ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Member States - Obligations - Failure - Justification - Not permissible

( EEC Treaty, Art . 169 )

2 . Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Subjecting of the marketing of food extracts imported from other Member States to restrictive conditions, including previous authorization

( EEC Treaty, Art . 30 )

Operative part

( 1 ) Declares that, by subjecting the marketing in Italy of food extracts and similar products of animal or vegetable origin lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States to restrictions relating to the composition, description and packaging of those products, and also by requiring previous authorization for such marketing, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty;

( 2 ) Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Trade mark - Similar products protected in different Member States by identical marks or marks liable to be confused belonging to two entirely separate undertakings - Opposition of the proprietor of the mark in one Member State to the importation of products marketed by the other undertaking under its own trade mark - Whether permissible - Common origin of the two marks prior to expropriation resulting in separate proprietors being entitled to use the trade mark - Not relevant

( EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36 )

Summary

Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty do not preclude national legislation from allowing an undertaking which is the proprietor of a trade mark in a Member State to oppose the importation from another Member State by an undertaking which is legally and economically independent of it and without its consent of similar products lawfully bearing in the latter State an identical trade mark or one which is liable to be confused with the protected mark, even if the mark under which the goods in dispute are imported originally belonged to a subsidiary of the undertaking which opposes the importation and was acquired by a third undertaking following the expropriation of that subsidiary .

From the date of expropriation and notwithstanding their common origin, each of the marks independently fulfilled its function, within its own territorial field of application, of guaranteeing that the marked products originated from one single source .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - "Sugar beet" within the meaning of tariff subheading 12.04 A - Inclusion, by virtue of Regulation No 1388/85, of partly de-sugared sliced sugar beet with a sucrose content exceeding 10% - Invalidity

( Commission Regulation No 1388/85 . Art . 1 )

Summary

By deciding, in Article 1 of Regulation No 1388/85, that partly de-sugared sliced sugar beet, whether or not pelletized either directly by compression or by the addition of a binder ( up to 3% by weight ) having a sucrose content ( including any sucrose contained in the binder ) exceeding 10% by weight by reference to the dry matter, must be classified under subheading 12.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff, the Commission amended that subheading by including in it products which, being the end result of the process of extracting sugar from sugar beet, should be classified as beet pulp under tariff subheading 23.03 B I . The Commission thus exceeded the limits of its discretion, with the result that the provision is invalid .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure - Justification - Not acceptable

( EEC Treaty, Art . 169 )

Summary

A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in Community directives .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Environment - International trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora - Issue of import permits - Conditions - Favourable opinion of the national scientific authority of the importing country - Not a decisive factor

( Council Regulation No 3626/82, Art . 10(1)(b ) )

Summary

Article 10(1)(b ) of Regulation No 3626/82 on the implementation in the Community of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora provides for two cases in which the competent authorities may issue import permits, namely where it is clear that the capture of the specimen will not have a harmful effect on the conservation of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the populations in question of the species, or where the applicant presents trustworthy evidence that this is the case .

The favourable opinion of the national scientific authority in the importing country, to which the issue of an import permit is not made subject by any provision of the regulation, does not ipso facto allow the conditions laid down by the aforesaid provision to be considered fulfilled; it constitutes only one factor to be taken into consideration amongst others .
Case C-339/89

Alsthom Atlantique SA

v

Compagnie de construction mécanique Sulzer SA

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce, Paris

‛Articles 2, 3(f), 34 and 85(1) of the EEC Treaty — Liability for defective products’

Report for the Hearing

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven, delivered on 14 November 1990 114

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 24 January 1991 120

Summary of the Judgment

Competition — Community rules — National rules concerning a vendor's liability for defective products which are stricter than those in force in the other Member States — Compatibility (EEC Treaty, Arts 2, 3(f) and 85(1)) Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions on exports — Measures having equivalent effect — National mies concerning a vendor's liability for defective products which are stricter than those in force in the other Member States — Whether permissible (EEC Treaty, Art. 34)

The provisions of Articles 2 and 3(f) of the Treaty, read together with those of Articles 34 and 85(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not prohibiting the application of a Member State's case-law which, by not allowing persons selling goods by way of trade to prove that on the date on which the goods were delivered they were unaware of a defect in the goods, has the effect of preventing them from relying on provisions of national legislation which allow them to limit their liability when unaware of the defect, whilst their competitors in the other Member States may do so on the basis of the provisions of their national law.

