ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . OFFICIALS - APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT - ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL - CONCEPT - APPOINTMENT AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF AND LATER AS AN OFFICIAL - SEPARATE ACTS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 90 )

2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - EQUAL TREATMENT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 5 ( 3 ))

3 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - CLASSIFICATION IN GRADE AND STEP - TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE - ADMINISTRATION ' S DISCRETION

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ARTS 31 AND 32 , SECOND PARAGRAPH )

Summary

1 . THE CONCEPT OF AN ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , COVERS ANY MEASURE CAPABLE OF DIRECTLY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL ' S LEGAL POSITION . APPOINTMENT AS A PROBATIONARY OFFICIAL OR AN ESTABLISHED OFFICIAL IS SUCH A MEASURE . AN OFFICIAL MAY THEREFORE BRING AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT TO CHALLENGE THE GRADING PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH AN APPOINTMENT , EVEN WHERE HE DID NOT CHALLENGE AN EARLIER MEASURE APPOINTING HIM AS A MEMBER OF THE TEMPORARY STAFF AND WHERE HIS GRADING REMAINS UNALTERED UNDER THE NEW APPOINTMENT .

2 . THERE IS A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS WHEN TWO CATEGORIES OF PERSONS WHOSE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AT THE TIME OF THEIR RECRUITMENT .

3 . FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLASSIFICATION IN GRADE AND STEP UPON RECRUITMENT , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS A WIDE DISCRETION , WITHIN THE LIMITS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 31 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR BY THE INTERNAL DECISIONS IMPLEMENTING THEM , IN ASSESSING THE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OF A PERSON APPOINTED AS AN OFFICIAL BOTH AS REGARDS THE NATURE AND LENGTH OF THAT EXPERIENCE AND AS REGARDS THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POST TO BE FILLED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Officials - Actions - Right to bring an action - Persons claiming the status of officials or of employees other than local staff

2 . Officials - Status of officials - Conditions for acquisition not met

Summary

1 . It is not only persons who have the status of officials or of employees other than local staff who may bring an action before the Court to contest a decision adversely affecting them, but also those claiming such status .

2 . The status of official or other servant of the Communities cannot be granted to the staff of an international association, governed by the law of a Member State, which cannot be regarded as an administrative unit of the Commission, whatever its relations with that institution .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - REFUSAL OF ADMISSION - STATEMENT OF REASONS - OBLIGATION - SCOPE

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ANNEX III , ART . 5 )

2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING SELECTION - DIFFERENT APPRAISAL OF THE SAME CANDIDATE IN SUCCESSIVE COMPETITIONS - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ANNEX III , ART.5 )

Summary

1 . AS THE COURT HAS HELD IN A PREVIOUS CASE , A MERE REFERENCE , IN THE LETTER INFORMING A CANDIDATE OF THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT HIM TO THE TESTS , TO A CONDITION CONTAINED IN THE COMPETITION NOTICE AND CONSISTING OF SEVERAL ELEMENTS , DOES NOT GIVE A SUFFICIENT INDICATION TO ALLOW HIM TO KNOW WHETHER THE REFUSAL IS WELL-FOUNDED OR , ON THE OTHER HAND , WHETHER IT IS VITIATED BY A DEFECT WHICH WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO CONTEST ITS LEGALITY , BECAUSE SUCH A REFERENCE IS NOT OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO INDICATE WHICH OF THE FACTORS WAS FOUND TO BE LACKING .

IN ORDER TO MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING A SELECTION BOARD FOR A COMPETITION FOR WHICH THERE IS A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS , THE SELECTION BOARD MAY INITIALLY SEND TO CANDIDATES MERELY INFORMATION ON THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND THE RESULT THEREOF AND NOT GIVE INDIVIDUAL EXPLANATIONS UNTIL LATER AND TO THOSE CANDIDATES WHO EXPRESSLY REQUEST THEM .

2 . AN APPRAISAL OF A CANDIDATE ' S QUALIFICATIONS WHICH IS LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THAT MADE IN PREVIOUS COMPETITIONS IS ONLY POSSIBLE INASMUCH AS THE STATEMENT OF REASONS ON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED CLEARLY JUSTIFIES SUCH A DIFFERENCE OF APPRAISAL . THAT PRINCIPLE ALSO APPLIES TO THOSE CONDITIONS , SUCH AS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED AFTER OBTAINING A DEGREE , WHICH ARE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT THE SELECTION BOARD CAN ONLY VERIFY WHETHER THEY ARE FULFILLED BY MAKING A PARTIALLY SUBJECTIVE APPRAISAL . A SELECTION BOARD IS FREE TO DEPART FROM THE APPRAISAL MADE IN THAT REGARD BY PREVIOUS SELECTION BOARDS , BUT IT MUST THEN STATE THE SPECIAL REASONS WHICH JUSTIFY ITS DECISION .
Keywords



Keywords

1 . OFFICIALS - CAREER - CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GRADE AND POST - BASIC POSTS - PASSAGE FROM THE ' ' SECRETARIAL B STREAM ' ' TO THE ' ' NORMAL B STREAM ' ' - PROCEDURES

( STAFF REGULATIONS , ANNEX I , SECTION A )

2 . APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY - APPLICATION DEVOID OF PURPOSE - UNNECESSARY TO GIVE A DECISION
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - FORMAL CONFORMITY OF A LAW OR REGULATION WITH ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY - INSUFFICIENT - TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PROTECTIONIST OR DISCRIMINATORY ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES - CONDITIONS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 30 )

Summary

THE FACT THAT A LAW OR REGULAION CONFORMS IN FORMAL TERMS TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE A MEMBER STATE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THAT PROVISION . THE PROHIBITION ON MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS WOULD LOSE MUCH OF ITS USEFUL EFFECT IF IT DID NOT COVER MERE PROTECTIONIST OR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BESIDES LAWS AND REGULATIONS .

FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF A PROTECTIONIST OR DISCRIMINATORY NATURE TO CONSTITUTE A MEASURE PROHIBITED UNDER ARTICLE 30 THAT PRACTICE MUST HOWEVER SHOW A CERTAIN DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY AND GENERALITY . THAT GENERALITY MUST BE ASSES- SED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE MARKET CONCERNED IS ONE ON WHICH THERE ARE NUMEROUS TRADERS OR WHETHER IT IS A MARKET ON WHICH ONLY A FEW UNDERTAKINGS ARE ACTIVE . IN THE LATTER CASE , A NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ' S TREAT- MENT OF A SINGLE UNDERTAKING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEASURE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 30 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - PREPACKAGING OF PRODUCTS - CONDITIONS FOR AFFIXING AN EEC ' E ' SIGN

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 76/211 , SECTION 4 OF ANNEX I )

2 . APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - PREPACKAGING OF PRODUCTS - PROVISIONS OF DIRECTIVE 76/211 - RIGHT OF TRADERS TO INVOKE THEM VIS-A-VIS NATIONAL AUTHORITIES - CONDITIONS

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 76/211 , ANNEX I )

Summary

1 . UNDER SECTION 4 OF ANNEX I TO COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 76/211/EEC ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE MAKING-UP BY WEIGHT OR BY VOLUME OF CERTAIN PREPACKAGED PRODUCTS , A PACKER WHO MEASURES THE QUANTITY IN EACH PREPACKAGE IS ENTITLED TO AFFIX THE EEC ' E ' SIGN WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AUTHORITIES BUT A PACKER WHO MERELY CHECKS THE QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCT CONTAINED IN EACH PREPACKAGE MUST , IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO USE THE EEC ' E ' SIGN , OPERATE CHECKING PROCEDURES WHICH HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AUTHORITIES EITHER BY MEANS OF GENERAL PROVISIONS OR BY MEANS OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS .

2 . A PACKER WHO SHOWS THAT HE IS OPERATING CHECKING PROCEDURES WHICH ENSURE THAT THE QUANTITY OF THE CONTENTS OF HIS PREPACKAGES ACTUALLY CORRESPONDS TO THEIR STATED CONTENTS , MAY INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 76/211 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE MAKING-UP BY WEIGHT OR BY VOLUME OF CERTAIN PREPACKAGED PRODUCTS , AND ON ANNEX I THERETO , VIS-A-VIS THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WHICH DO NOT WISH TO RECOGNIZE THOSE PROCEDURES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF STEEL PRODUCTION QUOTAS - EXCESS OVER QUOTAS - PERFORMANCE OF DELIVERY CONTRACTS - JUSTIFICATION - NONE

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 58 )

2 . OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - MEASURES AGAINST WHICH AN OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY MAY BE RAISED - INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS - EXCLUSION

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 36 , THIRD PARAGRAPH )

3 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF STEEL PRODUCTION QUOTAS - EXCESS OVER QUOTAS - IMPOSITION OF A FINE - POWERS OF THE COMMISSION

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 58 ( 4 ); DECISION NO 1831/81/ECSC , ART . 12 )

Summary

1 . THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS , BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY , SEEKS TO SPREAD IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER AMONG ALL UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY THE INEVITABLE SACRIFICES ENTAILED BY THE GENERAL CRISIS IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY . THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY WHEREBY THE COMMISSION , ONCE IT HAD DECIDED TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL SYSTEM OF QUOTAS , WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INTEGRATED UNDERTAKINGS ON THE ONE HAND AND RE-ROLLERS AND MONOPRODUCERS ON THE OTHER OR GUARANTEE FOR ANY UNDERTAKING A MINIMUM LEVEL OF PRODUCTION BASED ON ITS OWN CRITERIA OF PROFITABILITY OR ON THE ORDERS PLACED WITH IT , DOES NOT ALLOW AN UNDERTAKING TO RELY ON THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM DELIVERY CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT IT EXCEEDED ITS QUOTAS .

2 . AN APPLICANT MAY NOT , IN THE COURSE OF AN ACTION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY , RELY ON THE SUBMISSION THAT ANOTHER DECISION WHICH WAS ADDRESSED TO IT AND WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL IS UNLAWFUL .

3 . THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION BY ARTICLE 58 ( 4 ) OF THE ECSC TREATY AND BY THE DECISIONS ADOPTED FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION TO IMPOSE FINES OF 75 ECU PER TONNE WHERE QUOTAS HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED DOES NOT EXCLUDE ALL DISCRETION IN THE MATTER OF FINES . ON THE CONTRARY , THE COMMISSION IS OBLIGED TO VARY THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INFRINGEMENT OR THE EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION IN WHICH AN UNDERTAKING FINDS ITSELF JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF A RATE OTHER THAN THAT OF 75 ECU WHICH IS GENERALLY APPLIED . THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNDERTAKING OR ITS SMALL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION PER TONNE OF STEEL PRODUCED CANNOT JUSTIFY A REDUCTION OF THAT RATE UNLESS THEY SERVE AS EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF A CIRCUMSTANCE MITIGATING THE INFRINGEMENT OR OF AN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - BENEFITS - NATIONAL RULES AGAINST OVERLAPPING BENEFITS - NOT APPLICABLE AGAINST RECIPIENTS OF BENEFITS OF THE SAME KIND PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 - REDUCTION OF THE ADDITIONAL YEARS OF NOTIONAL EMPLOYMENT BY THE NUMBER OF YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH A WORKER MAY CLAIM A PENSION IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 12 ( 2 ) AND ART . 46 ( 1 ))

Summary

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12 ( 2 ) AND ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , THE AMOUNT OF A MIGRANT WORKER ' S PENSION MUST BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION , IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ENTITLEMENT TO A PENSION WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANY OTHER MEMBER STATE . IT FOLLOWS THAT A NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH REDUCES THE ADDITIONAL YEARS OF NOTIONAL EMPLOYMENT FROM WHICH A WORKER MAY BENEFIT BY THE NUMBER OF YEARS IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE MAY CLAIM A PENSION IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE CONSTITUTES A PROVISION FOR REDUCTION OF BENEFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL WHICH , BY VIRTUE OF ITS LAST SENTENCE , IS NOT TO BE APPLIED WHEN THE AMOUNT OF THE PENSION IS CALCULATED UNDER ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) OF THAT REGULATION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVES - FAILURE TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS - JUSTIFICATION - FORCE MAJEURE - CONDITIONS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 169 )

Summary

ALTHOUGH A MEMBER STATE WHICH HAS ENCOUNTERED MOMENTARILY INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFICULTIES MAY PLEAD FORCE MAJEURE TO JUSTIFY ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY A COMMUNITY DIRECTIVE , THIS APPLIES ONLY TO THE PERIOD NEEDED BY AN ADMINISTRATION SHOWING A NORMAL DEGREE OF DILIGENCE TO OVERCOME THOSE DIFFICULTIES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION - PROCEEDINGS ' CONCERNED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ' - MEANING - APPLICATIONS TO OPPOSE ENFORCEMENT UNDER GERMAN LAW - INCLUDED - CLAIMS WHICH MAY BE RAISED IN SUCH APPLICATIONS - LIMITS

( CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ART . 16 ( 5 ))

