ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – National legislation reserving the term ‘gold’ for articles of a fineness of 750 parts per thousand – Not permissible – Justification – Consumer protection – Fair trading – None

(Art. 28 EC)

Summary

There is a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 28 EC when a Member State which reserves the term ‘gold’ for articles of a fineness of 750 parts per thousand whilst those of a fineness of 375 or 585 parts per thousand, although marketed in their countries of origin under the term ‘gold’, are sold in that Member State under the term ‘gold alloy’, a term less attractive to consumers.

Such legislation imposes a redundant double designation for articles of the two lower levels of purity, that is to say the use not only of the fineness of the article but also the term ‘gold alloy’, and is therefore not proportionate to the aim of ensuring fair trade and consumer protection, which can be achieved by measures less restrictive to intra-Community trade.

(see paras 13-14, 19-21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Direct insurance – Directives 73/239 and 79/267 – Obligation on insurance undertakings to establish sufficient technical provisions and an adequate solvency margin for their entire business – National legislation granting salary claims a priority in respect of assets representing technical provisions which takes precedence over the priority of insurance claims – Compatibility with Community rules

(Council Directives 73/239, Arts 15 and 16, and 79/267, Arts 17 and 18)

Summary

Articles 15 and 16 of First Directive 73/239 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance and Articles 17 and 18 of First Directive 79/267 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct life assurance, which oblige insurance undertakings to establish sufficient technical provisions and an adequate solvency margin for their entire insurance business, do not preclude national legislation under which, if an insurance company is the subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is otherwise in a state of insolvency, the assets representing the technical provisions may be allocated to payment of salary claims before payment of insurance claims, where that legislation accords to insurance claims a priority whose scope encompasses in any event, in addition to the assets representing the technical provisions, other assets of the undertaking and may, by virtue of a ministerial decision, have been extended to all the available assets of the undertaking.

While the coordination of national provisions relating to the financial guarantees required of insurance undertakings that is achieved, in particular, by the Community provisions referred to above is intended to ensure adequate protection for policyholders and third-party beneficiaries in every Member State of the Community, the Community provisions in question none the less cannot be interpreted as signifying that the Community legislature meant that, in the event of liquidation of an insurance undertaking, the assets representing technical provisions must, in all circumstances, be allocated by way of absolute priority to the payment of insurance claims.

(see paras 24-26, 28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the Community’s financial interests – Continuous irregularity – Limitation period – Interrupting act

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Article 1(2) and Article 3(1), second and third subparas)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded on other legal grounds – Rejected

Summary

1. According to Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests, an irregularity presupposes a breach of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator.

Where the omission occasioning the breach of the provision of Community law persists, the irregularity is ‘continuous’ for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that regulation. The corresponding limitation period begins to run only from the day on which the irregularity ceases.

That period is interrupted by a Commission letter which specifically seeks to investigate the irregularity and to reduce the financial aid, since that letter is an investigative document for the purposes of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1).

(see paras 16-18, 30)

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

(see para. 29)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of legislation – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable transactions – Supplies of goods and services effected for consideration – Meaning – Transactions where the consideration is lower than the cost price of the goods or services – Included – National rule whereby such transactions are regarded as an application of goods or services for private use – Not permitted

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2, 5(6) and 6(2))

Summary

Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, Articles 5(6) and 6(2)(b) of which treat, for the purposes of the imposition of value added tax, certain transactions for which no consideration is actually received by the taxable person as supplies of goods and provisions of services effected for consideration, must be interpreted as precluding a national rule whereby transactions in respect of which an actual consideration is paid are regarded as an application of goods or services for private use within the meaning of the latter provisions, even where that consideration is less than the cost price of the goods or services supplied.

The fact that the price paid for an economic transaction is higher or lower than the cost price is irrelevant to the question whether a transaction is to be regarded as a ‘transaction effected for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2. The latter concept requires only that there be a direct link between the supply of goods or the provision of services and the consideration actually received by the taxable person. Accordingly, where the transaction in question is effected for consideration, there is no reason to apply Articles 5(6) and 6(2)(b), since those provisions relate only to transactions effected free of charge.

(see paras 22-24, 30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Customs Union – Customs supervision – Scope – Submission of all goods introduced, whether lawfully or not, into the Community

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 4(13) and 37)

2. Customs Union – Incurrence of customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘unlawful introduction’ – Goods presented to customs under an incorrect designation – Included

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 202)

3. Customs Union – Incurrence of customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’ – Goods presented to customs under an incorrect designation – Determination by national court – Criteria

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 202(3))

Summary

1. It is clear from the combined effect of Articles 4(13) and 37 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code that goods arriving in the Community are subject to customs supervision from the time of their introduction therein, whether it is lawful or in breach of Articles 38 to 41 or the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 177 of the Customs Code, which is what the supervising authorities must, by their controls, establish. It follows that the submission of goods to such supervision is not connected to the lawfulness of their introduction into that territory.

(see para. 22)

2. Goods presented to customs, for which a summary declaration was lodged and an external Community transit document validated, were not lawfully introduced into the customs territory of the Community if, in the documents lodged with the customs authorities, the goods were wrongly designated. In such cases, the customs debt is based on Article 202 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, which lays down the detailed rules on incurrence of the customs debt on the unlawful introduction of goods.

(see paras 32, 36, operative part 1, 2)

3. In order to determine who is the debtor of the customs debt in cases of lodging of a summary declaration or customs declaration under an incorrect designation, the national court must establish whether the person who lodged the summary declaration or the customs declaration was, because he stated an incorrect designation, responsible for the unlawful introduction of the goods. If such is not the case, it is for that court to consider whether, by that action, the person participated in the introduction of the goods whilst he was or should reasonably have been aware that it was unlawful.

(see para. 41, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Pre-litigation procedure — Excessive duration — Fact affecting the admissibility of the action only where the rights of the defence have been infringed — Burden of proof

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of failure to fulfil obligations — Burden on the Commission — Presumptions — Not permissible — Action concerning not the content but the terms of a national provision — Particular requirements of proof

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. If, in an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the excessive duration of the pre-litigation procedure is capable of constituting a defect rendering the action inadmissible, it is clear from the case-law that such a conclusion is inevitable only where the conduct of the Commission has made it difficult to refute its arguments, thus infringing the rights of the defence. It is for the Member State concerned to provide evidence of such a difficulty.

(see para. 14)

2. In proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose.

With regard in particular to an action concerning the implementation of a national provision, proof of a Member State’s failure to fulfil its obligations requires production of evidence different from that usually taken into account in an action for failure to fulfil obligations concerning solely the terms of a national provision. In those circumstances, the failure to fulfil obligations can be established only by means of sufficiently documented and detailed proof of the alleged practice of the national administration and/or courts, for which the Member State concerned is answerable.

Furthermore, although a State’s action consisting in an administrative practice contrary to the requirements of Community law can amount to a failure to fulfil obligations for the purposes of Article 226 EC, that administrative practice must be, to some degree, of a consistent and general nature.

(see paras 27-29)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Directive 1999/31 – Landfill of waste – Domestic legislation laying down more stringent rules – Whether compatible

(Art. 176 EC; Council Directive 1999/31, Art. 5(1) and (2))

2. Environment – More stringent protective measures – Whether compatible with the Treaty – Condition – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Excluded

(Art. 176 EC; Council Directive 1999/31)

Summary

1. It is not contrary to Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 1999/31 on the landfill of waste that a measure of domestic law should:

- fix limits in respect of the acceptance of biodegradable waste for landfill lower than those fixed by the directive, even if those limits are so low that they call for treatment by mechanical and biological processes or the incineration of such waste before it is landfilled,

- fix earlier time-limits than those under the directive in order to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill,

- apply not only to biodegradable waste but also to non-biodegradable organic substances, and

- apply not only to municipal waste but also to waste that may be disposed of as municipal waste.

(see paras 43-44, 49, 52, 55-56, operative part 1)

2. In connection with the Community’s environmental policy, to the extent that a measure of domestic law pursues the same objectives as a directive, Article 176 EC makes provision for and authorises the minimum requirements laid down by that directive to be exceeded, in the conditions set by that article. As a result, the Community-law principle of proportionality is not applicable so far as concerns more stringent protective measures of domestic law adopted by virtue of Article 176 EC and going beyond the minimum requirements laid down by a Community directive in the sphere of the environment, inasmuch as other provisions of the Treaty are not involved.

(see paras 58, 64, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations — Decisions on policy regarding aliens — Decision to deport — Judicial protection — Appeal procedure relating only to the lawfulness of the measure and having no suspensory effect — Not permissible in view of the failure to establish a competent authority other than that empowered to take the decision

(Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1))

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations — Decisions on policy regarding aliens — Judicial protection — Scope of application ratione personae — Turkish workers and members of their family covered by Articles 6 and 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Included

(Directive 64/221, Arts 8 and 9; Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Arts 6 and 7)

Summary

1. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health provides, in the absence of any possibility of an appeal against a decision to expel or where such an appeal relates only to the legality of the decision, or where it has no suspensory effect, for the intervention, save in cases of urgency, of a competent authority other than that empowered to take the decision.

Consequently, that provision must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which appeals brought against a decision to expel a national of another Member State from the territory of that first Member State have no suspensory effect and, at the time of examination of such appeal, the decision to expel can be the subject only of an assessment as to its legality, without an exhaustive assessment of the appropriateness of the measure, inasmuch as no competent authority within the meaning of that provision has been established.

(see paras 42, 47, 51, 57, operative part 1)

2. The procedural guarantees available to nationals of Member States against a decision refusing renewal of a residence permit or against a decision to expel laid down in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health apply to Turkish nationals whose legal status is defined by Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council.

To ensure the effectiveness of judicial protection of individual rights as regards employment and residence to which Turkish workers who fulfil its conditions are entitled by virtue of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, it is essential to grant those workers the same procedural guarantees as those granted by Community law to nationals of Member States. That interpretation is valid also for members of their family whose situation is covered by Article 7 of Decision No 1/80.

(see paras 66-69, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Objective criterion — Condition not satisfied — Inadmissibility

(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and the Council Directive 2003/15, Art. 1(1) and (2))

Summary

Partial annulment of a Community act is possible only if the elements the annulment of which is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act. That requirement of severability is not satisfied in the case where the partial annulment of an act would have the effect of altering its substance. The question whether partial annulment may have such an effect is an objective criterion, and not a subjective criterion linked to the political intention of the authority which adopted the act at issue.

It is for that reason necessary to treat as inadmissible an action brought by a Member State seeking annulment of Article 1(2) of Directive 2003/15 amending Directive 76/768 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products in so far as that provision introduces into Directive 76/768 an Article 4a, the purpose of which is, inter alia, to set out the conditions governing the prohibition of marketing cosmetic products containing ingredients or combinations of ingredients that have been tested on animals, while Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/15, which provides for the deletion of Article 4(1)(i) of Directive 76/768, which has similar subject-matter and which Article 4a, as inserted, is intended to replace, as is clear from recital (18) in the preamble to Directive 2003/15, remains in force, inasmuch as the Member State did not request annulment of Article 1(1), even by way of alternative submission.

As Article 1(1) and Article 1(2) of Directive 2003/15 are inseparable provisions, the partial annulment requested by the Member State would objectively alter the very substance of the provisions adopted by the Community legislature in regard to testing on animals for the purpose of developing cosmetic products.

(see paras 12-16, 20, 21)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 – Conditions for issue – Minimum age – Driving of heavy motorcycles in category A – Member States’ entitlement to fix a higher minimum age – Scope

(Council Directive 91/439, Art. 6(1)(b) and (2))

2. Transport – Road transport – Driving licences – Regulation No 3820/85 and Directive 91/439 – Conditions for issue – Minimum age – Driving of vehicles in categories C1 and C1+E – Member States not entitled to fix a lower minimum age – None

(Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 5(1)(b); Council Directive 91/439, Art. 6(1)(b) and (2))

Summary

1. By providing that the Member States are entitled to allow direct access to a licence to drive heavy motorcycles in category A for applicants who are at least 21 years old, the first indent of Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, far from expressly limiting the Member States’ entitlement to stipulate a higher minimum age, implies, on the contrary, that the Member States may fix an age limit above 21 years.

Since the fixing of a minimum age above that stipulated by the last clause in that indent for direct access to the driving of such motorcycles is likely to contribute to the improvement of road safety, which is, as is clear from that directive’s preamble, one of its primary objectives, it does not contravene that provision, provided that the principle of proportionality is observed.

(see paras 27-28)

2. Neither Directive 91/439 on driving licences nor Regulation No 3280/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport provide for the possibility of derogating from the minimum age of 18 years for the issue of driving licences for vehicles in categories C1 and C1+E. First, the exceptions in Article 6(2) of Directive 91/439 do not mention vehicles in categories C1 and C1+E. Second, the fact that the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 3280/85 does not preclude a person who has not attained the minimum age required from being able to gain driving experience, cannot be interpreted as meaning that that provision authorises the Member States to issue to such a person a driving licence for vehicles in those categories. Indeed, the possibility of gaining such experience in no way implies the issue, to the applicant concerned, of a licence permitting that applicant to drive a vehicle in those categories without being accompanied by a person responsible for his training.

(see paras 38-41)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Recognition and enforcement – Grounds for refusal – Defendant in default of appearance not duly served with the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time – Meaning of duly served – Determined according to the provisions of an international convention applicable between the State in which the judgment was given and the State in which recognition is sought

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(2), and Article IV of the Protocol)

Summary

Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Accession Conventions of 1978, 1982, 1989 and 1996, and the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol annexed to that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a relevant international convention, such as the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, is applicable between the State in which the judgment is given and the State in which recognition is sought, the question whether the document instituting the proceedings was duly served on a defendant in default of appearance must be determined in the light of the provisions of that convention, without prejudice to the use of direct transmission between public officers, where the State in which recognition is sought has not officially objected, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol. The two methods of transmitting documents provided for by Article IV of the Protocol annexed to the Convention are exhaustive, in the sense that it is solely where neither of those two options is usable that transmission may be effected in accordance with the law applicable in the court in the State in which the judgment was given.

(see paras 22, 28, 30, operative part)