ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Procedures for the award of public supply contracts - Invitation to tender restricting the right to tender for the concession of the lottery computerization system to bodies controlled by the public sector - Contract not relating to activities connected with the exercise of official authority - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 52, 55, first para., and 59; Council Directive 77/62, Arts 17 to 25)

2. Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public supply contracts - Directive 77/62 - Scope - Certain supplies not constituting traditional forms of sales included

(Council Directives 77/62 and 88/295, Art. 2)

Summary

1. Article 52 of the Treaty on freedom of establishment and Article 59 of the Treaty on freedom to provide services are infringed where a Member State restricts participation in a contract for the concession of the lottery computerization system to bodies the majority of whose capital is held by the public sector where that contract, which relates to the premises, supplies, installations, maintenance, operation and transmission of data and everything else that is necessary for the conduct of the lottery, does not involve any transfer of responsibility to the concessionaire for the various activities inherent in the lottery with the result that the derogation in the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Treaty regarding activities connected with the exercise of official authority does not apply. Such a practice also constitutes an infringement of Articles 17 to 25 of Directive 77/62 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts.

2. The fact that a contract for the supply of an integrated computerized system for the conduct of the lottery which involves the supply of certain goods to the administration stipulates that the system in question is not to become the property of the administration until the end of the contractual relationship with the successful tenderer and that the "price" for that supply is to take the form of an annual payment in proportion to the revenue does not remove the contract from the scope of Directive 77/62 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts. The fact that Article 2 of Directive 88/295 extended the scope of the directive to contracts such as those for the lease, rental or hire purchase, with or without option to buy, of products is a reflection of the Community legislature' s wish to bring within the scope of the directive the supply of products which do not necessarily become the property of the public administration and for which the consideration is fixed in abstract terms.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Freedom to provide services ° Principle of non-discrimination ° Application to a national of another Member State exercising the freedom to provide services of a national provision requiring foreigners bringing proceedings to give security for costs ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 59 and 60)

2. Community law ° Principles ° Equal treatment ° Discrimination on grounds of nationality ° Application of national treatment to a national of another Member State dependent on the existence of a reciprocal agreement ° Not permissible

3. Community law ° Effectiveness in domestic law ° Distinction between different branches ° Not permissible ° Application of rules relating to freedom to provide services to a member of a profession who is a national of another Member State acting to wind up an estate

Summary

1. The principle of equal treatment set out in Article 59 of the Treaty applies in all cases where a member of a profession offers services, normally for remuneration, in a Member State other than that in which he is established, wherever the recipients of those services may be established.

Where a Member State requires a national of another Member State who brings proceedings before one of its courts in the capacity of an executor to give security for costs solely on the ground that he is a foreigner, this constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty.

2. The right to equal treatment laid down in Community law may not be made dependent on the existence of international agreements, based on the principle of reciprocity, concluded between Member States.

3. The effectiveness of Community law cannot vary according to the various branches of national law which it may affect. The fact that the substantive proceedings come under the law of succession does not justify excluding the application of the right to freedom to provide services enshrined in Community law with respect to a member of a profession responsible for the case.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° National legislation reserving to opticians the sale of optical appliances and corrective lenses

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

2. Free movement of goods ° Exceptions ° Protection of public health ° National legislation reserving to opticians the sale of contact lenses and related products ° Justification

(EEC Treaty, Art. 36)

Summary

1. Article 30 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which reserves the sale of optical appliances and corrective lenses solely to holders of an optician' s certificate.

Such legislation, which grants to members of a specific profession the exclusive right to distribute certain products, is capable, in so far as it restricts sales to certain channels, of affecting the possibilities of marketing imported products and may accordingly constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of the abovementioned provision.

2. Article 36 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which prohibits the sale of contact lenses and related products in commercial establishments which are not run or managed by persons who fulfil the conditions laid down for practising as opticians is justified on grounds of the protection of public health.

