ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. European Communities' own resources ° Post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties ° "Information given by the competent authorities themselves which is binding on them" ° Meaning ° Determined by national legislation prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 1715/90a)

(Council Regulations Nos 1697/79, Art. 5(1) and 1715/90)

2. European Communities' own resources ° Post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties ° Distinction between Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 ° Error made by the administration which could not "reasonably have been detected by the person liable" ° Rules for assessment

(Council Regulation No 1697/79, Art. 5(1) and (2))

Summary

1. The first indent of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties provides no clarification regarding information which is capable of binding the competent authorities, the identity of the authorities competent to give it or the form in which it must be given.

The objective of that regulation is not to harmonize national laws but to guarantee the certainty which persons liable for payment have the right to expect from official acts having financial consequences where the original calculation of the import duties or export duties was based on information that was given by the customs authorities themselves and is binding on them. Therefore, the matters mentioned above are determined, in the absence of any indication in the Community legislation applicable before the entry into force of Regulation No 1715/90, by the legislation of the Member State concerned.

2. In order for the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties to be excluded, the first indent of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1697/79 does not require that the error made by the competent authorities which gave information to the person liable could reasonably have been detected by that person. That provision provides special protection for the person liable, based on the fact that the incorrect information binding on the competent authority gave rise to legitimate expectations whereby the person concerned is entitled to expect that there will be no post-clearance recovery.

The fact that the error made by the competent authorities was not reasonably detectable by the person liable is, on the other hand, one of the preconditions for the application of Article 5(2), upon which the person liable may rely, provided that all the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, where the error arises from information that is not binding on the competent authorities. It is for the national court to decide whether that condition has been satisfied, having regard to the nature of the error, the professional experience of the trader concerned and the degree of care which he exercised.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement terminated before the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion - Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, second para. of Art. 169)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty, an action for failure to fulfil an obligation may only be brought before the Court if the Member State in question has not complied with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission. An action for failure to fulfil obligations is therefore inadmissible if, upon the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, the infringement complained of, which had produced its effects without the Commission' s having employed all the means available to it to prevent it, no longer existed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social security for migrant workers ° Community rules° Substantive scope° Benefits covered and benefits excluded ° Distinguishing criteria ° Benefits paid by the employer to the worker by way of maintenance of wages in the event of illness ° Included ° Financial burden of benefits on employer ° No effect

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1))

2. Social security for migrant workers ° Sickness insurance ° Worker staying in a Member State other than the competent State ° Incapacity for work ° Finding made by the institution of the place of stay ° Mandatory recognition ° Limits ° Examination of the worker by a doctor chosen by the competent institution

(Council Regulation No 574/72, Art. 18(1) to (5))

Summary

1. Whether a benefit falls within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 or not essentially depends on the fundamental characteristics of the benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant, and not on whether or not the national legislation describes the benefit as a social security benefit.

The benefits provided by the employer to the worker by way of maintenance of wages in the event of illness, payment of which for a period of up to six weeks suspends payment of the daily sickness benefits provided for by national social security legislation, constitute sickness benefits within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. The fact that the financial burden of those benefits rests on the employer cannot remove those benefits from the scope of that regulation since classification of an allowance as a social security benefit covered by the regulation does not depend upon the manner in which it is financed.

2. Article 18(1) to (4) of Regulation No 574/72 should be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution, even where this is the employer and not a social security institution, is bound in fact and in law by the medical findings made by the institution of the place of residence or temporary residence concerning the commencement and duration of the incapacity for work, when it does not have the person concerned examined by a doctor of its choice, as it may do under Article 18(5).

Practical difficulties complained of by an employer who was not able to make good use of the possibility offered by Article 18(5) of Regulation No 574/72 cannot call in question the interpretation of one of the provisions of that regulation, as it follows from its wording and purpose.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. EAEC ° Protection of health ° Establishment of uniform safety standards ° Stricter national rules ° Whether permissible

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 2(b))

2. EAEC ° Protection of health ° Basic rules laid down by Directive 80/836 ° Minimum standards not excluding stricter national rules

(Council Directive 80/836/Euratom, Art. 10(2))

Summary

1. The obligation imposed on the Community by Article 2(b) of the EAEC Treaty to lay down uniform safety standards to protect the health of the population and of workers does not mean that, once such standards have been defined, a Member State may not provide for more rigorous protection.

2. It is apparent from the background to Directive 80/836 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation that the dose limits laid down in Article 10(2) thereof for apprentices and students aged between 16 and 18 years represent only minimum protection. That interpretation is corroborated by the fact that Article 7(1) of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 1(c) thereof, provides for higher levels of protection for workers of the same age. It follows that, in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the Directive must be interpreted as allowing the Member States to set, for apprentices and students aged between 16 and 18 years, stricter dose limits than those which it prescribes and to ensure for such people the higher level of protection which the Directive guarantees for workers of the same age.
1.

Sitpa, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, observes that Article 2(3) of Regulation No 426/86 provides for the adoption of appropriate measures and ‘in particular’ the limitation of aid to a specified quantity. The decision to reduce the nominal amount of aid in Regulation No 989/84 is not per se contrary to Regulation No 426/86, but pursuant to Article 190 of the EEC Treaty reasons ought to be given for it. Regulation No 989/84 simply refers to the nature of the market in processed tomato products without specifying the reasons for a reduction in the nominal amount of aid. Since in view of Article 190 of the EEC Treaty Regulation No 989/84 is invalid, the reductions made by the Commission on the basis of it for the 1984/85 to 1987/88 marketing years are also invalid. Sitpa makes a detailed analysis of those regulations from the point of the obligation to state reasons and concludes that in particular as regards Regulations Nos 1925/84 and 2222/85 the Commission gives no particulars of the amount by which the guarantee threshold was exceeded or of the method used in calculating the aid. Article 2(2) of Regulation No 989/84 requires that the extent to which the threshold has been exceeded is to be calculated on the basis of the average of the quantities produced during the three marketing years preceding the marketing year for which aid is to be fixed. In the regulations in question, the Commission, while claiming to comply with Article 2(2), states that it is the production for the 1983/84 marketing year which exceeds the threshold. Regulations Nos 2077/86 and 2160/87 are open to the same criticism even though the drafting is less contradictory as regards the reference years. Regulation No 2160/87, moreover, contains a factual mistake in that it wrongly states that the Commission found that the guarantee threshold had been exceeded for each category of products processed from tomatoes. In those circumstances it is impossible for the Court to review the lawfulness of the regulations in question, which constitutes an infringement of Article 190 of the EEC Treaty. Sitpa also observes that in adopting the contested regulations the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts. As a result of large frauds committed in Italy and Greece the declarations of the quantities processed in those States were overstated, and the Commission could not rely on those declarations in determining that the guarantee threshold had been exceeded.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Microbiological requirements applicable to food products ° Absence of Community rules ° Powers of the Member States ° Limits

(EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36)

2. Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations ° Proof of failure ° Burden of proof incumbent upon the Commission

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

1. Where the data available at the present stage of scientific research do not make it possible to determine with certainty the number of pathogenic micro-organisms above which a food product represents a danger to health, in the absence of harmonization in this field, it is for the Member States to determine, with due regard to the requirements of the free movement of goods, the level at which they wish to ensure that human life and health are protected.

2. Under the procedure laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove that an obligation has not been fulfilled.
Judgment of the Court of 7 November 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Professional activities in architecture. - Case C-309/90.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-05311

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

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

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

Parties

In Case C-309/90,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of R. Hayder, representing the Commission' s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Hellenic Republic, represented by E. Skandalou, a member of the Special Department for Community Matters at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte Croix,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed periods the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Official Journal 1985 L 223, p. 15), Council Directive 85/614/EEC of 20 December 1985 amending, on account of the accession of Spain and Portugal, Directive 85/384/EEC (Official Journal 1985 L 376, p. 1) and Council Directive 86/17/EEC of 27 January 1986 amending, on account of the accession of Portugal, Directive 85/384/EEC (Official Journal 1986 L 27, p. 71, corrigendum published in Official Journal 1986 L 87, p. 36), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, F.A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse and P.J.G. Kapteyn (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, M. Díez de Velasco and M. Zuleeg, Judges,

(The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced).

Operative part

hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt and communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed periods, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, Council Directive 85/614/EEC of 20 December 1985 amending, on account of the accession of Spain and Portugal, Directive 85/384/EEC, and Council Directive 86/17/EEC of 27 January 1986 amending, on account of the accession of Portugal, Directive 85/384/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Departure from the service ° Termination of service ° Contribution to the pension scheme

(ECSC Staff Regulations, Art. 34; Council Regulation No 3518/85, Arts 4(7) and 5(1))

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

Summary

1. Under the principle of equal treatment, all officials who are receiving a salary or an allowance payable by the European Communities and who are not yet in receipt of a pension must contribute in the same manner to the pension scheme.

In providing for specific financial arrangements in the case of officials who have had a measure terminating their service applied to them and who were recruited under the ECSC Staff Regulations, the Community legislation sought not to derogate from the system of contributing to the pension scheme but to prevent such officials from finding themselves financially in a less favourable position than if they had left the service before the entry into force of the measures on termination of service.

Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was entitled to interpret Article 4(7) of Regulation No 3518/85 introducing special measures to terminate the service of officials of the European Communities as a result of the accession of Spain and Portugal as meaning that that provision made no derogation from the obligation to contribute to the pension scheme imposed on the recipient of an allowance granted in accordance with the provisions of Article 34 of the ECSC Staff Regulations.

2. If the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law but the operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers ° Unemployment ° Unemployed person moving to another Member State ° Retention of the right to benefits ° Conditions and limits imposed by the Community legislature ° Compatibility with Article 51 of the Treaty

(EEC Treaty, Art. 51; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 67(3) and 69(1) )

Summary

By providing, first, that in the case of Community nationals moving to a Member State periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of any other Member State are to be taken into account in that State for the purposes of the acquisition, retention or recovery of entitlement to unemployment benefits and, secondly, that unemployed workers seeking work in another Member State are for a limited period to retain entitlement to unemployment benefits provided for by the legislation of the State in which they were last employed even though they are not available to the employment services of that State, Regulation No 1408/71 confers on those workers rights which they would not otherwise enjoy and which thus help to ensure freedom of movement for workers in accordance with Article 51 of the Treaty.

By attaching conditions, by means of Articles 67(3) and 69(1) of the aforesaid regulation, to the rights and advantages which it accords to unemployed workers seeking employment, the Community legislature made proper use of the discretion that it has in implementing freedom of movement for workers.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Import and export licences ° Import licences wrongly issued as a result of an administrative error ° Action for damages brought by the holder before the national court ° Whether permissible in the light of Regulation No 3719/88

(Commission Regulation No 3719/88, Arts 24 and 25)

2. European Communities' own resources ° Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties ° Scope of Regulation No 1697/79 ° Administrative error which could not "reasonably have been detected by the person liable" ° Assessment criteria

(Council Regulation No 1697/79, Art. 5(2))

Summary

1. Articles 24 and 25 of Regulation No 3719/88 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, which authorize the agency issuing a licence or certificate to correct it, do not preclude the holder of import licences from bringing an action for damages against the issuing agency, in accordance with national law, where it is agreed that those licences should not have been issued, in the course of which regard is had inter alia to the trader' s legitimate expectations in respect of those licences.

2. An action for the post-clearance recovery of import levies which have not been paid on account of an error made by the competent authorities of a Member State when issuing import licences falls within the scope of Article 5 of Regulation No 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery of import or export duties.

In order to assess whether there has been an "error made by the competent authorities themselves which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable", within the meaning of Article 5(2), regard must be had inter alia to the nature of the error, the professional experience of the trader concerned and the degree of care which he exercised. It is for the national court to appraise whether or not, on the basis of that interpretation, the error which resulted in the duties not being collected was capable of being detected by the person liable.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social policy ° Approximation of laws ° Transfer of an undertaking ° Safeguarding of employees' rights ° Directive 77/187 ° Scope ° Transfer of the operation of a facility provided by an undertaking for the benefit of its staff to an independent undertaking ° Covered

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 1(1))

2. Social policy ° Approximation of laws ° Transfer of an undertaking ° Safeguarding of employees' rights ° Directive 77/187 ° Alteration of terms and conditions of employment relating to wages ° Precluded ° Exception ° Alteration of contract of employment allowed under national law in situations other than a transfer

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3)

Summary

1. Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the directive may apply in a situation in which one businessman, by a contract, assigns to another businessman responsibility for running a facility for staff, which was formerly managed directly, in return for a fee and various advantages, details of which are laid down by the agreement between them.

2. Article 3 of Directive 77/187 is to be interpreted as meaning that that upon a transfer the terms and conditions of the contract of employment or employment relationship relating to wages, in particular those relating to the date of payment and the composition of wages, cannot be altered even if the total amount of the wages remains the same. The directive does not, however, preclude an alteration of the employment relationship with the new employer in so far as the applicable national law allows such an alteration to be made in situations other than the transfer of an undertaking. Furthermore, the transferee is also bound to continue to observe the terms and conditions of employment agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement.