EUROPEAN COURT JUDGMENTS AND RULINGS

• Searchable database of recent European judgements.
• Case-Law of the ECJ and CFI (in French)
  at the European Documentation Center of the University of Valencia.

CASES

1. Case 302/86, Commission v. Denmark (Danish Bottles Case)
   ECJ 20 September 1988, ECR [1988] 4607.
2. Case C-300/89, Commission v. Council (Titandioxid)
   ECJ 11 June 1991, ECR [1991] I-2867.
3. Case C-2/90, Commission v. Belgium (Walloon Waste Case)
   ECJ 9 July 1992, ECR [1992] I-4431
   Waste is a good, but of a special nature; thus, if secondary EC legislation does not provide otherwise, it is to stay as close to its source as possible and the Walloon region can uphold its general import ban for non-hazardous waste under the 'rule of reason'. As there did exist a specific regime for hazardous waste which only allowed for import restrictions in specific cases, no general import ban is allowed as far as hazardous waste is concerned.
4. Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich, Danila Bonifaci and Others v Italy
   ECJ 19 November 1991, ECR [1991] I-5357
   Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law, non implementation of a directive
5. Case C-208/90, Theresa Emmott v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General
   ECJ 25 July 1991, ECR [1991] I-4269
6. Case C-355/90, Commission v Spain (Marismas de Santo'a)
   ECJ 2 August 1993, [1993] ECR I-4221
7. Case C-45/91, Commission v Greece (Chania Waste)
   ECJ 7 April 1992, [1992] ECR I-2509
8. Case C-155/91, Commission v. Council (Legal basis waste directive)
   ECJ 17 March 1993, ECR [1993] I-939
9. Case C-271/91, M.H. Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority
   ECJ 2 August 1993, ECR [1993] I-4367; [1993] 3 C.M.L.R. 293
10. Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl.
    ECJ 14 July 1994, ECR [1994] I-3325
11. Case C-334/92, Teodoro Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garant'a Salarial ECJ 16 December 1993, ECR [1993] I-6911
12. Case C-379/92, Peralta
    ECJ 14 July 1994, ECR [1994] I-3453
13. Case C-422/92, Commission v Germany (German Waste Export) - including the opinion of Advocate General
    ECJ 10 May 1995, ECR [1995] I-1097
14. Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du P'cheur SA and Factortame Ltd and others
    ECJ 5 March 1996, ECR [1996] I-1029
    Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law
15. Case C-187/93, European Parliament v Council
    ECJ 28 June 1994, ECR [1994] I-2857
16. Case C-392/93, The Queen v. H.M. Treasury ex parte: British Telecommunications plc
    ECJ 26 March 1996, ECR [1996] I-1631; [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 217
    Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law
17. Case C-5/94, The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland)
    ECJ 23 May 1996, ECR [1996] I-2553; [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 391
18. In Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94, Erich Dillenkofer and others
    ECJ 8 October 1996, ECR [1996] I-4845
    Liability of Member States for breaches of Community Law, Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours
19. Case C-194/94, CIA Security
    ECJ 30 April 1996, ECR [1996] I-2201
    The case which is causing quit a stir in The Netherlands at the moment...Following the reasoning of the European Court of Justice where a Belgian law which was not properly notified was concerned, Dutch judges might be forced to decline to apply some 400 Dutch technical regulations which have not been notified in accordance with the directive 83/189.
20. Case C-202/94, Godefridus van der Feesten
    ECJ 8 February 1996, ECR [1996] I-355 
21. Joined Cases C-283/94, C-291/94 and C-292/94, Denkavit Internationaal BV (C-283/94), VITIC Amsterdam BV (C-291/94) and Voormeer BV (C-292/94)
    ECJ 17 October 1996, ECR [1996] I-5063
22. Case C-44/95, Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
    ECJ 11 July 1996, ECR [1996] I-3805
    Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds does not allow for economic reasons standing in the way of determining protection areas. Once the site has been established, Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora does allow for actions affecting the site on grounds of a social or economic nature.
23. Joined cases C-58/95, C-75/95 a.o., Gallotti a.o.
    ECJ 12 September 1996, ECR [1996] I-4345
24. Case C-168/95, Luciano Arcaro
    ECJ 26 September 1996, ECR [1996] 4705
25. Case C-72/95, Aannemersbedrijf P.K.Kraaijeveld BV e.a. v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Dutch dikes)
    ECJ 24 October 1996, ECR [1996] I-5403
26. Case C-13/96, Bic Benelux v Belgium
    ECJ 20 March 1997
    An obligation to affix specific markings to products which are subject to an environmental tax forms a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189/EEC. As Belgium, in spite of the advice of the Legislative Division of the Conseil d'tat, did not notify the measure to the Commission, the measure cannot be relied upon against individuals.
27. Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and C-224/95, Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi (C-304/94), Roberto Santella (C-330/94), Giovanni Muzi and Others (C-342/94), Anselmo Savini (C-224/95),
    ECJ 25 June 1997, n.y.r.
28. Case C-279/94, Commission v Italy
    ECJ 16 September 1997, n.y.r.
    Italy did not notify its rules on asbestos, so these rules cannot be applied immediately. However, the Court underlines that even if  all the provisions contained in the law in question are notified to the Commission, this does not prevent the Italian Republic from bringing into force immediately, and therefore without waiting for the results of the examination procedure provided for by the Directive 83/189, the provisions which do not constitute technical regulations. 
29. Case C-321/95 P, Greenpeace v Commission
    ECJ 2 April 1998, nyr
    This is the appeal against the decision by the CFI in the case Case T-585/93, Greenpeace v Commission where the environmental organisation was not granted locus standi. As far as the AG is concerned, the ECJ is also not to give Greenpeace access to this Court. The in depth argumentation by the AG makes for interesting reading material. The ECJ comes to the same conclusion as the AG, without really touching upon most of the arguments brought forward by the environmental organisation (for instance the legal vacuuum where decisions made by the Commission are concerned).
30. Case C-3/96, Commission v Netherlands
    ECJ 19 May 1998, n.y.r.
    According to the Commission, The Netherlands should have classified more sites as Special Protection Areas (SPAs). In addition, the part of the Waddensea which was designated as a Special Protection Area is too small. The ECJ underlines that EC law requires Member States to classify territories which are most suitable for the conservation of certain species as SPAs. It also makes clear, that economic criteria may not be taken into account when selecting and defining the boundaries of SPAs, as the Court had already explained in an earlier judgment (Case C-44/95, Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). The Netherlands thus infringed its obligations. It will be interesting to see whether this case will influence the outcome of the cases before the Dutch court on drilling for gas in the Northsea area not designated as SPA...
31. Case C-67/97, Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev (Danish Bees)
    ECJ 3 December 1998, n.y.r.
32. Case C-150/97, Commission v. Portuguese Republic
    ECJ 21 January 1999, n.y.r.
33. Case C-207/97 Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium
    ECJ 21 January 1999, n.y.r.
34. Case C-347/97 Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium
    ECJ 21 January 1999, n.y.r.
35. Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97 European Parliament v Council
    ECJ 25 February 1999, n.y.r.
36. Case C-100/96 The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd
    ECJ 11 March 1999, n.y.r.
37. Case C-340/96 Commission v. United Kingdom
    ECJ 22 April 1999, n.y.r.
38. Case C-392/96 Commission v. Ireland
    ECJ 21 September 1999, n.y.r.
39. Case C-166/97 Commission v. French Republic
    ECJ 18 March 1999, n.y.r.
40. Case C-293/97 The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex parte: H.A. Standley and others, D.G.D. Metson and others, Intervener: National Farmers' Union
    ECJ 29 April 1999, n.y.r.
41. Case C-217/97 Commission v. Federal Repblic of Germany
    ECJ 9 September 1999, n.y.r.
42. Case C-319/97 Aklagaren v. Antoine Kortas
    ECJ 1 June 1999, n.y.r.
    The ECJ is of the opinion, that national standards that are stricter than those laid down in a Directive based on Article 100A can only be enforced after the Commission reacted on a 100A para 4 request. Even if the Commission does not respond within a reasonable period of time, the Member States still are not allowed to apply their national, stricter standards. Fortunately, the new EC version of art. 100A - art. 95 in the Amsterdam numbering that applies since 1 May 1999 - sets a time limit for the Commission to react. If the Commission stays silent, the Member States are allowed to apply their stricter national rules.
43. Case C-435/97 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and others v. Autonome Provinz Bozen and others
    ECJ 16 September 1999, n.y.r.
44. Case T-585/93, Greenpeace v Commission
    CFI 9 August 1995, ECR [1996] II-2205
    Appel decided upon on 2 April 1998 (see above).
45. Case T-105/95, WWF UK v Commission
    CFI 5 March 1997, nyr
    The Commission has the obligation to undertake a genuine balancing of the interests involved as required by the Code of Conduct on access to Commission documents.