In the first place, Article 2 may not be relied upon by an individual before a national court. Secondly, such case-law, which was developed for reasons connected with the protection of buyers, is not liable to favour or facilitate the adoption of agreements contrary to Article 85. Finally, since it applies without distinction to all commercial relations governed by national law, the case-law does not have as its specific object or effect the restriction contrary to Article 34 of patterns of trade, thereby favouring domestic production or the domestic market; furthermore, in concluding an international contract of sale it is generally possible to choose the applicable law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect to a customs duty - Payment for services rendered during customs inspections - Charge payable by each of the undertakings benefiting simultaneously from the service - Amount disproportionate to the cost of the service - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 9, 12, 13 and 16)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Treaty by requiring from each undertaking individually, where services are rendered simultaneously to several undertakings in connection with the completion of customs formalities in intra-Community trade, payment of an amount which is, in certain cases, disproportionate to the cost of the service rendered to traders, since as many charges are levied as there are undertakings involved and the charge payable by them may therefore exceed the actual cost of the inspections.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Legislation on Sunday as a day of rest for employees in the retail sector - Whether permissible - Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services and on competition - Inapplicable

(EEC Treaty, Arts. 3(f), 5, 30, 34, 59 to 66 and 85)

Summary

The prohibition contained in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, properly construed, does not apply to national legislation prohibiting the employment of staff on Sundays after 12 noon.

Such legislation, which is not designed to control trade and affects the sale of both domestic and imported products, pursues an aim which is justified with regard to Community law since in seeking to ensure that working and non-working hours are so arranged as to accord with national or regional socio-cultural characteristics it reflects certain political and economic choices. The restrictive effects on trade which may result do not seem disproportionate to the aim pursued.

The same is true of the prohibition under Article 34 of the Treaty, where such legislation is applied in accordance with objective criteria to all traders in a given sector, without distinguishing between goods which the consumer intends to use where they are bought and those which he wishes to export.

Neither Articles 59 to 66 nor the combined provisions of Articles 3(f), 5 and 85 of the Treaty are applicable.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social policy - European Social Fund - Assistance in the financing of vocational training measures - Decision reducing assistance originally granted - Opportunity for the Member State concerned to comment prior to the adoption of the decision - Essential procedural requirement - Infringement - Unlawfulness

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1) )

Summary

In the procedure for the grant by the European Social Fund of financial assistance for vocational training and guidance given in a Member State the Member State concerned is the sole interlocutor of the Fund and assumes responsibility in so far as it certifies the accuracy of the facts and accounts in payment claims submitted by the beneficiaries and in so far as it may even be required to guarantee that training measures are properly implemented and concluded. In view of its central role and the importance of the responsibilities which it assumes in the presentation and supervision of the financing of training measures, a Member State' s opportunity which it has under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83 to comment before a definitive decision to reduce assistance is adopted constitutes an essential procedural requirement the disregard of which renders the contested decision void.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Product composed of 39.4% orange juice and 60.6% sugar - Classified under heading No 2009 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

A product composed of 39.4% orange juice and 60.6% sugar must be classified as "fruit juice containing added sugar" under heading No 2009 of the Combined Nomenclature.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions - Domestic taxation - System of taxation of beer - Levying of excise duty on the hot wort, regardless of wastage incurred in preparing the finished product - Flat-rate adjustment of excise duty on imports and refunds on exports - Compatibility with the first paragraph of Article 95 and Article 96 of the Treaty - Conditions - Application of a wastage rate higher than that of certain domestic producers - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 95, first para., and 96)

