/384 is therefore well founded.
The complaint of incomplete implementation of Article 7 of Directive 85/384
25 The Commission claims that Article 7 of Directive 85/384 has been implemented only in part by the Italian Government since Annex A to Decree No 129/92 mentions solely the qualifications listed in Article 11 of that directive without referring to the Commission communications which periodically update the list referred to in Article 7 and without stating that the qualifications mentioned in those communications must also be accorded automatic recognition.
28 However, according to settled case-law, the transposition of a directive into national law must effectively guarantee the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner so that, where the directive is intended to create rights for individuals, the persons concerned can ascertain the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, rely on them before the national courts. That condition is of particular importance where the directive in question is intended to confer rights on nationals of other Member States (see Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499, paragraph 9; and Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 35).
56 On that point, the Court observes that the fact that a provision of services is temporary does not mean that the provider of services within the meaning of the Treaty may not equip himself with some form of infrastructure in the host Member State (including an office, chambers or consulting rooms) in so far as such infrastructure is necessary for the purposes of performing the services in question (Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 27, and Case C-145/99 Commission v Italy [2002] ECR I-2235, paragraphs 22 and 23).
64 It follows that the obligation of registration in Article 9(3) of Decree No 129/92 delays an architect's first provision of services and that it is therefore incompatible with Article 22 of Directive 85/384. Moreover, the obligation of enrolment on the register of each provincial body in whose district a service is to be provided further complicates that provision of services.
Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-03-21
23 The rules of procedure laid down by the Treaty vary according to whether the aid at issue constitutes existing aid or new aid. While the former is subject to Article 88(1) and (2) EC, the latter is governed by Article 88(2) and (3) EC (Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1992] ECR I-4145, paragraph 22).
24 Where the Commission finds that aid alleged to have been made in pursuance of a previously authorised scheme of aid does not comply with the conditions laid down in its decision approving the scheme and is therefore not covered by it, that aid must be regarded as new aid (see, to that effect, Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1994] ECR I-4635, paragraphs 24 to 26).
25 If, when aid is granted in pursuance of a previously authorised scheme, the Member State does not comply with the conditions to which the Commission made its decision approving the scheme subject, since the aid paid is new aid, the Commission is obliged to institute the special procedure provided for by the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC (see, to that effect, Case C-294/90 British Aerospace and Rover v Commission [1992] ECR I-493, paragraph 13).
47 As is clear from paragraphs 30 and 33 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-356/90 and C-180/91 Belgium v Commission [1993] ECR I-2323, where aid is covered by derogating rules adopted under that provision, that aid is, as a matter of principle, at the outset incompatible with the common market and is considered to be compatible with the common market only on condition that it complies with the criteria for derogation contained in the decision approving that system.
48 Accordingly, where the Commission finds that aid authorised under derogating rules adopted pursuant to Article 87(3)(e) EC is no longer covered by those rules, it is not required to reassess the compatibility of the aid in relation to the criteria set out in Article 87(1) EC or to determine whether it affects trade between Member States and distorts competition.
50 Moreover, in the case of derogating rules, it is necessarily presupposed that the aid referred to is at the outset incompatible with the common market (see, to that effect, Belgium v Commission, cited above, paragraph 33).
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Zoological Society of London.
Date: 2002-03-21
16 It should be noted at the outset that the second indent of Article 13A(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive is an optional condition which Member States are at liberty to impose additionally for the grant of certain exemptions mentioned in Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Directive.
17 As for the interpretation of that additional condition, namely that a body availing itself of one of the exemptions in Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Directive must be managed and administered on an essentially voluntary basis, it follows from the legal context in which that condition occurs that the Community legislature wanted to make a distinction between the activities of commercial undertakings and those of bodies not aiming to achieve profits for their members (see in relation to the exemption under Article 13A(1)(m) of the Sixth Directive, Case C-174/00 Kennemer Golf and Country Club [2002] ECR I-3293, paragraph 34).
Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2002-04-18
23 In that connection, as regards, first, the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council, it must be borne in mind that, in an action for annulment pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty, its admissibility must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing at the time when it was lodged (see Case 50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, paragraph 8). Since the applications in Cases C-61/96, C-132/97, C-45/98 and C-27/99 were lodged before delivery of the judgment in Case C-179/95 Spain v Council, they cannot be held to be inadmissible on the ground that that judgment has rendered the issue res judicata.
39 For the purposes of applying the principle of relative stability, the fishing opportunities for each fish stock, defined as fish of a particular species located within a specified geographical area (see Joined Cases C-63/90 and C-67/90 Portugal and Spain v Council [1992] ECR I-5073, paragraph 28), must be assessed separately. It follows from Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 that relative stability of fishing activities must be assured to each Member State for each of the stocks concerned.
40 The stability of fishing activities is relative in the sense that it means the maintenance of a fixed percentage of the volume of the catches available for each of the stocks concerned - a volume which itself is likely to change - and not the guarantee of a fixed quantity of catches (see, in particular, Case 46/86 Romkes [1987] ECR 2671, paragraph 17, and Joined Cases C-63/90 and C-67/90 Portugal and Spain v Council, paragraph 28).
Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-04-18
29 As regards the part of the plea relating to the residual powers of the Member States, it must be pointed out that where the Community has passed legislation, the Member States are under a duty to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it (see, along these lines, Case C-507/99 Denkavit [2002] ECR I-169, paragraph 32).
35 First, it is settled case-law that the EAGGF finances only interventions undertaken in accordance with the Community rules in the framework of the common organisation of agricultural markets (Case C-263/98 Belgium v Commission [2001] ECR I-6063, paragraph 35). Accordingly, it is for the Member States to bear the burden of any other sum paid, and in particular any amounts which the national authorities wrongly believed themselves authorised to pay in the context of the common organisation of those markets (Case 347/85 United Kingdom v Commission [1988] ECR 1749, paragraph 52).
36 As is clear from paragraph 28 of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Belgium incurred expenditure corresponding to the aid in question on the basis of an incorrect legal basis, which had the effect, pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70, of excluding that expenditure from Community financing, irrespective of whether or not there was any irregularity or negligence on the part of the Belgian authorities. The second limb of the first plea is therefore unfounded.
44 It must be recalled that, as paragraph 36 of the present judgment makes clear, Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 authorise the Commission to charge to the EAGGF only sums paid in accordance with the rules laid down in the context of the common organisation of the agricultural markets, and leaving all other sums to be borne by the Member States, in particular sums which the national authorities wrongly considered themselves authorised to pay in the context of that common organisation.
45 The Commission has no discretion in that regard even in cases where national practices incompatible with Community law have a beneficial effect on the amounts recorded in other EAGGF items (United Kingdom v Commission, paragraph 53).
58 As regards this plea, the Court has ruled that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations can be invoked as against a Community rule only to the extent to which the Community has itself created a situation which may give rise to a legitimate expectation (Case C-177/90 Kühn [1992] ECR I-35, paragraph 14).