ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-262/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) – Television broadcasting – Advertising – National measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of certain sporting events – ‘Loi Evin’)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Prohibition on the advertising of alcoholic beverages during the television broadcast of sporting events – Justified on the grounds of public health

(EC Treaty, Arts 56(1) and 59 (now, after amendment, Arts 46(1) EC and 49 EC))

By making television broadcasting in a Member State by French television channels of sporting events taking place in other Member States conditional on the prior removal of advertising for alcoholic beverages, the Member State concerned has not failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).

It is true that such rules on television advertising constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty. They entail a restriction on freedom to provide advertising services in so far as the owners of the advertising hoardings must refuse, as a preventive measure, any advertising for alcoholic beverages if the sporting event is likely to be retransmitted in the Member State concerned. They also impede the provision of broadcasting services for television programmes, since broadcasters in that Member State must refuse all retransmission of sporting events in which hoardings bearing advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State may be visible, and the organisers of sporting events taking place abroad cannot sell the retransmission rights to those broadcasters if the transmission of the television programmes of such events is likely to contain indirect television advertising for those alcoholic beverages.

However, such rules on television advertising pursue an objective relating to the protection of public health within the meaning of Article 56(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 46(1) EC) since the measures restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages in order to combat alcohol abuse reflect public health concerns.

Furthermore, such rules are appropriate to ensure that aim and they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve such an objective. They limit the situations in which hoardings advertising alcoholic beverages may be seen on television and are therefore likely to restrict the broadcasting of such advertising, thus reducing the occasions on which television viewers might be encouraged to consume alcoholic beverages.

(see paras 26, 30-31)
Case C-168/02

Rudolf Kronhofer

v

Marianne Maier and Others

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

(Brussels Convention – Article 5(3) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State)

Summary of the Judgment

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Place where the harmful event occurred – Definition – Place of domicile of claimant who has suffered financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State – Excluded

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(3))

Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcements of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal, and 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 the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ does not refer to the place where the claimant is domiciled or where his ‘assets are concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose and was incurred in another Contracting State.

The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere. First, such an interpretation would mean that the determination of the court having jurisdiction would depend on matters that were uncertain and would thus run counter to the strengthening of the legal protection of persons established in the Community which, by enabling the claimant to identify easily the court in which he may sue and the defendant reasonably to foresee in which court he may be sued, is one of the objectives of the Convention. Second, it would be liable in most cases to give jurisdiction to the courts of the place in which the claimant was domiciled. The Convention does not favour that solution except in cases where it expressly so provides.

(see paras 19-21, operative part)
Case C-442/02

CaixaBank France

v

Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances and de l’Industrie

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France))

(Freedom of establishment – Credit institutions – National legislation prohibiting the payment of remuneration on sight accounts)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Credit institutions – National legislation prohibiting the payment of remuneration on sight accounts – Not permitted – Justification – None

(Art. 43 EC)

Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which prohibits a credit institution which is a subsidiary of a company from another Member State from remunerating sight accounts in euros opened by residents of the former Member State.

Such a prohibition, which constitutes for companies from other Member States a serious obstacle to the pursuit of their activities via a subsidiary, affecting their access to the market, is to be regarded as a restriction within the meaning of Article 43 EC. That restriction cannot be justified by overriding requirements of the public interest, relating to the protection of consumers or the encouragement of medium and long-term saving, since it goes beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.

(see paras 12, 17, 21, 23-24, operative part)
Case C-404/02

Nichols plc

v

Registrar of Trade Marks

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division)

(Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 3(1)(b) – Trade mark comprising a common surname – Distinctive character – Impact of Article 6(1)(a) on assessment)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Refusal to register or nullity – Lack of distinctive character – Assessment of the distinctive character of a trade mark constituted by a common surname – Assessment according to the same criteria as those applicable to other categories of trade marks – Effects limited to such a trade mark – No impact

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 3(1)(b), and (6)(1)(a))

In the context of Article 3(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, the assessment of the existence or otherwise of the distinctive character of a trade mark constituted by a surname, even a common one, must be carried out specifically, in accordance with the criteria applicable to any sign covered by Article 2 of that directive, in relation, first, to the products or services in respect of which registration is applied for and, second, to the perception of the relevant consumers. The fact that the effects of registration of the trade mark are limited by virtue of Article 6(1)(a) of that directive has no impact on that assessment.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Case C-444/02

Fixtures Marketing Ltd

v

Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles protodikio Athinon)

(Directive 96/9/EC – Legal protection of databases – Definition of database – Scope of the sui generis right – Football fixture lists – Betting)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9 – Definition of database – Football fixtures list – Included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 1(2))

2. Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9 – Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database – Resources used to draw up a football fixtures list – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7(1))

1. The term ‘database’ as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases refers to any collection of works, data or other materials, separable from one another without the value of their contents being affected, including a method or system of some sort for the retrieval of each of its constituent materials.

A football fixtures list constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the directive. First, the data contained in it concerning the date, the time and the identity of the teams in a particular football match have, when taken together, an independent informative value in that they provide interested third parties with relevant information about the match concerned. Second, the arrangement of those data in the form of a fixture list meets the conditions as to systematic or methodical arrangement and individual accessibility of the constituent materials of that collection required by Article 1(2) of the directive.

(see paras 32-36, 53, operative part)

2. The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to investment in the creation of that database. It therefore refers to the resources used to seek out existing materials and collect them in that database but does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database.

In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league do not constitute such investment. Moreover, finding the data which make up a football fixture list does not require any particular effort on the part of the professional leagues, which participate directly in the creation of the data. The resources used for the verification or presentation of the data making up the list cannot therefore be considered to represent a substantial investment independent of the investment in the creation of those data.

(see paras 39-40, 47, 49-51, 53, operative part)
Case C-284/02

Land Brandenburg

v

Ursula Sass

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht)

(Social policy – Men and women – Article 141 EC – Equal pay – Directive 76/207/EEC – Equal treatment – Maternity leave – Passage to a higher salary grade – Failure to take account of the whole of a period of maternity leave taken under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic)

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Collective agreement providing for classification in a higher salary grade on completion of a qualifying period – Account taken of periods of maternity leave – Refusal to take account, because of its duration, of the whole of a period of maternity leave taken under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic – Not permissible

(Council Directive 76/207)

Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions precludes a collective agreement from excluding from a qualifying period for access to a higher salary grade the part of the period for which a female worker took maternity leave, under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic, which exceeds the protected period provided for by the legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany to which that agreement refers, where the objectives and purpose of both periods of leave are the protection of women as regards pregnancy and maternity, as provided for by Article 2(3) of that directive.

(see para. 59, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Income tax relief to natural persons for the acquisition of shares – Restriction to shares in companies established in the Member State concerned – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Arts 56(1) EC and 58(1)(a) EC)

Summary

Article 56(1) EC and Article 58(1)(a) EC preclude a legal provision of a Member State which denies the availability of income tax relief to natural persons for the acquisition of shares representing cash contributions in capital companies established in other Member States.

Such legislation is a restriction on the movement of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC, in that it has the effect of discouraging nationals of the Member State concerned from investing their capital in companies which have their seat in another Member State; it also has a restrictive effect in relation to companies established in other Member States, in that it constitutes an obstacle to the raising of capital in the Member State concerned.

In the absence of a direct link between the tax advantage in question and an offsetting fiscal levy, such as the taxation of dividends subsequently paid by the companies in which the investment was made, the need to guarantee the cohesion of the tax system cannot be relied on to justify such a restriction.

(see paras 13-15, 20-23, 28, operative part)
Keywords



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Requirement of individual work permits or a collective work permit and obligation to provide a bank guarantee for service providers established in another Member State deploying workers who are nationals of non-member countries – Not permissible – Justification – Social protection of workers – Stability of the labour market – Disproportionate and inappropriate nature of the requirements at issue

(Art. 49 EC)

Summary

A Member State which imposes on service providers established in another Member State wishing to deploy in its territory workers who are nationals of non-member countries a requirement of individual work permits, the issuance of which is subject to considerations relating to the employment market, or a requirement of a collective work permit, which is granted only in exceptional cases and only when the workers concerned have, for at least six months prior to the deployment, been in a relationship with their undertaking of origin through a contract of employment of indefinite duration, and which requires those service providers to provide a bank guarantee, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

Reasons of social welfare or stability in the labour market cannot justify such conditions being imposed on the freedom to provide services, as those requirements are not appropriate means for pursuing those objectives. An obligation imposed on a service-providing undertaking to report beforehand to the local authorities on the presence of one or more deployed workers, the anticipated duration of their presence and the provisions of services justifying the deployment, and to provide information showing that the situation of the workers concerned is lawful as regards matters such as residence, work permit and social coverage in the Member State in which that undertaking employs them would give those authorities, in a less restrictive but just as effective a manner as the requirements at issue, a guarantee that the national social welfare legislation is being complied with during the deployment and, in addition, that the situation of those workers is lawful and that they are carrying on their main activity in the Member State in which the service‑providing undertaking is established.

(see paras 27, 31, 36, 46, 48-50, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Economic and monetary policy – Introduction of the euro – Regulation No 1103/97 – Rule prescribing the rounding of monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for after conversion – Application to a telephone tariff – Excluded – Rounding of the tariff applied by a national operator – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1103/97, Art. 5)

Summary

Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro, first, was intended to ensure compliance with the principle of continuity of contract, so that the transition to the euro took place without affecting obligations already entered into by citizens and firms, and, secondly, shares the objective that the transition to the euro should be neutral. It sets only minimum rules in relation to the rounding of certain amounts and leaves it to national authorities to maintain or adopt rules which are more conducive to achieving that objective.

It follows that the first sentence of Article 5 of that regulation, prescribing the rounding up or down to the nearest cent of monetary amounts to be paid or accounted for must not be broadly interpreted. It therefore does not cover a tariff fixed by a national operator such as the per-minute price (of a telephone call, consisting of an amount which is not actually invoiced to, or paid by, the consumer and it is not entered as such in any accounting document or statement of account. In that respect, the fact that the tariff relates to a particular multiple of the unit on the basis of which the final amount of the invoice is calculated or that for the consumer the tariff represents the decisive factor as regards the price of the goods or services does not affect that finding.

Nevertheless, the same regulation does not preclude the rounding to the nearest cent of amounts (such as that tariff), provided that that rounding practice is consistent with the principle of continuity of contract and with the objective that the transition to the euro should be neutral; in other words, provided that the practice does not affect contractual obligations entered into by economic agents, including consumers, and that it does not have a real impact on the price actually to be paid.

(see paras 31-32, 34, 36, 40-43, 57, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for services related to insurance transactions by insurance brokers and insurance agents – Meaning – ‘Back office’ activities consisting in assisting an insurance company in the performance of its activities – Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B( a))

Summary

Article 13B(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388, relating to the exemption from value added tax of insurance and reinsurance transactions, including certain related services, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘back office’ activities, consisting in rendering services, for payment, to an insurance company, do not constitute the performance of services relating to insurance transactions carried out by an insurance broker or an insurance agent within the meaning of that provision.

Since, first, those services have specific aspects, such as the setting and payment of commission for insurance agents, the maintenance of contact with them, the handling of aspects relating to reinsurance and the supply of information to insurance agents and to the tax authorities, and, secondly, essential aspects of the work of an insurance agent, such as the finding of prospects and their introduction to the insurer are lacking, the activities in question must be regarded as a form of cooperation consisting in assisting an insurance company in the performance of activities which would normally be carried out by it, but without having a contractual relationship with the insured parties, and constitute a division of the activities of the insurance company and not the performance of services carried out by an insurance agent.

(see paras 35-36, 38-39, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Pharmaceutical products – Directive 89/105 – Medicinal products for human use – Application for entry of a medicinal product on the list of medicinal products covered by the national sickness insurance scheme – Mandatory nature of the time-limit for determining the application – Exceeding of the time-limit – Consequences – No automatic entry on the list

(Council Directive 89/105, Art. 6(1), first subpara.)

Summary

The time-limit for determining an application for entry of a medicinal product on the list of medicinal products covered by the national sickness insurance scheme laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which the national authorities are not entitled to exceed.

However, the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) does not impose the automatic entry of a medicinal product on the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by the sickness insurance system where the time-limit laid down in that article is exceeded.

(see paras 24, 34, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Combating late payment in commercial transactions – Directive 2000/35 – Possibility, in the absence of measures transposing the directive, to rely on the right to claim the recovery costs from an individual – Excluded

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 3(1)(e))

Summary

In a case which relates to a dispute between individuals, where it is not possible on the basis of natural law to include, in the calculation of the costs which an individual who owes a business debt might be ordered to pay, the expenses arising from representation by an abogado or procurador of the creditor in judicial proceedings for the recovery of that debt, Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions cannot of itself serve as the basis for the inclusion of such expenses, since a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot be relied on against an individual.

(see paras 16-17, operative part)