Summary

A system of taxation of beer in which excise duty is levied not on the finished product but on the hot wort, regardless of wastage incurred in subsequent stages of production and packaging, and in which, since it is technically impossible to verify a posteriori the actual wastage from hot wort, imported beer is taxed on the basis of the quantity of the finished product, to which a flat-rate adjustment is applied to take account of the presumed quantity of hot wort used, while exported beer gives rise to a refund of excise duty calculated at a flat rate, may be considered compatible with the first paragraph of Article 95 and Article 96 of the Treaty only if it is established that the system has been so arranged as to exclude any possibility of imported beer being taxed more heavily than domestic beer or of refunds arising on the export of beer exceeding excise duty levied on the product before export.

Accordingly, a Member State which, in implementing such a system for the taxation of beer, for the purposes of the levying of excise duty on imports of beer and the refund of duty on exports, applies a rate of wastage incurred between the wort and the finished product which exceeds that of certain domestic breweries, is failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 95 and 96 of the EEC Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Member States - Obligations - Exercise of powers retained in relation to the registration of vessels - Compliance with Community law

2. Free movement of persons - Freedom of establishment - Registration of a fishing vessel in a Member State - Conditions concerning the nationality of the owners, charterers and operators of the vessel - Not permissible - System of fishing quotas - Not relevant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 52)

Summary

1. As Community law stands at present, it is for the Member States to determine, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a vessel to be registered in their registers and granted the right to fly their flag. In exercising that power, the Member States must nevertheless comply with the rules of Community law.

2. The provisions of Community law, and in particular Article 52 of the Treaty, preclude a Member State from adopting legislation laying down as conditions for the registration of a fishing vessel in their national registers the requirement that the owners, charterers and operators of the vessel be nationals of that Member State or companies incorporated in that State and that, in the latter case, at least 75% of the capital in any such company be held by nationals of that Member State or by companies fulfilling the same conditions and that 75% of the directors of every such company be nationals of that Member State.

Since it is not based on the nationality of persons, the common fisheries policy, even though it incorporates a system of national fishing quotas, cannot justify a derogation, in relation to the registration of fishing vessels, from the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Member States - Obligations - Exercise of residual powers in the field of the registration of vessels - Compliance with Community law

2. Free movement of persons - Freedom of establishment - Registration of a fishing vessel in a Member State - Conditions relating to the nationality, residence and domicile of the owners, charterers and operators of the vessel - Unlawful - Power of derogation of the national authorities - Absence of effect - System of fishing quotas - Absence of effect - Condition relating to the location of place from which the vessel is managed and its operations directed and controlled - Lawful

(EEC Treaty, Art. 52)

Summary

1. As Community law stands at present, it is for the Member States to determine, in accordance with the rules of international law, the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a vessel to be registered in their registers and granted the right to fly their flag, but, in exercising that power, the Member States must comply with the rules of Community law.

2. It is contrary to the provisions of Community law and, in particular, to Article 52 of the Treaty for a Member State to enact legislation stipulating as conditions for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register:

(a) that the owners and the charterers, managers and operators of the vessel must be nationals of that Member State or companies incorporated in that Member State, and that, in the latter case, at least 75% of the shares in the company must be owned by nationals of that Member State or by companies fulfilling the same requirements and 75% of the directors of the company must be nationals of that Member State;

(b) that the said owners, charterers, managers, operators, shareholders and directors, as the case may be, must be resident and domiciled in that Member State.

Neither the existence of a Community system of national fishing quotas nor the fact that the competent minister of a Member State has the power to dispense with, inter alia, the nationality requirement in respect of an individual in view of the length of time such individual has resided in that Member State and has been involved in the fishing industry of that Member State makes such legislation compatible with Community law.

However, it is not contrary to Community law for a Member State to stipulate as a condition for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the vessel in question must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws ° Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles ° Directive 72/166 ° Territory in which a vehicle is normally based ° Meaning ° Vehicle bearing a registration plate duly issued in respect of another vehicle ° State of registration

(Council Directive 72/166, Art. 1(4), as amended by Directive 84/5)

Summary

Article 1(4) of Directive 72/166 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as amended by Directive 84/5, must be interpreted as meaning that a vehicle which, on crossing the frontier, bears a registration plate that was duly issued by the authorities of a Member State but is false by reason of the fact that it is in reality the registration plate allocated to another vehicle, is to be regarded as normally based in the territory of the State which issued the plate in question.

This interpretation does not prejudge the question as to which of the national bureaux must, under the agreement between them, bear the burden of paying damages to the victim of a traffic accident caused by a person driving a vehicle in the circumstances described above. The agreement between national central bureaux, although using the same terms as the directive, in fact remains an instrument governed by private law the interpretation of which is a matter for the national court alone.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Patent rights - Powers of the Member States - Scope and limits

(EEC Treaty, Arts 30, 36 and 222)

2. Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Patent rights - Grant of a compulsory licence where patent exploited solely by way of imports from other Member States - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36)

Summary

1. As Community law stands, the provisions on patents have not yet been the subject of unification at Community level or in the context of approximation of laws and in those circumstances it is for the national legislature to determine the conditions and rules regarding the protection conferred by patents.

However, the provisions of the Treaty, and in particular Article 222 according to which the Treaty in no way prejudices the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership, cannot be interpreted as reserving to the national legislature, in relation to industrial and commercial property, the power to adopt measures which would adversely affect the principle of free movement of goods within the common market as provided for in and regulated by the Treaty.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that, as Community law regarding patents stands, it is for the national legislature to determine the conditions and rules regarding the protection conferred by patents and it may therefore penalize lack or insufficiency of exploitation of the patent by granting a compulsory licence, a Member State is failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty if it envisages the possibility of granting compulsory licences where a patent for industrial invention or for the production of new plant varieties is not exploited by way of production in the national territory but by imports from other Member States. To avoid any risk of loss of his exclusive right, which could not, in his view, be duly compensated by the payment of the remuneration laid down for a compulsory licence, the patentee is thus encouraged to manufacture on the territory of the State where the patent has been granted, rather than to import the patented product from the territory of other Member States. Such discrimination, which is designed to encourage domestic production, is justified neither by Article 36 of the Treaty nor by Article 5 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Judgment of the Court of 14 June 1990. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Obligation to provide the Commission with information - Non-fulfilment. - Case C-48/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-02425

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure - Justification - Not permissible

( EEC Treaty, Art . 169 )

Summary

As the Court has consistently held, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in Community directives .

Parties

In Case C-48/89

Commission of the European Communities, represented by S . Fabro, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Italian Republic, represented by Luigi Ferrari Bravo, Head of the Contentious Diplomatic Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by P . G . Ferri, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adélaïde,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration, pursuant to Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste ( Official Journal 1975, L 194, p . 39 ), Council Directive 76/403/EEC of 6 April 1976 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls ( Official Journal 1976, L 108, p . 41, and Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste ( Official Journal 1978, L 84, p . 43 ) and Article 5 of the EEC Treaty

THE COURT

composed of : O . Due, President, F . A . Schockweiler and M . Zuleeg ( Presidents of Chambers ), G . F . Mancini, R . Joliet, T . F . O' Higgins, J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, G . C . Rodríguez Iglesias and F . Grévisse, Judges,

( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )

hereby :

Operative part

( 1 ) Declares that by failing to provide the plans and reports referred to in Articles 3(2 ) and 12 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, Article 10 of Council Directive 76/403/EEC of 6 April 1976 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls, and Articles 12(2 ) and 16 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

( 2 ) Dismisses the application in all other respects;

( 3 ) Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs .