ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Patent granted by the European Patent Office - National legislation deeming the patent void for failure to provide a translation of the specification in the official language of the Member State

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC))

Summary

$$Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) does not preclude the application of national legislation, under which a patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect in the Member State concerned and drafted in a language other than the official language of that State is to be deemed void ab initio if the patent holder does not file with the patent office of the Member State in question a translation of the patent specification in the official language of that Member State within three months of the publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the fact that the patent has been granted.

Whilst it must be accepted that there will probably be differences in the movement of goods depending on whether inventions are protected in all the Member States or only in some of them, entailing division of the internal market, the repercussions on the free movement of goods are too uncertain and too indirect to be considered to be an obstacle to trade between Member States, since the repercussions on intra-Community trade of any competition on the non-protected markets will depend above all on the actual, unforeseeable decisions taken by each of the operators concerned in the light of the economic conditions existing on the various markets.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital duty levied on capital companies - Capitalisation of undistributed profits - Exempted from capital duty by a Member State at the time of transposing Directive 69/335 into national law - Made subject to another tax - Not permissible

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 4, 7(1) and (10)(a))

Summary

$$Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital is to be interpreted as preventing a Member State - where it has exempted from capital duty increases in the capital of a capital company by capitalisation of profits or of permanent or temporary reserves - from levying a tax on the capitalisation by a capital company of undistributed profits.

In accordance with Article 10(a) of Directive 69/335, the Member States may not charge any taxes whatsoever, apart from capital duty, in respect of the transactions referred to in Article 4, such as increases in the capital of a capital company by capitalisation of profits or of permanent or temporary reserves.
Keywords



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - National legislation under which sales rounds of foodstuffs in a given administrative district are reserved to operators established in that district or in an adjacent municipality - Not permissible - Whether justifiable - No justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC))

Summary

$$Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) precludes national legislation which provides that bakers, butchers and grocers may not make sales on rounds in a given administrative district unless they also carry on their trade at a permanent establishment situated in that administrative district or in an adjacent municipality, where they offer for sale the same goods as they do on rounds.

Such legislation, which relates to the selling arrangements for certain goods - in that it lays down the geographical areas in which each of the operators concerned may sell his goods by that method - does not affect in the same manner the marketing of domestic products and that of products from other Member States even though it applies to all operators trading in the national territory. Consequently, it is capable of hindering intra-Community trade in so far as it impedes access to the market of the Member State of importation for products from other Member States more than it impedes access for domestic products. That conclusion is not affected by the fact that, in each part of the national territory, the legislation affects both the sale of products from other parts of the national territory and the sale of products imported from other Member States. For a national measure to be categorised as discriminatory or protective for the purposes of the rules on the free movement of goods, it is not necessary for it to have the effect of favouring national products as a whole or of placing only imported products at a disadvantage and not national products.

Such legislation cannot be justified by objectives relating to the protection of the supplying of goods at short distance to the advantage of local businesses, since aims of a purely economic nature cannot justify a barrier to the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods; nor can it be justified in terms of the need to protect public health, since that objective can be attained by measures that have effects less restrictive of intra-Community trade.

(see paras 24-25, 27, 29, 31-33, 36-37 and operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public service contracts - Directive 92/50 - Service provider relying on the standing of another company as proof of its own standing - Conditions - Assessment by the national court

(Council Directive 92/50)

Summary

$$Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts is to be interpreted as permitting a service provider to establish that it fulfils the economic, financial and technical criteria for participation in a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract by relying on the standing of other entities, regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them, provided that it is able to show that it actually has at its disposal the resources of those entities which are necessary for performance of the contract. It is for the national court to assess, in the light of the evidence adduced to that effect, whether that has been shown.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Social security for migrant workers - Determination of the date of birth of the person concerned - National rules allowing changes after the declaration made by the person concerned to a social security authority only on production of a document issued before that declaration was made - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - None

(Decision No 3/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, Art. 3(1))

Summary

$$Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, under which Turkish nationals who reside in the territory of one of the Member States and to whom that Decision applies are to enjoy in the Member State in which they reside the same social security benefits under the legislation of that Member State as the nationals of that State, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from applying to Turkish workers legislation which, for the purposes of awarding a retirement pension and determining the social security number allocated for that purpose, takes as the conclusive date of birth the one given in the first declaration made by the person concerned to a social security authority in that Member State and allows another date of birth to be taken into account only if a document is produced the original of which was issued before that declaration was made.

Such legislation, which applies irrespective of the nationality of the workers concerned and accords to the documents to be produced in order to set aside the date of birth indicated in the first declaration made to a social security authority the same probative value regardless of their provenance or origin, does not place Turkish nationals in a different legal situation from that of nationals of the Member State in which they reside. Nor does it involve any difference of treatment such as to constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality, since it is not permissible, on the basis of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality embodied in Article 3(1) of the Decision, to require a Member State which lays down rules regarding the determination of dates of birth for the purpose of establishing a social security number and of awarding a retirement pension to take account of particular circumstances which derive from the Turkish legislation on civil status and of the detailed arrangements for its application in practice.

( see paras 36, 40-41, 44, 51-52, 55 and operative part )
Summary



Summary

$$Article 2(1) and (3) of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions precludes a refusal to appoint a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period on the ground that a statutory prohibition on employment attaching to the condition of pregnancy prevents her from being employed in that post from the outset and for the duration of the pregnancy. The application of provisions concerning the protection of pregnant women cannot result in unfavourable treatment regarding their access to employment.

( see paras 27, 30 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Admissibility - Conditions - Submission of arguments also raised before the Court of First Instance - No effect

(EC Treaty Art. 168A (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Article 51, first subpara; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Officials - Salary - Pensions - Weighting - Setting of weightings for Germany - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of good faith - Infringement - None

(Council Regulations Nos 3834/91, 3761/92 and 3608/93)

3. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Pension slip sent to the official individually, establishing the amount of his pension in each case

(Staff Regulations Art. 90(2) and 91)

Summary

1. It follows from Article 168a of the Treaty (now Article 225 EC), the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and Article 112(1)(c) of the 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.

If those conditions are met an appeal can be based on arguments which have already been presented at first instance in order to show that by dismissing the pleas in law and arguments presented to it by the appellant, the Court of First Instance infringed Community law.

( see paras 19-23 )

2. An official cannot plead infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations if the administration has not given him precise assurances.

Since Council Regulations Nos 3834/91, 3761/92 and 3608/93 provide no basis for supposing it to be certain that the Council would adopt new weightings with retroactive effect for Germany, the Council cannot be regarded as having aroused any legitimate expectation as to the adoption of such new weightings by those regulations.

Nor, where it has not aroused any legitimate expectations, can the Council be regarded as having infringed the principle of good faith by failing to adopt such new weightings.

( see paras 33-36, 41 )

3. A pension slip may constitute an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and may therefore be the subject of a complaint and possibly an action in so far as it is sent to the official individually and in each case establishes the amount of his pension.

( see para. 47 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC - Aid to the steel industry - Authorisation by the Commission - Regional investment aid - Conditions - Notification of planned aid in good time - Failure to comply with the time-limit - Effects

(General Decision No 3855/91, Art. 6(1))

2. Appeals - Pleas in law - Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law - Operative part well founded on other legal grounds - Dismissal

Summary

1. The period for notification of aid plans laid down in Article 6(1) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code operates as a time-bar such as to preclude the approval of any aid plan notified subsequent to it. It follows that the Commission was not entitled to authorise aid unless the plans to grant or alter it had been notified before the time-limit specifically laid down.

Furthermore, since it is a question which touches on the competence of the Commission, the question of compliance with that time-limit must be raised by the Court of its own motion even though none of the parties has asked it to do so.

( see paras 49, 55-56 )

2. 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. 58 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13 - Unfair term within the meaning of Article 3 - Meaning - Jurisdiction clause - Inclusion - Criteria

(Council Directive 93/13, Article 3)

2. Approximation of laws - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13 - Power of the national court to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract is unfair when making its assessment of the contract - Obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the directive when national law is applied

(Council Directive 93/13, Arts. 6 and 7)

Summary

1. Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

( see para. 24 )

2. The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts.

The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.

( see paras. 29, 32, operative part 1-2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital - Restrictions - National legislation prohibiting the acquisition by residents of the Member State of securities of loans issued abroad - Not permissible - Justification - None

(EC Treaty, Arts 73b and 73d(1)(b) (now Arts 56 EC and 58(1)(b) EC)

Summary

$$The prohibition by a Member State of the acquisition by persons residing in its territory of securities of loans issued abroad constitutes a restriction of the free movement of capital, prohibited by Article 73b(1) of the Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC). Such a measure, taken by the State in its capacity as public authority, cannot be justified on the ground of the need to preserve fiscal coherence, where there is no direct link between any fiscal advantage and a corresponding disadvantage which ought to be preserved in order to ensure that coherence. Moreover, such a measure cannot be justified, under Article 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC), on the ground of the need to prevent tax evasion and ensure the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, since a general presumption of tax evasion or tax fraud cannot justify a fiscal measure which consists in an outright prohibition on the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by Article 73b of the Treaty.

( see paras 27, 35 to 36, 40, 45, 47 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers Unemployment Frontier worker Determination as to whether the worker is partially unemployed or wholly unemployed Application of Community law criteria

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 71(1)(a))

2. Social security for migrant workers Unemployment Frontier worker Determination as to whether the worker is partially unemployed or wholly unemployed Criteria Worker employed part-time in a Member State other than the State of residence Partial unemployment Right to benefits in the State of employment Assessment by the national court

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 71(1)(a)(i) and (ii))

Summary

1. In order to determine whether a frontier worker is to be regarded as partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, uniform Community criteria must be applied. That assessment may not be made on the basis of criteria drawn from national law.

( see para. 18 and operative part 1 )

2. If, in a Member State other than that in whose territory he resides, a frontier worker remains in employment with the same undertaking, but part-time, while remaining available for work on a full-time basis, he is partially unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, and the related benefits are to be provided by the competent institution of that State. On the other hand, if a frontier worker no longer has any link with that State and is wholly unemployed within the meaning of Article 71(1) of that Regulation, those benefits are to be provided by the institution of the place of residence at its own expense. It is for the national court to determine on the basis of those criteria, in the case pending before it, the category to which the worker in question belongs.

( see para. 37 and operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Council regulation introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories - Action brought by the Netherlands Antilles - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, fourth para., Art. 173, (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Council Regulation No 1036/97)

Summary

$$For natural and legal persons to be regarded as individually concerned by a measure of general application adopted by a Community institution, it must affect their legal position by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee.

Regulation No 1036/97 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) is not of individual concern to the Netherlands Antilles.

First, the general interest which an OCT, as an entity responsible for economic and social affairs within its jurisdiction, may have in obtaining a result that is favourable for its economic prosperity is not sufficient on its own to enable it to be regarded as being concerned, or - a fortiori - individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), by Regulation No 1036/97.

Second, the finding that the Council was required, in so far as the circumstances of the case so permitted, to take account at the time when Regulation No 1036/97 was adopted of the negative effects which that regulation might have on the economy of the OCTs concerned and on the undertakings concerned does not discharge the Netherlands Antilles from the burden of proving that they were affected by the regulation by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons. The fact that the Netherlands Antilles exported by far the most rice originating in the OCTs to the Community is not such as to distinguish them from all other OCTs. Even if the assertion that the safeguard measures laid down by Regulation No 1036/97 were liable to have significant socio-economic consequences for the Netherlands Antilles proved to be well-founded, the fact nevertheless remains that those measures will have similar consequences for the other OCTs. The economic activity of the processing of rice from third countries in the OCTs is a commercial activity that may be carried out at any time by any economic operator in any OCT. Such economic activity is not therefore such as to differentiate the Netherlands Antilles from all other OCTs.

( see paras 60, 64, 72-74, 76 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into consideration - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

Summary

$$In the context of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty (now Article 226 EC), the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

( see para. 17 )
Keywords



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Finding of failure to fulfil obligations

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))