ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Plea ineffective

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional milk levy – Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy – Producer who suspended deliveries under the non-marketing and conversion premium scheme and then transferred his holding – National administrative practice allowing him to retain his specific reference quantity in the event of transfer of the holding – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Infringement – None

(Council Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89)

3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded on other legal grounds – Rejected

Summary

1. In the appeal, complaints directed against the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance included merely for the sake of completeness must be rejected outright since such grounds cannot provide any basis for setting that judgment aside.

(see para. 60)

2. In the context of the allocation of reference quantities exempt from the additional milk levy, pursuant to Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, a milk producer cannot expect the application of a national administrative practice enabling him to retain the special reference quantity after transferring the initial holding unless the relevant Community system made provision for competent national authorities to have such a power or the Community has previously created a situation which could give rise to such a legitimate expectation. The existence of a national administrative practice cannot, of itself, give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of a producer that he will receive treatment in accordance with that practice from the Community.

(see para. 69.)

3. Where the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance disclose an infringement of Community law but the operative part of the judgment is shown to be well founded for other legal reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.

(see para. 95)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Quality of bathing water – Directive 76/160 – Implementation by Member States – Obligation to achieve a particular result

(Council Directive 76/160, Art. 4(1))

Summary

Article 4(1) of Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water requires Member States to ensure that certain results are achieved, inasmuch as the quality of bathing water must conform to the mandatory values laid down in the directive. Apart from the derogations provided for, the directive does not allow Member States to rely on particular circumstances to justify a failure to fulfil that obligation

(see para. 34)
Case C-333/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 98/81/EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 13 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-131/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 49 EC – Freedom to provide services – Patent agents – Obligation to be enrolled on the register of patent agents of the host Member State – Obligation to have a residence or place of business in the host Member State)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 12 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 13 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom to provide services – Treaty provisions – Scope – Temporary nature of the activities provided – Criteria – Patent agents

(Art. 50 EC, third para.)

2.. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Patent agents – Obligation to register in the professional register – Obligation to have a residence or a place of business – Not permissible

(Arts 49 EC to 55 EC)

1.

2.
Case C-44/01





Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG

v

Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and

Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer







(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

«(Approximation of laws – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Misleading advertising – Conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 12 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 8 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Definition – Same rules to be applied to the various elements of comparison

(Council Directive 84/450, Art. 2(2))

2.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Stricter national provisions on misleading advertising – Not applicable to comparative advertising

(Council Directive 84/450, Arts 3a and 7)

3.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Indication of a competitor's trade mark – Option open to the advertiser – Limits

(Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1))

4.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Purchase of the products compared through different distribution channels – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1))

5.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Test purchase by the advertiser from a competitor before the commencement of his offer – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a)

6.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Reproduction in the advertising message of the name and logo of a competitor with a picture of its shop front – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1)(e))

7.. Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Price comparison – No discrediting of a competitor even where attention is drawn to a price difference on a product that is greater than the average difference across products as a whole

(Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1)(e))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Case C-148/01





Hellenic Republic

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Additional levy on milk – Default interest – Application for partial annulment of Decision 2001/137/EC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 12 December 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 12 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-98/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 43 EC and 56 EC – Rights attaching to the United Kingdom's Special Share in BAA plc)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 February 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 13 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-156/01





R.P. van der Duin

v

Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA

and

Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA

v

T.W. van Wegberg-van Brederode







(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands))

«(Social security – Pensioners and members of their family residing in a Member State other than the State liable for payment of the pension – Medical costs incurred in the Member State liable for payment of the pension – Conditions for assumption of responsibility – Competent Member State and competent institution – Articles 21, 22, 28 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 24 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 3 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Pensioners and members of their family residing in a Member State other than the State liable for payment of the pension – Medical costs incurred in the Member State liable for payment of the pension – Assumption of responsibility by the Member State of residence – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 22(1)(c)(i), and Art. 28; Council Regulation No 574/72, Art. 29)

2.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Pensioners and members of their family residing in a Member State other than the State liable for payment of the pension – Institution competent to issue the prior authorisation necessary to go to another Member State in order to receive appropriate treatment there – Institution of the place of residence

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 22(1)(c)(i) and Art. 28)

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

19 June 2003

((Sixth VAT Directive – Article 26(2) – Special scheme for the taxation of travel agents and tour operators – Taxable amount – Margin – Total amount to be paid by the traveller))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of First Choice Holidays plc, represented by K. Prosser, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by P. Ormond, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Sales, and of the Commission, represented by R. Lyal, at the hearing on 14 March 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 September 2002,
Case C-78/01





Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik eV (BGL)

v

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Friedrichshafen





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof)

«(Free movement of goods – External transit operation – Transport under cover of a TIR carnet – Offences or irregularities – Possibility for a guaranteeing association to prove the place where the offence or irregularity was committed – Time-limit for furnishing proof – Existence of an obligation for the Member State which detects an offence or irregularity to investigate the place where it was committed)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 14 January 2003

Judgment of the Court, 23 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Free movement of goods – Community external transit – Transportation under cover of a TIR carnet – Offences and irregularities – Place where the offence or irregularity was committed – Furnishing of proof by a guaranteeing association within the limitation period – Whether permissible

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 454(3), first subpara., and 455)

2.. Free movement of goods – Community external transit – Transportation under cover of a TIR carnet – Offences and irregularities – Place where the offence or irregularity was committed – Furnishing of proof by a guaranteeing association – Point at which time starts to run and length of period – Principle of legal certainty

3.. Free movement of goods – Community external transit – Transportation under cover of a TIR carnet – Offences and irregularities – Obligations of the Member State detecting an offence – Obligation to investigate the actual place where the offence was committed and the identity of the customs debtors – Not included

(Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Arts 454 and 455)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-236/01





Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others

v

Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio)

«(Regulation (EC) No 258/97 – Novel foods – Placing on the market – Safety assessment – Simplified procedure – Substantial equivalence to existing foods – Foods produced from genetically modified maize – Presence of residues of transgenic protein – Measure by a Member State temporarily restricting or suspending the trade in or use of a novel food in its territory)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 13 March 2003

Judgment of the Court, 9 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Novel foods and novel food ingredients – Placing on the market – Simplified procedure – Substantial equivalence to existing foods – Concept – Use of that procedure notwithstanding the presence of residues of transgenic protein in novel foods – Whether permissible – Limits – Potential risks to human health

(Regulation No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3(4), first subpara.)