Summary

APPLICATIONS TO OPPOSE ENFORCEMENT , AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER PARAGRAPH 767 OF THE GERMAN CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE , FALL , AS SUCH , WITHIN THE JURISDICTION PROVISION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 16 ( 5 ) OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS ; THAT PROVISION DOES NOT HOWEVER MAKE IT POSSIBLE , IN AN APPLICATION TO OPPOSE ENFORCEMENT MADE TO THE COURTS OF THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS TO TAKE PLACE , TO PLEAD A SET-OFF BETWEEN THE RIGHT WHOSE ENFORCEMENT IS BEING SOUGHT AND A CLAIM OVER WHICH THE COURTS OF THAT STATE WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION IF IT WERE RAISED INDEPENDENTLY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . ECSC - INVESTMENTS AND FINANCIAL AID - INDIVIDUAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES - REASONED OPINION OF THE COMMISSION - EFFECTS

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 54 , FOURTH PARAGRAPH )

2 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - STEEL PRODUCTION QUOTAS - COMMISSION ' S OBLIGATIONS - GUARANTEE OF MINIMUM PRODUCTION TO ANY ONE UNDERTAKING - NO SUCH OBLIGATION

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 58 )

3 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - STEEL PRODUCTION QUOTAS - SHARING OUT OF QUOTAS - CRITERIA - UNDERTAKINGS ' ACTUAL PRODUCTION - ADJUSTMENT OF QUOTAS IN RELATION TO THE SITUATION ON AN UNDERTAKING ' S NATIONAL MARKET - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 58 ; DECISION NO 234/84 )

Summary

1 . THE DELIVERY OF REASONED OPINIONS ON UNDERTAKINGS ' INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES , UNDER THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 54 OF THE ECSC TREATY , IS PART OF THE COMMISSION ' S DUTY UNDER THE TREATY TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION , IN CERTAIN OF ITS DECISIONS ON PRODUCTION QUOTAS , MADE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE QUOTAS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT AN UNFAVOURABLE OPINION HAD NOT BEEN DELIV- ERED , AND THAT IN ITS DECISIONS CONCERNING AIDS IT MADE THE GRANT OF INVESTMENT AIDS SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF A FAVOUR- ABLE OPINION , IT IS NONE THE LESS TRUE THAT AN OPINION CANNOT INVOLVE THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED IN ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION , NOR DOES A FAVOURABLE OPINION CONSTITUTE AN AUTHORIZATION , FAILURE TO OBTAIN WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE UNDERTAKING FROM LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE PROPOSED INVESTMENT AND WHICH , AS SUCH , GIVES THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED A SPECIAL RIGHT DIFFERENT FROM THE RIGHTS OF OTHER UNDERTAKINGS . THAT IS TRUE EVEN IF BOTH THE WORDING OF THE FAVOURABLE OPINION AND THE PROCEDURE WHICH LED TO ITS ADOPTION COULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT WHAT WAS BEING DELIVERED WAS AN ' AUTHORIZATION ' .

2 . ARTICLE 58 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO GUARANTEE TO ANY ONE UNDERTAKING , TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY , THE MINIMUM PRODUCTION WHICH THAT UNDERTAKING CONSIDERS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN CRITERIA OF PROFITABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT .

3 . THE METHOD FOR SHARING OUT PRODUCTION QUOTAS UNDER DECISION NO 234/84 IS BASED ON THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF EACH UNDERTAKING DURING A REFERENCE PERIOD . THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR DENYING THAT THE COMMISSION ' S CHOICE OF THAT CRITERION MAY CONSTITUTE AN EQUITABLE BASIS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 58 OF THE ECSC TREATY INASMUCH AS IT CONSTITUTES AN OBJECTIVE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AND ENABLES TOTAL PRODUCTION TO BE REDUCED WITHOUT ALTERING THE POSITION OF UNDERTAKINGS ON THE MARKET AS BETWEEN EACH OTHER . IT WOULD BE TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THAT CRITERION , WHICH SEEKS TO SHARE THE QUOTAS EQUITABLY BETWEEN ALL THE UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY , HAVING REGARD TO THE SITUATION IN THE COMMON MARKET AS A WHOLE , TO GRANT ADJUSTMENT OF THOSE QUOTAS IN FAVOUR OF A PARTICULAR UNDERTAKING ON THE BASIS OF THE SITUATION ON ITS NATIONAL MARKET ALONE , AND TO SEEK TO RESERVE FOR THAT UNDERTAKING THE PRODUCTION OF THE STEEL CONSUMED ON THAT MARKET .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

AGRICULTURE - MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS - PAYMENT BY THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS TO BE GRANTED UPON IMPORTATION BY ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - MEMBER STATE ACTING IN THE SAME CAPACITY AS WHEN IT COLLECTS THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS UPON EXPORTATION

( REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 974/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 2 A , AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1112/73 )

Summary

ARTICLE 2 A OF REGULATION NO 974/71 OF THE COUNCIL , AS AMENDED BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1112/73 , MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT AN EXPORTING MEMBER STATE WHICH HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH AN IMPORTING MEMBER STATE FOR THE PAYMENT OF A MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THE LATTER STATE ACTS IN THE SAME CAPACITY WHEN IT PAYS THAT AMOUNT AS WHEN IT RECOVERS THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNT PAYABLE UPON EXPORTATION OF THE PRODUCT FROM ITS OWN TERRITORY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . AGRICULTURE - APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - ADDITIVES IN FEEDINGSTUFFS - ADDITIVES - CONCEPT

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 70/524 , ARTICLE 2 ( A ))

2 . AGRICULTURE - APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - COMPOUND FEEDINGSTUFFS - MANUFACTURE AND MARKETING GOVERNED BY A COHERENT AND COMPLETE SET OF DIRECTIVES - UNILATERAL NATIONAL MEASURES - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 70/524 , 74/63 AND 79/373 )

Summary

1 . THE TERM ' ADDITIVES ' , AS USED IN ARTICLE 2 ( A ) OF DIRECTIVE 70/524 CONCERNING ADDITIVES IN FEEDINGSTUFFS , MUST BE INTERPRETED AS ENCOMPASSING ALL SUBSTANCES CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FEEDINGSTUFFS , EVEN IF THEY ARE PRESENT IN THE NATURAL STATE IN CERTAIN INGREDIENTS WHICH MAY BE USED IN THE COMPOSITION OF FEEDINGSTUFFS .

2 . THE RULE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 13 OF DIRECTIVE 70/524 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO RESTRICT THE MARKETING OF FEEDINGSTUFFS BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF A PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE BY PROVIDING THAT MILK-REPLACER FEED MUST HAVE A SPECIFIC MINIMUM IRON CONTENT .

THE RULES CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 5 AND 7 OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 74/63 ON THE FIXING OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED LEVELS FOR UNDESIRABLE SUBSTANCES AND PRODUCTS IN FEEDINGSTUFFS MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING :

( I ) THAT MEMBER STATES ARE IN PRINCIPLE NO LONGER PERMITTED TO RESTRICT THE MARKETING OF FEEDINGSTUFFS BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF A SUBSTANCE NOT REFERRED TO IN THE ANNEX TO THAT DIRECTIVE BY PROVIDING , FOR EXAMPLE , THAT THE SODIUM CONTENT OF MILK-REPLACER FEED MAY NOT EXCEED A CERTAIN MAXIMUM LEVEL ;

( II)THAT MEMBER STATES MAY PROVISIONALLY FIX A MAXIMUM SODIUM CONTENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES AND SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN THAT PROVISION .

THE TERMS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) ( B ) AND ( C ), WHICH DEFINE THE SCOPE OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/373 ON THE MARKETING OF COMPOUND FEEDINGSTUFFS , IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE DIRECTIVE , MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING :

( I)THAT DIRECTIVE 79/373 DOES NOT PERMIT MEMBER STATES TO IMPOSE MARKETING RESTRICTIONS OF THE KIND PROHIBITED BY DIRECTIVES 70/524 AND 74/63 ON FEEDINGSTUFFS BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF ADDITIVES REFERRED TO IN DIRECTIVE 70/524 OR THE PRESENCE OF UNDESIRABLE SUBSTANCES WITHIN THE MEANING OF DIRECTIVE 74/63 ;

( II)THAT ARTICLE 3 OF DIRECTIVE 79/373 DOES NOT PERMIT MEMBER STATES TO IMPOSE MARKETING RESTRICTIONS ON FEEDINGSTUFFS BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF AN ADDITIVE OR THE PRESENCE OF AN UNDESIRABLE SUBSTANCE , EVEN WHERE THE ABSENCE OF THE ADDITIVE OR THE PRESENCE OF THE SUBSTANCE IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES IN THEIR OPINION A HEALTH RISK FOR ANIMALS OR HUMANS , WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE ADAPTATION PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) A ( A ) OF DIRECTIVE 70/524 OR BY ARTICLE 6 OF DIRECTIVE 74/63 , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EMERGENCY PROCEDURE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 7 AND 5 OF THOSE DIRECTIVES RESPECTIVELY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - DEROGATIONS - PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH - RULES ON THE USE OF A COLOURING ADDITIVE FOR A SPECIFIC TYPE OF FOODSTUFF - JUSTIFICATION - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 30 AND 36 )

Summary

IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE PRESENT STATE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REGARDING COLOURING ADDITIVES AND THE LACK OF HARMONIZATION OF NATIONAL LAWS , ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE EEC TREATY DO NOT PRECLUDE NATIONAL PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE , IN RESPECT OF FOODSTUFFS TO WHICH A COLOURANT HAS BEEN ADDED , EVEN WHERE SUCH FOODSTUFFS ARE IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THEY ARE LAWFULLY MARKETED , THAT THE USE OF A SPECIFIC COLOURANT FOR A SPECIFIC TYPE OF FOODSTUFF BE ENTERED ON A NATIONAL POSITIVE LIST AND THAT ANY APPLICATION FOR SUCH AN ENTRY MUST BE REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN OPINION ON THE HARMFULNESS OF THE ADDITIVE , THE DEGREE OF THE HUMAN ORGANISM ' S TOLERANCE OF IT AND THE NECESSITY , VALUE AND SUITABILITY OF ITS USE .

HOWEVER , IN APPLYING SUCH PROVISIONS TO PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THEY WERE LAWFULLY MARKETED THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MUST , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY WHICH UNDERLIES THE LAST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 , AUTHORIZE THE COLOURING OF THE FOODSTUFF IF , HAVING REGARD TO THE EATING HABITS PREVAILING IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE , IT CORRESPONDS TO A REAL NEED , AND IN THEIR APPRAISAL OF THE GENERAL HEALTH RISK WHICH THE COLOURING MATTER ACTUALLY USED MAY REPRESENT , THOSE AUTHORITIES MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RESULTS OF INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH , AND IN PARTICULAR THE WORK OF THE COMMUNITY ' S SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE FOR FOOD .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . FAILURE OF A MEMBER STATE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS - SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS - DETERMINED IN THE PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURE - EXTENSION TO SIMILAR , LATER FAILURES BY THE MEMBER STATE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 169 )

2 . MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - FAILURE TO FULFIL THEM - REASON FOR FAILURE - NOT ACCEPTABLE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 169 )

3 . FAILURE OF A MEMBER STATE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS - PRE-LITIGATION STAGE - REASONED OPINION - TIME ALLOWED TO REMEDY THE BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS - BREACH REMEDIED AFTER EXPIRY OF THE TIME-LIMIT - INTEREST IN CONTINUING THE PROCEEDINGS - POSSIBLE LIABILITY OF THE MEMBER STATE

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 169 AND 171 )

Summary

1 . THE SCOPE OF AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY IS LIMITED BY THE PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ARTICLE AND BY THE CLAIMS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION , SO THAT IT CANNOT BE WIDENED AFTER THE PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE HAS ENDED . WHERE THE COMMISSION ' S ALLEGATION AGAINST A MEMBER STATE DOES NOT RELATE TO A SINGLE ACT WHOSE EFFECTS EXTEND OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME BUT TO DELAYS WHICH OCCUR EACH YEAR AND WHICH THEREFORE CONSTITUTE SEPARATE BREACHES OF ITS OBLIGATIONS , THE MEMBER STATE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURE OF SUBMITTING ITS DEFENCE WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THE ALLEGED BREACHES OF ITS OBLIGATIONS .

2 . A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT PLEAD PROVISIONS , PRACTICES OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN ITS INTERNAL LEGAL OR FINANCIAL SYSTEM TO JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OBLIGATIONS AND TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN COMMUNITY LAW .

3 . EVEN IF THE BREACH OF WHICH THE COMMISSION COMPLAINS WAS REMEDIED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 169 , THERE IS STILL AN INTEREST IN CONTINUING THE PROCEEDINGS ; THAT INTEREST MAY CONSIST IN ESTABLISHING A BASIS FOR THE LIABILITY WHICH THE MEMBER STATE MAY INCUR , IN PARTICULAR , TOWARDS INDIVIDUALS AS A RESULT OF THE BREACH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS .