ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Power of Commission to review validity of expenditure — Where reasonable doubt arises — Burden of proof on the Member State

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Procedure for the clearance of accounts — Conciliation procedure — Opinion expressed by the Commission following a bilateral meeting — No binding effect — (Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8)

Summary

1. Where the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was incurred as a result of a breach of Community rules for which a Member State can be held responsible, the Commission is not required to demonstrate exhaustively that the checks carried out by the Member States are inadequate, but to provide evidence of the serious and reasonable doubt it entertains concerning the checks carried out by the national authorities. The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the State which is best placed to collect and check the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, and which is consequently required to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence both that its checks are actually carried out and, if appropriate, that the Commission ' s assertions are incorrect.

see para. 35

2. In the context of the conciliation procedure provided for in Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, the mere fact that the conclusions which the Agriculture Directorate-General reached after consultation of other Commission services are inconsistent with the opinion which it expressed following the bilateral discussion and with the position of the Member State concerned does not mean that the Commission has infringed the second subparagraph of Article 8(1) by rendering meaningless the obligation to hold a bilateral discussion in accordance with that subparagraph. The bilateral discussion is merely a preliminary stage in the Commission ' s decision-making process and any opinion which it expresses at the end of such a discussion does not bind it in the future. Before formally communicating its findings, the Agriculture Directorate-General may consult other Commission services. Where the Agriculture Directorate-General alters an opinion which it has previously expressed, it must be pointed out that no agreement has been reached between the parties and the Member State concerned may still request initiation of a conciliation procedure. What is important is that the bilateral discussion enabled both parties to debate all the issues in dispute and that all the issues discussed were taken into account by the Commission when it formally presented its findings.

see paras 69-70, 72
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Driving licence — Directive 91/439 — Mutual recognition of driving licences — (Council Directive 91/439, Art. 1(2))

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Driving licence — Directive 91/439 — Possibility for a Member State which did not issue the licence to apply some of its national rules — Limits — (Council Directive 91/439, Art. 1(3))

Summary

1. Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences provides for mutual recognition of driving licences issued by other Member States. That recognition, which is to be carried out without any formality, is a clear and unconditional obligation and the Member States have no discretion as to the measures to be adopted in order to comply with the requirement. If registration of a driving licence issued by another Member State becomes an obligation because holders of such a licence are subject to a sanction if, after having taken up residence in the host Member State, they operate a motor vehicle without having registered their driving licence, such registration must be deemed to constitute a formality and is thus contrary to Article 1(2) of that directive.

see paras 60-62

2. The measures adopted by a Member State to avail itself of the possibility, offered by Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, of applying to the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State its national rules on the period of validity of the licence, medical checks and tax arrangements and to enter on the licence the information indispensable for administration must not hinder or make less attractive for Community nationals the exercise of their right to free movement and freedom of establishment and, where they none the less do so, those measures must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner, be justified by imperative reasons of public interest, be appropriate for guaranteeing the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

see para. 66
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States — Obligations — Obligation of cooperation — Obligation on an administrative body to review a final administrative decision in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court — Conditions — (Arts 10 EC and 234(3) EC)

Summary

The principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC imposes on an administrative body an obligation to review a final administrative decision, where an application for such review is made to it, in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court where:

─ under national law, it has the power to reopen that decision;

─ the administrative decision in question has become final as a result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance;

─ that judgment is, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234(3) EC; and

─ the person concerned complained to the administrative body immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.

see para. 28, operative part
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

9 January 2003

((EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Financial years 1995 to 1998 – Export refunds – Olive oil – Sale of intervention alcohol))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

12 December 2002

((Freedom of establishment – Tax provisions – Corporation tax – Covert distribution of profits – Tax credit – Coherence of the tax system – Tax evasion))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH, represented by J. Schirmer and J.A. Schirmer, Steuerberater; of the German Government, by W.-D. Plessing and G. Müller-Gatermann, acting as Agent; of the United Kingdom Government, represented by J.E. Collins, assisted by R. Singh; and of the Commission, represented by R. Lyal, assisted by R. Bierwagen, at the hearing on 30 May 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

27 February 2003

((Directive 93/36/EEC – Public supply contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures applicable to public contracts – Limitation period – Principle of effectiveness))

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 the Italian Government, the French Government and the Commission at the hearing on 6 December 2001,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 February 2002,
Case C-221/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Austria





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Approximation of laws – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Directive 79/112/EEC – Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 4 July 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 23 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01





Rechnungshof

v

Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others

and

Christa Neukomm and Joseph Lauermann

v

Österreichischer Rundfunk







(References for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof and the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

«(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 14 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 20 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Directive 95/46 – Scope – Determination in accordance with the subject-matter of the directive – Abolition of barriers to the functioning of the internal market

(Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

2.. Approximation of laws – Directive 95/46 – Interpretation in the light of fundamental rights

(Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

3.. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Respect for private life – Interference within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

(European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 8)

4.. Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Respect for private life – Restriction – National legislation requiring a State control body to collect and communicate, for purposes of publication, data on the income of persons employed by bodies subject to that control where the income exceeds a certain threshold – Justification under Article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights – Objective of public interest – Management of public funds – Proportionality

(European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 8(2))

5.. Approximation of laws – Directive 95/46 – National legislation requiring a State control body to collect and communicate, for purposes of publication, data on the income of persons employed by bodies subject to that control where the income exceeds a certain threshold – Permissible – Condition – Disclosure necessary with regard to the objective of proper management of public funds – Proportionality

(Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e))

6.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Effect – Non-implementation by a Member State – Right of individuals to rely on the directive – Conditions

(Art. 249, third para., EC; Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

10 April 2003

((Brussels Convention – Article 5(1) – Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation – Contract of employment – Place where the employee habitually carries out his work – First contract fixing the place of performance of the work in one Contracting State – Second contract concluded with reference to the first contract and under which the employee carries out his work in another Contracting State – First contract suspended during the performance of the second))

In Case C-437/00,

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Ms Pugliese and the Commission at the hearing on 13 June 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 19 September 2002,
Case C-338/00 P





Volkswagen AG

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Competition – Distribution of motor vehicles – Partitioning of the market – Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) – Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 – Whether the infringement can be attributed to the undertaking concerned – Right to a fair hearing – Duty to state reasons – Legal consequences of disclosure to the press – Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation of the fine – Cross-appeal)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 17 October 2002

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 18 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance – Failure to identify the error in law relied on – Inadmissible

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

2.. Competition – Agreements and concerted practices – Prohibition – Category exemptions – Regulation No 123/85 – Scope – Measure adopted by a motor vehicle manufacturer having the effect of partitioning the market – Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) and (3) (now Art. 81(1) and (3) EC); Commission Regulation No 123/85)

3.. Competition – Agreements and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Selective distribution system for motor vehicles – Call by the manufacturer to its authorised dealers forming part of overall business relations – Restrictions on supplies to dealers provided for under the dealership contract

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

4.. Competition – Fines – Prohibition on imposing fines in respect of acts taking place within the framework of a notified agreement – Scope

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(5)(a))

5.. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Intentional infringements – Establishment of intention

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

6.. Acts of the institution – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply the rules on competition

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))

7.. Appeal – Jurisdiction of the Court – Reappraisal, on grounds of fairness, of the assessment of the Court of First Instance as to the amount of fines imposed on undertakings – Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.
Case C-246/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of the Netherlands





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/439/EEC – Driving licences – Mutual recognition – Compulsory registration – Calculation of the duration of validity)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 21 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 10 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licence – Directive 91/439 – Mutual recognition of driving licences

(Council Directive 91/439, Art. 1(2))

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licence – Directive 91/439 – Possibility for a Member State which did not issue the licence to apply some of its national rules – Limits

(Council Directive 91/439, Art. 1(3))

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

13 January 2004

((Poultrymeat – Export refunds – Failure to refer a question for a preliminary ruling – Final administrative decision – Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision – Legal certainty – Primacy of Community law – Principle of cooperation – Article 10 EC))

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Kühne & Heitz NV, represented by A.J. Braakman, of the Netherlands Government, represented by H.G. Sevenster and J.G.M. van Bakel, acting as Agent, of the French Government, represented by R. Abraham and C. Isidoro, acting as Agents, of the Commission, represented by T. van Rijn, and of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by B. Eiríksdóttir, at the hearing on 9 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 June 2003,
Keywords



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification based on internal legal system - Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653 — National legislation making the registration of a commercial agent in the register of undertakings subject to that agent's enrolment in a special register — Whether permissible — Conditions — (Council Directive 86/653)

Summary

On a proper reading, Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents does not preclude national legislation from making registration of a commercial agent in the register of undertakings subject to that agent's enrolment in a register provided for that purpose, on condition that non-registration in the register of undertakings does not affect the validity of an agency contract which that agent has concluded with his principal or that the consequences of such non-registration do not adversely affect in any other way the protection which that directive confers on commercial agents in their relations with their principals.

see para. 20 and operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Supplies of goods — Leasing of vehicles — Filling up with fuel by the lessee in the name and at the expense of the lessor — Supply by lessor to lessee — Absence — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 5(1))

Summary

Article 5(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, under which "supply of goods" is to mean the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner, is to be interpreted as meaning that there is not a supply of fuel by the lessor of a vehicle to the lessee where the lessee fills up at filling stations the vehicle which is the subject-matter of a leasing contract, even if the vehicle is filled up in the name and at the expense of that lessor.

see para. 37, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Where registration of a trade mark may be refused or the trade mark declared invalid — Trade mark devoid of distinctive character — Determination whether a three-dimensional shape of product trade mark has a distinctive character — Application of the same criteria as for other types of mark — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(b) and 3(3))

2. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Where registration of a trade mark may be refused or the trade mark declared invalid — Three-dimensional shape of product marks — Specific grounds for refusal in Article 3(1)(e) — Preliminary obstacle not preventing the application of the other grounds for refusing registration — Examination of the grounds for refusal in Article 3(1)(c) — Account taken of the public interest in preserving the availability of certain marks — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(1)(c) and (e) and 3(3))

Summary

1. When assessing the distinctiveness of a three-dimensional shape of product trade mark for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks, a stricter test than that used for other types of trade mark must not be applied.

It is nevertheless true that, in view of the test for assessing distinctiveness, it may in practice be more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to a shape of product mark than a word or figurative trade mark. But whilst that may explain why such a mark is refused registration, it does not mean that it cannot acquire distinctive character following the use that has been made of it and thus be registered as a trade mark under Article 3(3) of the directive.

see paras 48-49, operative part 1

2. The specific grounds for refusing the registration of certain signs consisting of the shape of the product set out expressly in Article 3(1)(e) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks constitute a preliminary obstacle liable to prevent such signs from being registrable. However, even if that preliminary obstacle is overcome, neither the wording of Article 3(1) of the directive nor the scheme of the directive indicates that the other grounds for refusing registration in that provision should not also apply to applications to register three-dimensional shape of product marks.

It follows that, independently of Article 3(1)(e) of the directive, Article 3(1)(c) also has significance for three-dimensional shape of product trade marks.

When examining the ground for refusing registration in Article 3(1)(c) in a concrete case, regard must be had to the public interest underlying that provision, which is that all three-dimensional shape of product trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of the goods or service within the meaning of that provision should be freely available to all and, subject always to Article 3(3) of the directive, cannot be registered.

see paras 65-66, 70, 77, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Exemption for the letting of immovable property — Definition — Grant of right to install cigarette vending machines on commercial premises — Not included — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

Summary

On a proper construction of Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, the grant, by the owner of premises to an owner of a cigarette vending machine, of the right to install the machine, and to operate and maintain it in the premises for a period of two years, in a place nominated by the owner of the premises, in return for a percentage of the gross profits on the sales of cigarettes and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no rights of possession or control being granted to the owner of the machine other than those expressly set out in the agreement between the parties, does not amount to a letting of immovable property within the meaning of that provision.

see para. 31, operative part
Keywords



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion — (Art. 226 EC)

2. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification based on the internal legal order — Not permissible — (Art. 226 EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of failure — Burden on Commission — Submission of evidence that the obligation has not been fulfilled — (Art. 226 EC)