ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Fines - Amount - Appropriateness - Review by the Court - Factors which may be taken into account by the Community court - Information not contained in the decision imposing the fine and not required in the statement of reasons - Included

(EC Treaty, Arts 172 and 190 (now Arts 229 EC and 253 EC); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 17)

2. Competition - Fines - Decision imposing fines - Obligation to state reasons - Scope - Indication of the factors by which the Commission assessed the gravity and duration of the infringement - Sufficient indication - Subsequent communication of more precise information - No effect

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), second subpara.)

Summary

1. In actions contesting Commission decisions imposing fines on undertakings for infringement of the competition rules, the Community court has power to assess, in the context of the unlimited jurisdiction accorded to it by Article 172 of the Treaty (now Article 229 EC) and Article 17 of Regulation No 17, the appropriateness of the amounts of fines. That assessment may justify the production and taking into account of additional information which is not as such required, by virtue of the duty to state reasons under Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC), to be set out in the decision.

( see paras 37, 39 )

2. The second subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 provides that [i]n fixing the amount of the fine, regard shall be had both to the gravity and to the duration of the infringement. In those circumstances, the essential procedural requirement to state reasons is satisfied where the Commission indicates in its decision the factors which enabled it to determine the gravity of the infringement and its duration. If those factors are not stated, the decision is vitiated by failure to state adequate reasons.

The fact that more specific information, such as the turnover achieved by the undertakings or the rates of reduction applied by the Commission, were communicated subsequently, at a press conference or during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, is not such as to call in question the adequacy of the statement of reasons in the decision. Where the author of a contested decision provides explanations to supplement a statement of reasons which is already adequate in itself, that does not go to the question whether the duty to state reasons has been complied with, though it may serve a useful purpose in relation to review by the Community court of the adequacy of the grounds of the decision, since it enables the institution to explain the reasons underlying its decision.

( see paras 40-41, 43 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions Harmonisation of laws Turnover taxes Common system of value added tax Sixth Directive Scope Use of an item for both business and private purposes Possibility for a taxable person to retain the item within his private assets and to exclude it entirely from the system of value added tax

(Council Directive 77/388)

2. Tax provisions Harmonisation of laws Turnover taxes Common system of value added tax Sixth Directive Scope Use of an item for both business and private purposes Retention of the item within the private or business assets of the taxable person Effect on the system of the tax in the event of the sale of the item

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(1), 5(6) and 11.A(1)(a))

Summary

1. A taxable person who acquires a capital item in order to use it for both business and private purposes may retain it wholly within his private assets and thereby exclude it entirely from the system of value added tax.

The use, for business or private purposes, to which a taxable person actually puts a capital item need be taken into account for the purpose of determining how that item has been assigned only if the taxable person requests the right to deduct, wholly or in part, the input value added tax paid in respect of the acquisition.

The tax arrangements applicable to the supply of a capital item must be dissociated from those concerning the taxable expenses incurred for its use and maintenance.

( see paras 29, 33 and 34, and operative part 1 )

2. Where a taxable person has chosen to incorporate wholly into his business assets a capital item which he uses for both business and private purposes, the sale of that item is subject in full to value added tax, in accordance with Articles 2(1) and 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. Where a taxable person assigns to his business assets only the part of the item used for business purposes, only the sale of that part is subject to value added tax. The fact that the item was purchased second-hand from a non-taxable person and that the taxable person was therefore not authorised to deduct the residual value added tax on that item is irrelevant in this regard. However, if the taxable person withdraws such an item from his business, the value added tax on that item must be considered not to be deductible for the purposes of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive and no tax may therefore be levied on that withdrawal under that provision. If the taxable person subsequently sells the item, he will be carrying out that transaction in a private capacity and the transaction will therefore be excluded from the system of value added tax.

( see para. 47, and operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials Actions Prior administrative complaint Time-limits Time-bar Re-opening of prescribed period Condition New fact Decision altering the criteria for classification in grade on recruitment

(Staff Regulations, Arts 31(2), 90 and 91)

2. Officials Equal treatment Recruitment Classification in grade Reconsideration Right to request a reconsideration restricted to officials recruited after delivery of the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95 Lack of objective justification

(Staff Regulations, Art. 5(3))

Summary

1. The Commission's decision of 7 February 1996 altering the criteria for classification in grade of officials recruited after 5 October 1995 must be regarded as a decision of general application which called in question a number of administrative decisions which had become final and thereby constituted a new fact liable to have an adverse effect on officials recruited before 5 October 1995 and allowing them to submit a request, within the periods prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, for a review of their classification.

( see para. 49 )

2. The decision of 7 February 1996, adopted following the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou, and altering the criteria for classification in grade of officials recruited after 5 October 1995, infringed the general principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations, since the difference in treatment resulting from the fact that Commission officials appointed after 5 October 1995 could request that their classification in grade be reconsidered while those who had been appointed before that date could not, is not objectively justified by the fact that 5 October 1995 was the date of delivery of that judgment.

For the purpose of complying with that judgment, it was not necessary, as regards officials who were not parties to the proceedings, to take 5 October 1995 as the date on which the decision of 7 February 1996 was to take effect. Furthermore, although, in adopting that decision, the Commission displayed a regard for the welfare of officials who had been appointed after 5 October 1995 and had not challenged the classification decision within the prescribed period, there is nothing to justify, or even explain, why it did not extend that concern to officials who had been appointed between 1983 and 5 October 1995 and were in the same situation.

( see paras 55-57 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Approximation of laws - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Directive 91/414 - Prior authorisation to place on the market - Assessment of an application for first authorisation - Generic product containing an active substance not listed in Annex I to the directive - Substance already on the national market two years after notification of the directive

(Council Directive 91/414, Arts 4(1)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f), 8(2) and (3) and 13(6) and Annex I)

Summary

$$Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market does not apply where, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the directive, an application is submitted to a Member State for first authorisation to place on the market a generic plant protection product containing an active substance not listed in Annex I to the abovementioned directive, which is already on the domestic market two years after notification of that directive, with the consequence that that Member State is not under an obligation to assess such an application in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f), of that directive.

( see paras 45 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Intervention price and derived intervention prices - Limit-date for fixing intervention prices - Limit-date not complied with - Consequences

(Council Regulations Nos 1785/81, 1360/98 and 1361/98)

2. Community law - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - Limits - Amendments to rules concerning a common organisation of the market - No fixing of a derived intervention price for white sugar for Italy - Discretionary power of the institutions

(Council Regulation No 1785/81)

3. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Regulations

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

Summary

1. The limit-date of 1 August for fixing the intervention price and derived intervention prices in Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector is not strict. Therefore, failure to observe that date cannot have the effect of rendering invalid Regulations No 1580/96 and 1361/98 fixing, for the 1998/99 marketing year, intervention prices after 1 August.

( see paras 25, 29 )

2. Whilst the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, economic operators cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained; this is particularly true in an area such as the common organisation of the markets, which involves constant adjustments to meet changes in the economic situation.

Since Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector obliges the Council and the Commission each year to determine the intervention prices, minimum prices and increased prices afresh, on the basis, in particular, of the pattern of production and the pattern of consumption, economic operators can have no legitimate expectation that the prices fixed for previous marketing years will be repeated.

( see paras 42, 45 )

3. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the nature of the measure in question and must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which adopted the contested measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review. The requirements in respect of the statement of reasons must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. It is not required to specify the often very numerous and complex matters of fact or of law dealt with in those regulations, provided that the latter fall within the general scheme of the body of measures of which they form part.

( see paras 58-59 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

$$In an action under Article 226 EC, 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, and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

( see para. 11 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of facts - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

Summary

$$Under Article 168a of the Treaty (now Article 225 EC) and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

Therefore an appeal the sole ground of which amounts to challenging the appraisal by the Court of First Instance of facts which it considered to be objective, relevant and consistent when it decided that the contested measures should be annulled for infringement of Article 176 of the Treaty (now Article 233 EC) and abuse of powers, must be dismissed.

( see paras 15-16 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport - Road transport - Social legislation - Weekly rest period - Postponement - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 8(5))

Summary

$$Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport must be interpreted as meaning that a driver who elects to postpone his weekly rest period until the week following that in which it becomes due must take two weekly rest periods, consecutively and without any break between them, in that second week.

( see para. 20 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials - Recruitment - Procedures - Options - Priority to be given to promotion, transfer and internal competition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 29(1))

Summary

$$The use of the formulation whether ... can in Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations clearly indicates that the appointing authority is not bound absolutely, where a vacant post is to be filled, to fill that post by way of promotion or transfer, but merely to consider in each case whether those measures are capable of resulting in the appointment of a person of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. Although the subdivision of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations requires the appointing authority to consider the possibility of promotion with the utmost care before going on to the following stage, it does not prevent the authority, in the course of such an examination, from also taking account of the possibility of obtaining better candidates by using the other procedures mentioned in that paragraph.

It follows that the appointing authority is at liberty to consider the subsequent options and that it may go on to a subsequent stage of the recruitment procedure, even where there are one or more candidates who satisfy all the conditions and requirements set out in the vacancy notice for the post to be filled.

Nor is the appointing authority required to adopt a decision rejecting existing candidatures before going on to a subsequent stage. Where it goes from one recruitment stage to a subsequent stage it does so in order to widen its choice in order to find a candidate of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, and that objective would be jeopardised if before going on to a subsequent stage of the procedure it had to reject the candidatures already submitted during the earlier stages without being able to compare them with those submitted during the subsequent stages.

Where a vacant post in an institution is to be filled in accordance with the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority must observe, in particular, the obligation set out in Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations to assign officials solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality, the prohibition in the third paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations on reserving posts for nationals of any specific Member State and the obligation to follow the order laid down in Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations. Those provisions must be observed at each stage of the recruitment procedure, and in particular when, following an open competition, a reserve list which may serve as the basis for recruitment is drawn up.

Last, the appointing authority is required, when it considers that candidatures for promotion or transfer are not satisfactory, to consider the possibilities offered by Article 29(1)(b) and (c) of the Staff Regulations before following the recruitment procedure.

( see paras 38-45, 50 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

$$A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.

The governments of the Member States participate in the preparatory work for directives and must therefore be in a position to prepare within the period prescribed the legislative provisions necessary for their implementation.

( see para. 10 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Flax and hemp - Aid for flax grown from seed varieties under examination with a view to their entry in the catalogue of varieties - Limit on sown areas eligible for aid - None - Limit on trial sowings

(Commission Regulation No 1164/89, Art. 2, second indent)

Summary

$$Neither the second indent of Article 2 of Regulation No 1164/89 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp, whereby aid is to be granted for flax grown from the seed varieties under review by Member States' authorities with a view to their entry in the national catalogue of varieties, nor any other provisions of that regulation lays down any limit on the sown areas eligible for the aid in question. Although that regulation provides no basis for aid to be granted for trial sowings over unlimited areas, the Member State under whose supervision the aid is managed has to ensure that there is no abuse and that the sowings are carried out within reasonable limits in relation to the examination envisaged.

( see paras 32, 35 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions Harmonisation of laws Turnover taxes Common system of value added tax Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive Exemption of hospital and medical care and closely related activities Concept of closely related activities Transmission of samples for the purpose of medical analysis Inclusion

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13(A)(1)(b))

Summary

$$A Member State which levies value added tax on fixed allowances for the transmission of samples for the purpose of medical analysis fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

For the purpose of any possible exemption from value added tax under the abovementioned Article 13, on the exemption of hospital and medical care and closely related activities, for the act of transmitting medical samples, it is appropriate to have regard to the purpose for which those samples are taken. Thus, where a duly authorised health-care worker orders, for the purpose of making his diagnosis and with a therapeutic aim, that his patient should undergo an analysis, the transmission of the sample, which logically takes place between the taking of the sample and the analysis itself, must be regarded as closely related to the analysis and must therefore be exempt from value added tax.

( see para. 24 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States Obligations Implementation of directives Failure Justification Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

$$A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.

( see para. 10 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers Insurance in respect of old age and death Benefits Amendment of the calculation rules by Regulation No 1248/92 Application of the new calculation rules Transitional provisions Scope Recipients of pensions who, before the entry into force of the new provisions, had brought an action contesting the application of the national rules against overlapping Covered

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 95a, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92)

2. Social security for migrant workers Insurance in respect of old age and death Benefits Amendment of the calculation rules by Regulation No 1248/92 Application of the new calculation rules Transitional provisions Conditions for application Application for review by the person concerned Verification obligation of the national court Scope

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 95a, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92)

Summary

1. Article 95a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, laying down transitional provisions for application of Regulation No 1248/92, applies to recipients of pensions who, before the date of entry into force of the amendments introduced by the latter regulation, had already brought proceedings before a national court seeking to obtain the right to the pension by contesting the application of the national rules against overlapping, even if a final decision in those proceedings had not yet been given at the time of the entry into force of the new provisions.

( see para. 26 and operative part 1 )

2. As to the requisite form of the application for review submitted by the person concerned pursuant to Article 95a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, laying down transitional provisions for application of Regulation No 1248/92, it is for the national court to determine, first, whether its national law requires an application for review to be made either to the competent social security institution within the period prescribed and in accordance with the relevant formal requirements, or to the court itself according to the applicable rules of procedure. Second, it is for that court to ensure that those requirements are not less favourable than those governing similar situations under domestic law and that they are not such as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred on claimants by Regulation No 1408/71, as amended.

( see para. 42 and operative part 2 )