ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Trade mark rights - Product put on the market in a Member State by the trade mark owner or with his consent - Reaffixing by a third party of the label bearing the trade mark - Opposition by the trade mark owner - Permissible - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 36)

Summary

Article 36 must be interpreted as meaning that the owner of trade mark rights may, even if that constitutes a barrier to intra-Community trade, rely on those rights to prevent a third party from removing and then reaffixing or replacing labels bearing the mark which the owner has himself affixed to products he has put on the Community market, unless the following conditions are satisfied:

- it is established that the use of the trade mark rights by the owner to oppose the marketing of the relabelled products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States. That is the case in particular if the labels are removed and reaffixed for the purpose of removing the identification numbers which the owner has applied to his products in order to be able to reconstruct the itinerary of those products, with the purpose of preventing dealers from supplying persons carrying on parallel trade. However, where identification numbers have been applied to comply with a legal obligation or to attain important objectives which are legitimate from the point of view of Community law, the fact that an owner of trade mark rights makes use of those rights to prevent a third party from removing and then reaffixing or replacing labels bearing his trade mark in order to remove those numbers does not contribute to an artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

- it is shown that the relabelling cannot affect the original condition of the product;

- the presentation of the relabelled product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its owner; and

- the person who relabels the products informs the trade mark owner of the relabelling before the relabelled products are put on sale.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance with a Commission decision concerning State aid - Decision not challenged by way of an action for annulment - Defences - Absolutely impossible to implement - Criteria of assessment

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2))

Summary

Where an application for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations is brought in respect of a Member State which is the addressee of a decision adopted under Article 93(2) of the Treaty ordering that State to recover illicit aid, and where no action has been instituted for the annulment of that decision, the only defence available to the Member State in opposing the application is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it to implement the decision properly.

However, that condition is not satisfied where the government of the Member State merely informs the Commission of the legal and practical difficulties involved in implementing the decision, without taking any step whatsoever to recover the aid from the undertakings in question, and without proposing to the Commission any alternative arrangements for implementing the decision which would have enabled the alleged difficulties to be overcome.

Moreover, although insuperable difficulties may prevent a Member State from complying with its obligations under Community law, mere apprehension of such difficulties cannot justify a failure by a Member State to apply Community law correctly.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 International agreements - Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention - Provisions concerning trade cooperation - General trade arrangements - Difference in the treatment of traditional and non-traditional ACP banana imports - Whether lawful

(Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention of 15 December 1989, Art. 168 and Protocol 5; Council Regulation No 404/93)

2 Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Need to obtain an import licence and to lodge a security - Breach of the principle of proportionality - None - Detailed rules - Compatibility with the Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention and the basic regulation

(Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention of 15 December 1989; Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 17; Commission Regulation No 1442/93, Art. 14(2))

Summary

3 With respect to the establishment of a tariff quota, the import into the Community of bananas from ACP States falls under Article 168(2)(a)(ii) of the Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention, Protocol 5 concerning bananas annexed to the Convention and Annexes LXXIV and LXXV relating to that Protocol. Pursuant to those provisions and in particular to the standstill clause introduced by Article 1 of the Protocol, the Community's only obligation is to maintain the advantages, with respect to access of ACP bananas to the Community market, which the ACP States had before the Lomé Convention; accordingly, Regulation No 404/93 was able, without infringing the Convention or the Protocol, to limit free access to the Community market by providing for a difference in the treatment of traditional and non-traditional ACP imports.

4 Article 17 of Regulation No 404/93, which subjects all imports of bananas into the Community to the requirement of an import licence issued by the Member States and which makes issue of those licences subject to the lodging of a security guaranteeing compliance with the import commitment by the operator, does not infringe the principle of proportionality. That provision must be regarded as an administrative measure in respect of tariff quotas that is indispensable for the monitoring of imports in a system of differing import arrangements and it does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the desired objective.

The detailed rules for issuing import licences set out in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1442/93, providing for the division of the procedure relating to the import of bananas into four quarters but without that entailing any definitive loss of operators' rights, did not introduce arrangements that were too restrictive in relation to the Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention and the basic regulation, since such a division falls within the Commission's power to modify the conditions of access of bananas originating in third countries to the Community without, however, restricting them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Job-sharing scheme in the civil service - Incremental credit determined on the basis of the criterion of actual time worked - Regression on the pay scale for job-sharers entering or returning to full-time work - Job-sharers consisting mainly of women - Not permissible unless objectively justified

(EC Treaty, Art. 119; Council Directive 75/117)

Summary

Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women are to be interpreted as precluding legislation which provides that, where a much higher percentage of female workers than male workers are engaged in job-sharing, job-sharers who convert to full-time employment are given a point on the pay scale applicable to full-time staff which is lower than that which those workers previously occupied on the pay scale applicable to job-sharing staff due to the fact that the employer has applied the criterion of service calculated by the actual length of time worked in a post, unless such legislation can be justified by objective criteria unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Community law - Concepts - Interpretation - Reference to national law - Not permissible

2 Community law - Interpretation - Multilingual texts - Uniform interpretation - Whether different language versions to be taken into account

3 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duty - Directive 92/12 - Products subject to excise duty - Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable - Products acquired by individuals for their own use and transported by them - Concept - Purchase of goods through an agent - Excluded - Duty chargeable in the Member State of destination

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 8)

Summary

4 The Community legal order does not, in principle, aim to define concepts on the basis of one or more national legal systems unless there is express provision to that effect.

5 The need for a uniform interpretation of measures adopted by the Community institutions makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation but requires, on the contrary, that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages. All the language versions must, in principle, be recognised as having the same weight and this cannot vary according to the size of the population of the Member States using the language in question.

6 Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as not precluding the levying of excise duty in Member State A on goods released for consumption in Member State B, where the goods were acquired from a company, X, for the use of private individuals in Member State A, through a company, Y, acting in return for payment as agent for those individuals, and where transportation of the goods from Member State B to Member State A was also arranged by company Y on behalf of those individuals and effected by a professional carrier charging for his services.

Article 8 of the Directive, which provides that, as regards products acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them, excise duty is to be charged in the Member State in which they are acquired, is not applicable where the purchase and/or transportation of goods subject to duty is effected through an agent. In a case where goods from one Member State are carried to another Member State on the instructions of a trader acting in return for payment who has previously solicited customers in that latter State and has arranged for importation of the goods, excise duty is chargeable in that latter Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions of exports - Measures having equivalent effect - National rules requiring bottling in the region of production for wines bearing a designation of origin - Justification - Protection of industrial and commercial property - Condition - Measure that is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the considerable reputation of wines bearing a designation of origin

(EC Treaty, Arts 34 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 29 EC and 30 EC); Council Regulation No 823/87, Art. 18)

Summary

$$National rules applicable to wines bearing a designation of origin which make the use of the name of the production region conditional upon bottling in that region constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on exports within the meaning of Article 34 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC), since they have the effect of specifically restricting patterns of exports of wine eligible to bear the designation of origin and thereby of establishing a difference of treatment between trade within a Member State and its export trade.

They cannot be rendered lawful by Article 18 of Regulation No 823/87, which, for those types of wine, authorises the Member States, taking into account fair and traditional practices, to impose more stringent conditions of movement than those imposed by that regulation, since that article cannot be interpreted as authorising the Member States to derogate from the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods.

However, the requirement of bottling in the region of production, whose aim is to preserve the considerable reputation of the wine bearing the designation of origin by strengthening control over its particular characteristics and its quality, is justified as a measure protecting the designation of origin which may be used by all the wine producers in that region and is of decisive importance to them, and it must be regarded as being in conformity with Community law despite its restrictive effects on trade, since it constitutes a necessary and proportionate means of attaining the objective pursued in that there are no less restrictive alternative measures capable of attaining it.

( see paras 41-43, 45, 59, 75-76 )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

21 March 1996

((Social legislation relating to road transport – Derogation for refuse vehicles))

In Case C-39/95,

THE COURT (First 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 Goupil, represented by Paul Mauriac and Alexandre Carnelutti, of the French Government, represented by Romain Nadal, Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, of the United Kingdom, represented by Nicholas Green, Barrister, and of the Commission, represented by Götz zur Hausen, at the hearing on 30 November 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 January 1996,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Taxable amount - National derogating measures - Limits

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 11A(1)(c) and 27)

Summary

The special measures for derogation which the Member States may introduce, pursuant to Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, in order to prevent tax evasion or avoidance must be strictly interpreted and may not derogate from the basis for charging value added tax laid down in Article 11 of the Sixth Directive except within the limits strictly necessary for achieving that aim.

Consequently, despite an authorization given by the Council to the Member State concerned pursuant to Article 27, national rules which, in the case of supplies for consideration made between associated persons, in particular as regards rental of property, take as the minimum basis of assessment the full cost of the services supplied, as defined in Article 11A(1)(c) of the Directive, although the agreed consideration, while less than the minimum basis of assessment, represents the market rate, are not covered by Article 27 of the Directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Technical regulations within the meaning of Directive 83/189 - Definition - National rules requiring specific distinctive signs to be affixed to products subject to a tax on account of environmental damage - Included

(Council Directive 83/189, Art. 1)

Summary

An obligation to affix specific distinctive signs to products which are subject to a tax levied on them on account of the environmental damage which they are deemed to cause constitutes a technical specification within the meaning of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 88/182, and the national enactment introducing it is a technical regulation within the meaning of the same Directive.

The fact that a national measure was adopted in order to protect the environment or that it does not implement a technical standard which may itself constitute a barrier to free movement does not mean that the measure in question cannot be a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 83/189.

The marking requirement in issue, because it constitutes a de jure technical regulation in that its observance is compulsory in the case of marketing of the product concerned and is intended to inform the public of, inter alia, the effects of the products on the environment, can in no way be regarded as exclusively a fiscal accompanying measure and as therefore constituting a requirement linked to a fiscal measure for the purposes of the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 94/10.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Invalidity insurance - Benefits - Amendment of the calculation rules by Regulation No 1248/92 - Application of the new calculation rules to an invalidity pension calculated before the entry into force of the regulation - Conditions - Application by the person concerned - Invalidity pension reviewed on the competent institution's own initiative to the detriment of the person concerned - Not permissible - Previous calculation decision corrected after the date on which the regulation entered into force - No effect

(Council Regulations No 1408/71, Art. 95a, and No 1248/92)

Summary

It is clear both from the terms and the structure of Article 95a(4) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, that application of the provisions of the latter regulation to pension rights acquired before 1 June 1992 is subject to an express application being made by the person concerned. The competent institution is not therefore entitled to substitute itself for an insured person, especially where review by that institution of its own motion would operate to the detriment of the person concerned.

Accordingly, Article 95a of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes the competent institution of a Member State from applying on its own initiative the calculation rules contained in the amending Regulation to the detriment of the person concerned when the latter has, before that regulation entered into force on 1 June 1992, been awarded an invalidity pension in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 that were applicable prior to that date and the decision concerning the pension was rectified after 31 May 1992.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Uninterruptible power supply - Classification under subheading 85.01.B.II

Summary

An electrical apparatus which is an `uninterruptible power supply' consisting, on the one hand, of a cabinet containing a rectifier/charger, an inverter and a static bypass switch and, on the other, of a cabinet housing a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery must be classified under tariff subheading 85.01.B.II as `transformers, static converters, rectifiers and rectifying apparatus'. General Rule 3(b) on the interpretation of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff provides that the classification of products made up of different components depends on the material or component which gives them their essential character. Since the product in dispute is designed to regulate and ensure a permanent power supply, it is the rectifier/charger cabinet which confers on it its essential character, whereas the accumulator cabinet is of only secondary importance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Inadequate statement of reasons - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Review of the extent of the obligation to state reasons for a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official - Account taken of the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance - Included

(EC Treaty, Art. 190; Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law - Erroneous assessment by the Court of First Instance of the statement of reasons for a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official - Appeal well founded

(EC Treaty, Art. 190; Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

Summary

3 The extent of the obligation to state reasons for a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official is a question of law reviewable by the Court of Justice on appeal. Its review, in that context, of the legality of a decision must of necessity take into consideration the facts on which the Court of First Instance based itself in reaching its conclusion as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the statement of reasons.

4 The statement of the reasons for a decision adversely affecting the person concerned must enable the Community judicature to exercise its review of legality and provide that person with the information which he needs in order to know whether the decision is well founded.

Where a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official gives a sufficiently precise indication of the reasons for which the appointing authority decided not to follow the Disciplinary Board's advice and to impose a heavier sanction than that advocated by the latter, a judgment of the Court of First Instance finding the statement of reasons for that decision inadequate is vitiated by an error of law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Commission Decision No 2131/88 imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain sheets or plates, of iron or steel, originating in Yugoslavia - Scope - Products coming from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Covered

Summary

The anti-dumping duties imposed pursuant to Article 1 of Commission Decision No 2131/88/ECSC - imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in Yugoslavia - on imports of certain steel products `originating in Yugoslavia' also apply to products of that kind manufactured by a producer/exporter who had been established in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but was in fact - by reason of the declaration of independence by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) - situated in the FYROM at the time when the products in question were imported.

Since anti-dumping measures by their nature focus on particular products from a specified geographical area and their application accordingly depends on the origin of the goods, a change in the name or political organization of the geographical area referred to as the country of origin or of export in a decision imposing a provisional or definitive anti-dumping duty has no impact on the economic purpose of the duty imposed and cannot therefore by itself remove products originating in that geographical area from the duty's field of application.

Furthermore, if a supplier whose products were being dumped could avoid anti-dumping duties solely because the authorities of the territory in which he was situated had declared it independent, the anti-dumping measures could well fall short of their objective, which is to shield an established Community industry from injury. Even if, as a matter of public international law, the supplier came within the jurisdiction of a new State, that does not mean that his dumping practices would cease to injure Community industry.

Moreover, the principles of international law regarding State succession are not directly applicable to anti-dumping duties, since such duties do not constitute State debts but charges payable by individuals.

Lastly, that interpretation of Decision No 2131/88 is compatible with the principle of legal certainty, which is a fundamental principle of Community law requiring in particular that rules imposing charges on a taxpayer be clear and precise so that he may be able to ascertain unequivocally what his rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly. References in Decision No 2131/88 to the expression `Yugoslavia' clearly indicate that it applies to all the territory lying within the boundaries of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. At the time when the decision was adopted, the expression `Yugoslavia' was not capable of bearing any other interpretation and, since the fragmentation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it cannot but designate the territory of the former republic.