EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-100/13: Action brought on 27 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0100

62013CN0100

February 27, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/29

(Case C-100/13)

2013/C 114/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:

declare that, in so far as the German authorities use the construction products lists to demand additional approvals for effective market access and the use of construction products, instead of incorporating the required assessment methods and criteria within the framework of the harmonised European standards, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, (1) and, in particular, under Article 4(2) and Article 6(1) thereof;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Directive 89/106/EEC. The use of construction products lists has the result that additional, prior approvals are demanded for effective market access and the use of construction products. Many cases do not concern possible requirements with regard to new characteristics. Rather, requirements which were already established before harmonisation, and which could have and should have been covered by incorporation of the required assessment methods and criteria within the harmonised framework, are adhered to.

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia