ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax on income from savings and investments — National law allowing entitlement to tax credits in respect of national insurance only to resident taxpayers insured under the national social security system — Whether permissible

(Arts 56 EC and 58 EC)

Summary

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a law of a Member State under which a non-resident taxpayer who receives income in that State only from savings and investments and who is not insured under the social security system of that Member State cannot claim entitlement to tax credits in respect of national insurance, whereas a resident taxpayer who is insured under that social security system is entitled to those credits when his taxable income is calculated, even if he receives only income of that same kind and does not pay social security contributions.

Although such legislation is capable of hindering the free movement of capital inasmuch as less favourable tax treatment for non-residents only might deter the latter from investment in that Member State giving income considered to come from savings and investments, it can however be justified, in the light of Article 58(1)(a) EC, by the objective difference between the situation of a person who is insured under the national social security system and that of a person who is not so insured.

Further, since Community law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their own social security systems, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level it is for the legislation of the Member State concerned to determine the range of insured persons and the level of contributions payable by insured persons to the national social security system and the respective reductions. Further, it falls within the internal process of such a system to allow entitlement to reductions in contributions only to persons liable to pay them, that is to say, persons insured under that system.

(see paras 39, 49-51, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Organic production method of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation No 2092/91 — Indications referring to that production method — Use of those indications and of their derivatives for products not produced by such a method — Use of the terms ‘biológico’ and ‘bio’ in Spain — Permitted in the version amended by Regulation No 1804/1999

(Council Regulation No 2092/91, as amended by Council Regulation No 1804/1999, Art. 2)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of failure — Burden of proof on the Commission — Presumptions — Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. The question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Subsequent changes cannot be taken into account by the Court.

(see para. 31)

2. The list of indications referring to the organic production method set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended to include livestock production by Regulation No 1804/1999, is by no means exhaustive. It follows that the Member States may, where current usage changes in their territory, add expressions other than those set out in that list to their national legislation to refer to the organic production method.

As regards Spanish, since the expression ‘ecológico’ alone, encompassing the derivative ‘eco’, is included in the list set out in Article 2 of that regulation, the Spanish Government cannot be criticised for failing to prevent producers of products which are not organically-produced from using other expressions such as ‘biológico’ or ‘bio’. It further does not follow from the wording of that article that the derivative ‘bio’ must, because it is mentioned in that Article 2 as a usual derivative, be accorded specific protection in all Member States and in all languages, including those in respect of which, on the list in that article, terms are mentioned which do not correspond to the French expression ‘biologique’.

(see paras 34-36)

3. In an action for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled. It is the Commission which must provide the Court with the evidence necessary for the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and it may not rely on any presumption.

(see para. 41)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Contracts excluded from the scope of Directive 92/50 – Obligation to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty

(Art. 49 EC; Council Directive 92/50)

2. Freedom to provide services – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – National legislation permitting the project manager to delegate certain of its responsibilities – Task of agent reserved to exhaustively listed legal persons under national law – Not permissible

(Art. 49 EC; Council Directive 92/50)

Summary

1. The provisions of the EC Treaty relating to freedom of movement are intended to apply to public contracts which are outside the scope of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. Although certain contracts are excluded from the scope of Community directives in the field of public procurement, the contracting authorities which conclude them are nevertheless bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality in particular. That is particularly the case in relation to public service contracts the value of which does not reach the thresholds fixed by Directive 92/50. The mere fact that the Community legislature considered that the strict special procedures laid down in the directives on public procurement are not appropriate in the case of public contracts of small value does not mean that those contracts are excluded from the scope of Community law.

(see paras 32-33)

2. A Member State which reserves the task of delegated project contracting to an exhaustive list of legal persons under national law, by which the contracting authority may, by an agreement in writing and for remuneration, appoint an agent to fulfil, in its name and on its behalf, all or any of certain of its responsibilities, fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, and under Article 49 EC as regards public service contracts outside the scope of Directive 92/50.

(see paras 64, 71, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Sectoral prohibition on the movement of lorries of more than 7.5 tonnes carrying certain goods – Not permissible – Justification – Protection of the environment

(Arts 28 EC and 29 EC)

Summary

A Member State which, in order to ensure the quality of ambient air in the zone concerned, adopts legislation prohibiting lorries of over 7.5 tonnes, carrying certain goods, from driving on a road section of paramount importance, constituting one of the main routes of land communication between certain Member States fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 29 EC.

Such a prohibition obstructs the free movement of goods and, in particular, their free transit, and must be regarded as constituting a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions, incompatible with Community law obligations under Articles 28 EC and 29 EC, unless that measure can be objectively justified.

Such legislation cannot be justified by imperative requirements in the interests of environmental protection where it has not been demonstrated that the aim pursued could not be achieved by other means less restrictive of freedom of movement.

(see paras 66, 69, 71, 87, 89, 95, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48

(Council Directive 89/48)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration – Directive 89/48

(Arts 39 EC and 43 EC; Council Directive 89/48, Art. 4(1))

Summary

1. When the holder of a diploma awarded in one Member State applies for permission to take up a regulated profession in another Member State, the competent authorities of that Member State are not precluded by Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration from partly allowing that application, if the holder of the diploma so requests, by limiting the scope of the permission to those activities which that diploma allows to be taken up in the Member State in which it was obtained.

(see para. 26, operative part 1)

2. When the holder of a diploma awarded in one Member State applies for permission to take up a regulated profession in another Member State, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a Member State from not allowing partial taking-up of a profession, restricted to the pursuit of one or more activities covered by that profession, where shortcomings in the education or training of the party concerned in relation to that required in the host Member State may be effectively made up for through the application of the compensatory measures provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 89/48 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration.

However, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do preclude a Member State from not allowing that partial taking-up when the party concerned so requests and the differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality a full programme of education and training is required, unless the refusal for that partial taking-up is justified by overriding reasons based on the general interest, suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and not going beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.

(see paras 27, 39, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – More than one defendant

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended most recently by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in European patent infringement proceedings involving a number of companies established in various Contracting States in respect of acts committed in one or more of those States even where those companies, which belong to the same group, may have acted in an identical or similar manner in accordance with a common policy elaborated by one of them. Since neither the patent infringements of which the various defendants are accused nor the national law in relation to which those acts are assessed are the same there is no risk of irreconcilable decisions being given in European patent infringement proceedings brought in different Contracting States, since possible divergences between decisions given by the courts concerned would not arise in the context of the same factual and legal situation.

It follows that the connection required for Article 6(1) of the Brussels Convention to apply cannot be established between such actions.

(see paras 20, 25, 27-28, 31, 33, 35, 41, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337

(Arts 10 EC, 211 EC and 226 EC; Council Directive 85/337)

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337

(Council Directive 85/337, Arts 2(1) and 4(2))

Summary

1. In proceedings under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled, by placing before the Court the information needed to enable the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and in so doing the Commission may not rely on any presumptions.

With regard more specifically to Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, the Commission must furnish at least some evidence of the effects that the project in question is likely to have on the environment.

In a case where the competent authority has investigated whether an assessment is necessary, the Commission must back up its own assertions and contest those of the defendant Member State through detailed examination of the analytical material and documents supplied by the latter or by obtaining, producing, examining or providing an analytical presentation of tangible and specific evidence which enables the Court to assess whether the competent authority did in fact exceed the limits of its discretion.

(see paras 77-78, 85, 93)

2. It is clear from Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, as referred to in Article 4 of the directive read in conjunction with Annexes I and II thereto, must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before development consent is given.

Where national law provides for a consent procedure comprising more than one stage, one involving a principal decision and the other involving an implementing decision which cannot extend beyond the parameters set by the principal decision, the effects which a project may have on the environment must, as a rule, be identified and assessed at the time of the procedure relating to the principal decision. If those effects are not, however, identifiable until the time of the procedure relating to the implementing decision, the assessment is to be carried out in the course of that procedure.

National rules providing that an environmental impact assessment in respect of a project may be carried out only at the initial outline planning permission stage, and not at the later reserved matters stage, are therefore contrary to Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337, as amended.

(see paras 103-106, operative part 1)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court)

24 July 2003

((Appeal – Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC – Medicinal products for human use – Anorectics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephedrine, phentermine – Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation – Competence of the Commission – Conditions for withdrawal))

appellant,

THE COURT (Full Court),,

having regard to the decision of the President of the Court that the appeal was to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure in accordance with Article 62a of the Rules of Procedure,

after hearing the Advocate General,
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Reference to the Court pursuant to an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC) (see paras 25-35

)
Case C-82/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 10 EC – Cooperation with the Community institutions – Failure to forward information to the Commission)

Summary of the Judgment

Member States – Obligations – Supervisory task conferred on the Commission – Duty on the part of Member States – Cooperation in investigations relating to a failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations

(Arts 10 EC and 226 EC)
Case C-64/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement Directive 98/30/EC)

Summary of the Judgment

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

(Art. 226 EC)
Case C-124/03

Artrada (Freezone) NV and Others

v

Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven)

(Health checks – Production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products – Mixture made of sugar, cocoa and skimmed-milk powder, imported from Aruba)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products – Directive 92/46 – Meaning of ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-based products’ – Milk constituents of a product which also contains other non-milk constituents which cannot be separated from the former – Excluded

(Council Directive 92/46, Art. 2(2))

2. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products – Directive 92/46 – Meaning of ‘milk-based products’ – Semi-finished products – Included – Criteria – Characteristics and objective properties of the product

(Council Directive 92/46, Art. 2(4))

1. Article 2(2) of Directive 92/46 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-based products’ does not include milk constituents of a product which also contains other non-milk constituents if the milk constituent cannot be separated from the non-milk constituents. That provision covers only milk regarded as a single product whose composition could be modified only by the addition and/or removal of natural milk constituents.

(see paras 26, 28, operative part 1)

2. Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘milk-based products’ covers both finished products and semi-finished products which must undergo further processing before they can be offered for sale to the consumer. In such a case, it is with regard to the semi-finished product that it must be ascertained whether its milk content is an essential part, in terms of quantity or for its characterisation. To do that, account must be taken of the characteristics and objective properties of the semi-finished product when it is imported, particularly the proportion of milk or milk product which it contains, the use which can be made of it and its taste.

(see paras 34, 37-39, operative part 2)
Case C-319/03

Serge Briheche

v

Ministre de l’Intérieur and Others

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris)

(Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women – Article 141(4) EC – Directive 76/207/EEC – Conditions of access to public-sector employment – Provisions reserving to widows who have not remarried the benefit of the exemption from the age limit for obtaining access to that employment)

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Derogations – Measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women – Benefit of an exemption from the age limit to enter public employment allowed only to widows who have not remarried – Not permissible

(Art. 141(4) EC; Council Directive 76/207, Arts 2(4) and 3(1))

Articles 3(1) and 2(4) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision which reserves the exemption from the age limit for entry to competitive examinations organised for the recruitment of civil servants to widows who have not remarried who are obliged to work, excluding widowers who have not remarried who are in the same situation.

First, that provision is contrary to Article 3(1) of Directive 76/207 as it results in discrimination on grounds of sex. Secondly, it cannot be allowed under Article 2(4) of that directive which exclusively authorises measures which, although discriminatory in appearance, are in fact intended to eliminate or reduce actual instances of inequality which may exist in the reality of social life. Therefore such a measure which is intended to give priority in promotion to women in sectors of the public service is incompatible with Community law when it automatically and unconditionally gives priority to the candidatures of certain categories of women, excluding men who are in the same situation.

(see paras 20, 22-23, 27, 32, operative part)
Case C-123/03 P

Commission of the European Communities

v

Greencore Group plc

(Application for annulment of a letter of the Commission – Refusal to pay interest on a sum refunded – Concept of act confirming an earlier act – Payment of the principal sum without interest – No earlier decision to refuse)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Dismissal –Definition of the legal nature of the facts – Admissibility

(Art. 225 EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Measures against which actions may be brought – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Institution’s silence or inaction – Refunding of a sum overpaid in relation to a fine with no decision taken as to the request for payment of interest presented by the undertaking making the claim – Excluded

(Art. 230 EC)

1. Although the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to review the assessment of the facts made by the Court of First Instance, it does have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 225 EC to review the definition of the legal nature of those facts and the determination of the legal consequences made by the Court of First Instance.

(see para. 36)

2. Any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 230 EC for a declaration that it is void. As a rule, mere silence on the part of an institution cannot be placed on the same footing as an implied refusal, except where that result is expressly provided for by a provision of Community law. While not excluding that in certain particular circumstances that principle may not be applicable, so that an institution’s silence or inaction may exceptionally be considered to constitute an implied refusal, it is to be considered that, in the case of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reducing the amount of a fine, followed by a letter addressed by the appellant to the Commission, asking the latter to refund the overpaid part of the fine together with interest, the Commission’s paying of the principal sum only without explicitly taking a position on the request for payment of interest does not amount to an implied decision rejecting that request.

(see paras 44-45)