ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Inaccurate declaration concerning part of the product exported – Amendment of the declaration – Retention of the right to a refund – Product declared not corresponding to the product actually exported – Determination of the applicable refund rate – Similarity between the declared product and the exported product – Immaterial

(Council Regulations Nos 2913/92, Art. 78(3), and 3665/87, Arts 3(5)(a) and 11)

Summary

For refunds requested before 1 April 1995, Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to an export refund exists at least at the rate applicable to the product actually exported where it is established during a control by the customs authorities that the declared and exported consignment did not consist entirely of the declared product but included another product to which a lower rate of refund applied and the customs authorities adjusted the declaration in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code.

For the purposes of the decision, it is not material whether the goods which were the subject of the incorrect customs declaration are goods similar to those which were in fact declared.

For refunds requested after 1 April 1995, Article 11 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, is applicable in such circumstances.

(see para. 37, operative part 1)
Case C-446/02

Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

v

Gouralnik & Partner GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Inaccurate declaration – Consequences for the validity of the declaration)

Summary of the Order

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Inaccurate declaration concerning part of the product exported – Amendment of the declaration – Retention of the right to a refund – Product declared not corresponding to the product actually exported – Determination of the applicable refund rate – Similarity between the declared product and the exported product – Immaterial

(Council Regulations Nos 2913/92, Art. 78(3), and 3665/87, Arts 3(5)(a) and 11)

For refunds requested before 1 April 1995, Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to an export refund exists at least at the rate applicable to the product actually exported where it is established during a control by the customs authorities that the declared and exported consignment did not consist entirely of the declared product but included another product to which a lower rate of refund applied and the customs authorities adjusted the declaration in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Community Customs Code.

For the purposes of the decision, it is not material whether the goods which were the subject of the incorrect customs declaration are goods similar to those which were in fact declared.

For refunds requested after 1 April 1995, Article 11 of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, is applicable in such circumstances.

(see para. 37, operative part 1)
Case C-204/02 P

Colin Joynson

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal ? Agreements ? Standard leases for public houses ?Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 December 2003

Summary of the Order

1. Appeals ? Pleas in law ? Erroneous assessment of the facts ? Inadmissible ? Dismissed

Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

2. Appeals ? Pleas in law ? Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal ? Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Interim relief — Suspension of operation of a judgment — Judgment of the Court of First Instance under appeal — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Serious and irreparable harm — Judgment annulling a decision to withdraw a marketing authorisation of medicinal products for human use — Absence based on the necessity, as set out in the judgment under appeal, of intervention of Member States for a possible resumption of marketing — (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Council Directive 65/65)

Summary

The condition relating to urgency, imposed by Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in order to enable that Court, pursuant to Article 242 EC, to order the suspension of operation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling a decision of the Commission concerning the withdrawal of a marketing authorisation of medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Directive 65/65 relating to proprietary medicinal products, is not established since the resumption of the marketing of the medicinal products in question does not follow automatically from the judgment under appeal, but requires a positive decision to that effect and, pursuant to the judgment under appeal, the competence to take any decision relating to the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products in question lies with the Member States acting on the basis of the requirements essential for public health protection.

see paras 41, 43, 46
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of the findings of fact – Excluded save where the clear sense of the evidence is distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible – Dismissed

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1. Under Article 225 EC and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice an appeal lies on points of law only and, therefore, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, save where the factual inaccuracy of its findings results from the documents in the case before it. The appraisal of the facts by the Court of First Instance does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

(see para. 36)

2. It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of its Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance including those based on facts expressly rejected by it. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

(see paras 40-41)
Case C-233/03 P(R)





Linea GIG Srl in liquidazione

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Procedure for interim relief – Competition – Payment of fine – Bank guarantee – Balancing of interests)»

Order of the President of the Court, 24 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable harm – Balancing of all the interests involved – Discretion of the judge hearing the application for interim measures

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Judge's discretion as to whether to balance the interests – Applicant undertaking in liquidation – Risk of irreversible harm to the Community's interests

(Art. 242 EC)

3.. Appeal – Grounds of appeal – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Application in the case of an appeal against an interlocutory order – Not possible, unless the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, to challenge the balancing of interests

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 57 and 58)

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23 – Articles 3(1) and 1(1)(c) – Effect in relations between the State and individuals – Limited liability company governed by private law, whose sole shareholder is a social assistance association governed by public law – Body subject to those articles

(Council Directive 2001/23, Arts 1(1)(c), first sentence, and 3(1))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23 – Articles 3(1) and 1(1)(c) – Possibility of relying on those articles against an individual – Excluded – Not possible for a State entity transferring its operations to force an employee to continue his employment relationship with a transferee

(Council Directive 2001/23, Arts 1(1)(c) and 3(1))

Summary

1. A limited liability company governed by private law, whose sole shareholder is a social assistance association governed by public law, is among the entities subject to Article 3(1) and the first sentence of Article 1(1)(c) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, since both provisions satisfy the conditions for having direct effect.

The fact that, due to a share transfer which is subject only to the agreement of the board of that association, the shareholding of that association is to be transferred to a limited liability company, whose sole shareholder is a private association, is irrelevant in that regard, since such a plan is not, as such, able to alter the legal nature of the first company.

(see paras 28-30, operative part 1)

2. A State entity which transfers its operations may not rely on Article 3(1) and Article 1(1)(c) of Directive 2001/23 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, against an employee in order to force him to continue his employment relationship with a transferee. A directive cannot by itself create obligations for a private individual and a provision of a directive may not therefore be relied upon as such against the latter.

(see paras 32-33, 35, operative part 2)
Case C-369/03 P





Forum des migrants de l'Union européenne

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Time-limit – Whether inadmissible)»

Order of the Court (First Chamber), 19 February 2004

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Restrictions (Art. 43 EC) (see paras 15-20 and operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunal de police de Neufchâteau – Interpretation of Arts 10, 39, 43 and 49 EC – National measure requiring a motor vehicle to be registered in that Member State if it is to be used by a resident even if it has been provided to that resident by the latter’s employer, established in another Member State – Worker bound to his employer by an employment contract and simultaneously performing the functions of shareholder, administrator and person responsible for day-to-day management, or an equivalent function.

Operative part

Operative part

Article 43 EC precludes national legislation of one Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges a self-employed person residing in that Member State to register a company vehicle provided to him by the company which employs him and which is established in another Member State, when the company vehicle is neither actually intended to be used permanently in the first Member State nor is in fact used in that way .
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2006 – Adriatica di Navigazione v Commission

(Case C-111/04 P)

Appeal – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Competition – Cartels – Agreement between undertakings – Proof of participation of an undertaking in a cartel

1. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Definition of the market – Subject-matter (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) (see paras 30-31)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in an anti-competitive initiative (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) (see para. 48)

3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded unless the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 49, 62)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15) (see para. 91)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case T-61/99 Adriatica di Navigazione v Commission , dismissing as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission decision of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 – Greek Ferry Boats)

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities;

3. Orders Adriatica di Navigazione SpA to pay 90% of the costs;
Keywords



Keywords

Appeal

–

Grounds

–

Clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded pleas (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119; Staff Regulations, Art. 24) (see paras 61, 68, 78-82

)
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals

–

Grounds of appeal

–

Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance

–

Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 13-15

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons

–

Freedom of establishment

–

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Palermo – Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 89 EC – National legislation making the collection of bets subject to a licensing requirement.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

2. It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

3. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes - and, moreover, continues to exclude - from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

4. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal

–

Grounds

–

Clearly inadmissible or clearly unfounded pleas (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119; Staff Regulations, Art. 24) (see paras 61, 68, 78-82

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in Case T-387/02 Schmidt-Brown v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant’s request for financial assistance from the Commission in a defamation action brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Ms Schmidt-Brown to bear the costs.
Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case T-326/03

Vounakis

v

Commission

, dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the appellant to Grade A4 under the 2002 promotion procedure
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hof van beroep te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) – Material scope – Whether applicable or not to a supplementary crisis contribution levied by a Member State to finance its social security system – Obligation to pay the contribution even where a person is liable to pay contributions to a social security system other than that of the State of residence – Whether compatible with Article 39 EC.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006 – Piau v Commission

(Case C-171/05 P

Appeal – Freedom to provide services – Competition – Regulation of the activities of players’ agents – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded save in cases of distortion (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 22)

2. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Ground unrelated to pleas in law put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibile (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see paras 24, 73)

3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 34)

4. Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Meaning (Art. 82 EC) (see para. 37)

5. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 53)

6. Commission – Powers to impose penalties in respect of infringements of Community law committed by individuals (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 17) (see paras 54-58)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2005 in Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 April 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the regulation of the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) governing the activities of players’ agents

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 – Criminal proceedings against Damonte

(Case C‑466/05)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC – Games of chance – Collection of bets on sporting events – Licensing requirement – Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form – Requirement of police authorisation – Criminal penalties

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC) (see para. 7, operative part 1-4)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Lecce – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC – National legislation making the collection of bets subject to a licensing requirement.

Operative part:

National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

It is for the national court to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes – and, moreover, continues to exclude – from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support its operative part – Plea inoperative (see para. 17)

2. Appeal – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (see para. 22)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible –Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see para. 28)

4. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 30)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 November 2005 in Case T‑250/02 Autosalone Ispra v Commission , in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application for a declaration that the Community was liable for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of an overflowing drain the management and maintenance of which are the responsibility of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra – Breach of the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Autosalone Ispra Snc to pay the costs.