2.. Approximation of laws – Novel foods and novel food ingredients – Placing on the market – Simplified procedure – Procedure not covered by consent, even tacit, by the Commission – Member States' right of recourse to the safeguard clause where use of that procedure is not warranted – Need for a preliminary challenge to such consent – Not required

(Regulation No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 5 and Art. 12(1))

3.. Approximation of laws – Novel foods and novel food ingredients – Placing on the market – Member States' right of recourse to the safeguard clause regardless of the procedure followed for placing on the market and its validity

(Regulation No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3(4), second subpara. and Arts 5, 12 and 13)

4.. Approximation of laws – Novel foods and novel food ingredients – Placing on the market – Use of the safeguard clause – Justification – Potential risks to human health – Burden of proof

(Regulation No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 3(1) and 12)

5.. Approximation of laws – Novel foods and novel food ingredients – Placing on the market – Simplified procedure – Condition of substantial equivalence – Detailed rules sufficient to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment – Compliance with the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality – Validity

(Arts 152(1) EC and 174(2) EC; Regulation No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3(4), first subpara., and Art. 5)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-224/01





Gerhard Köbler

v

Republik Österreich





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria))

«(Equal treatment – Remuneration of university professors – Indirect discrimination – Length-of-service increment – Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law for which it is responsible – Infringements attributable to a national court)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 8 April 2003

Judgment of the Court, 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Infringement attributable to a supreme court – No effect – Court competent to decide a case relating to such compensation – Application of national law

2.. Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Conditions in the event of infringement attributable to a supreme court – Manifest character of the infringement – Criteria

3.. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Remuneration of university professors – Indirect discrimination – Length-of-service increment which takes into account only the length of service in the universities of the Member State concerned – Not permissible – Whether justifiable – No justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC); Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1))

4.. Community law – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Infringement attributable to a supreme court – Particular circumstances – Lack of manifest character of the infringement

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

30 September 2003

((Agriculture – EAGGF – Partial annulment of Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 – Special market support measures in the beef sector – Implementing regulation of the Commission providing for compulsory co-financing by the Member States))

applicant,

intervener,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Full Court),,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 June 2003,
Case C-152/01





Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt Krefeld





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany))

«(Common Customs Tariff – Customs value – Determination of the transaction value – Interest payable under a financing arrangement – Exclusion – Conditions – Interest distinguished from the price actually paid or payable – Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 23 January 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 20 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community law – Multilingual texts – Uniform interpretation – Differences between the various language versions – Purpose and general scheme of the rules in question to be taken as the basis for reference

2.. Common Customs Tariff – Customs value – Transaction value – Determination – Interest payable under a financing agreement – Excluded – Conditions – Interest distinguished from the price actually paid or payable – Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid

(Commission Regulation No 1495/80, Art. 3(2)(a))

1.

2.
Case C-311/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of the Netherlands





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Social security – Articles 69 and 71 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Unemployment benefit – Frontier workers – Retention of benefit entitlement when seeking employment in another Member State)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 27 February 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 6 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-500/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Market for telecommunications services – Tariff rebalancing – Access to the local loop – Directive 90/388/EEC – Article 4c)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 10 July 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

27 November 2003

((Sixth VAT Directive – Article 5(8) – Transfer of a totality of assets – Continuation by the transferee in the same branch of business as the transferor – Legal authorisation to pursue the activity))

In Case C-497/01,

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,
Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01

AOK Bundesverband and Others

v

Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. and Others

(References for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf and the Bundesgerichtshof)

(Competition – Undertakings – Sickness funds – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC – Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products)

Summary of the Judgment

Competition – Community rules – Undertaking – Concept – Group of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products – Not included – Conditions

(Art. 81 EC)

The concept of an undertaking in Community competition law does not cover bodies entrusted with the management of statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes which pursue an exclusively social objective and do not engage in economic activity. That is so in the case of sickness funds which, even if the legislature has granted them some latitude in setting the contribution rate, in order to promote sound management, are compelled by law to offer to their members essentially identical obligatory benefits which do not depend on the amount of the contributions. Since the sickness funds therefore have no possibility of influence over those benefits, and are joined together in a type of community founded on the basis of solidarity which enables an equalisation of costs and risks between them, they are not in competition with one another or with private institutions as regards grant of the obligatory statutory benefits in respect of treatment or medicinal products which constitute their main function.

When groups of those sickness funds determine, pursuant to an obligation imposed upon them by the legislature, fixed maximum amounts corresponding to the upper limit of the price of medicinal products whose cost is borne by sickness funds, they do not act as undertakings or associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81 EC, inasmuch as they do not pursue a specific interest separable from the exclusively social objective of the funds, but perform an obligation which is integrally connected with the activity of the funds within the framework of the statutory health insurance scheme.

(see paras 47, 52-54, 56-57, 63-65, operative part)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

5 February 2004

((Free movement of goods – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Prohibition on marketing foodstuffs to which vitamins and minerals have been added – Justification – Proportionality))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mr Greenham and Mr Abel, of the French Government, of the Greek Government and of the Commission at the hearing on 18 April 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 May 2002,