In reserving the sale of such products to professionally qualified traders, such legislation is intended to ensure the protection of public health, for which purpose it is appropriate, and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Rule of case-law imposing on the parallel importer of a branded product the obligation to inform purchasers of the practice of certain authorized dealers regarding services under guarantee ° Whether permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 3)

Summary

Article 30 of the Treaty does not preclude a rule established in the courts of a Member State from imposing an obligation to provide information prior to contract, as a result of which a parallel importer is under an obligation to inform purchasers of a given branded product that certain authorized dealers in that brand refuse to perform services under the guarantee for products which have been the subject of parallel imports.

On the one hand, such an obligation applies without distinction to all contractual relations and is not intended to regulate trade, and on the other hand an obstacle to the free movement of goods cannot result from that obligation but from the practice of authorized dealers, so that any restrictive effects which it might have are too indirect and uncertain to warrant the conclusion that it is liable to hinder trade between Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws ° Procedures for the award of public works contracts ° Directive 71/305 ° Derogation from the general rules ° Conditions ° Existence of exceptional circumstances

(Council Directive 71/305, Art. 9(d))

Summary

Article 9(d) of Directive 71/305 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts allows, in exceptional circumstances, derogations from the general rules, in particular those concerning advertising. However, such derogations are not available if the authorities awarding contracts have sufficient time to arrange for an accelerated tendering procedure of the kind provided for in Article 15 of the directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Selective distribution system - Whether permissible - Distribution according to different methods outside the Community - No effect

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(1) and (2))

2. Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Selective distribution system - Whether permissible - Restriction of the manufacturer' s guarantee to products obtained from authorized dealers - Whether permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85)

Summary

1. An EEC selective distribution system for prestige products (watches in the upper-medium and luxury price ranges) which precludes the application of Article 85(1) and (2) of the EEC Treaty is not to be denied recognition on the ground that in countries outside the European Community a selective distribution system based on an appropriate contractual structure does not (fully) exist, so that goods which in the EEC are covered by that distribution system can be freely obtained there by persons outside the system and lawfully brought on to the Common Market.

2. Where a selective distribution system satisfies the criteria for validity laid down in Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, as defined by the Court in its case-law, the restriction of the manufacturer' s guarantee to products covered by the contract which are obtained from authorized dealers must also be regarded as valid.

Where contractual terms whereby the manufacturer undertakes to sell only through authorized dealers and whereby those dealers themselves undertake to resell only to other authorized dealers or to consumers are lawful, there are no grounds for applying stricter treatment to arrangements for restricting the guarantee by contract to products sold through authorized dealers as the aim is always the same, namely to prevent persons outside the network from marketing products covered by the system.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Concept ° Measures laid down by a professional body in the pharmacy sector

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

2. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Concept ° Obstacles arising from non-discriminatory national rules on selling arrangements ° Article 30 of the Treaty not applicable ° Prohibition on advertising quasi-pharmaceutical products outside the pharmacy

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

Summary

1. Measures adopted by a professional association in the pharmacy sector constitute, if they are capable of affecting trade between Member States, "measures" within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty in so far as, according to the national legislation,

° the association in question is a public-law body with legal personality and regulated by the State, membership of which is compulsory for all pharmacists practising within the area over which it has jurisdiction;

° the association lays down rules of professional conduct applicable to pharmacists and monitors compliance by its members with their professional obligations;

° professional conduct committees, which are part of and whose members are nominated by the association, may impose disciplinary measures such as fines, disqualification as a member of bodies of the association or withdrawal of the right to vote or be elected to those bodies on pharmacists who have infringed professional conduct rules.

2. The application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty, so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. Such rules therefore fall outside the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.

Article 30 of the Treaty is therefore to be interpreted as not applying to a rule of professional conduct, laid down by a pharmacists' professional body in a Member State, which prohibits all pharmacists within the area over which it has jurisdiction from advertising outside the pharmacy quasi-pharmaceutical products which they are authorized to sell, in so far as that rule, which applies without distinction as to the origin of the products in question, does not affect the marketing of goods from other Member States differently from that of domestic products.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Aid granted by States - Commission Decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Decision not having been challenged under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty by the recipient of the aid who had been notified in due time - Challenge to the validity of the decision before the national court in an action brought against the national measures taken to implement it - Challenge to be dismissed by the national court

(EEC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and second paragraph of 173)

Summary

The national court is bound by a Commission decision adopted under Article 93(2) of the Treaty where, in view of the implementation of that decision by the national authorities, the recipient of the aid to which the implementation measures are addressed brings before it an action in which it pleads the unlawfulness of the Commission' s decision and where that recipient of aid, although informed in writing by the Member State of the Commission' s decision, did not bring an action against that decision under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, or did not do so within the period prescribed.

To accept that in such circumstances the person concerned could challenge the implementation of the decision in proceedings before the national court on the ground that the decision was unlawful would in effect enable the person concerned to overcome the definitive nature which the decision assumes as against that person once the time-limit for bringing an action has expired and would be incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Customs union - Customs declarations - Persons permitted to make customs declarations - National legislation incompatible with Community rules

(Council Regulation No 3632/85, Arts 2, 3 and 6)

2. Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect - Concept - Mandatory tariff for customs forwarding agents - None as it is possible not to use their services

(EEC Treaty, Arts 9 and 12)

Summary

1. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 6 of Regulation No 3632/85 defining the conditions under which a person may be permitted to make a customs declaration by

- maintaining in its legislation a provision stating that it is for the owner to make that declaration, recourse to the term "owner", which is alien to Article 2 of the regulation, allowing doubts to remain as to who is authorized to make the declaration or cause it to be made;

- restricting representation to customs forwarding agents without making clear provision, as required by Article 3(2) of the regulation, for the option of making a declaration in one' s own name and on behalf of another person;

- requiring, contrary to Article 6 of the regulation which lays down two distinct sets of rules, one for paid employees responsible for making customs declarations and the other for self-employed persons, the same qualifications for both categories of persons.

2. A mandatory charge, from the minimum level of which no derogation may be made and which is applied in a Member State by customs forwarding agents, does not constitute a charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of the Treaty if importers may in fact choose whether or not to use the services of such persons with the result that the said tariff is not binding on anyone wishing to make a customs declaration.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations ° Consideration of the merits by the Court ° Situation to be taken into account ° Situation on the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws ° Procedures for the award of public works contracts ° Directive 71/305 ° Scope ° Mixed contract relating both to the performance of works and to the assignment of property ° Performance of the works incidental to the assignment of property ° Exclusion ° Assessment by the national court

(Council Directive 71/305)

Summary

A mixed contract relating both to the performance of works and to the assignment of property does not fall within the scope of Directive 71/305 concerning coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts if the performance of the works is merely incidental to the assignment of property.

It is for the national court to determine whether the works are incidental to the main object of the award.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties ° Company involved as a transmitter of documents between a third country producer and the Community institutions ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second paragraph)

Summary

A regulation imposing anti-dumping duties is not of individual concern within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty to a company in a non-member country on which the Commission has not imposed anti-dumping duties and which was not concerned by the preliminary measures of the anti-dumping procedure, in that it was not the target of the investigation and intervened merely as a transmitter of documents between the Commission and an undertaking in another non-member country which was found to be practising dumping.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment ° Judgment annulling a measure ° Effects ° Duties of the administration ° To make good damage resulting from the measure annulled which continues after the annulment

(EC Treaty, Arts 176 and 215, second para.)

2. Procedure ° Interpretation of a judgment ° Interpretation outside the procedure provided for in Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice ° Permissible if necessary in order to determine the case

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40)

Summary

1. Article 176 of the EC Treaty requires not only that the administration take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Community judicature but that it make good further damage which may be caused by the unlawful measure which has been annulled, subject to the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty. Article 176 of the Treaty does not make compensation for the damage dependent on the existence of a new fault distinct from the original unlawful measure which has been annulled, but provides for compensation for the damage which results from that measure and which continues after its annulment and compliance by the administration with the judgment whereby it was annulled.

2. Although Article 40 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice makes provision for a special procedure to resolve difficulties concerning the meaning and scope of judgments, it remains open to the Community judicature to seek to ascertain the meaning and scope of a previous judgment which has not been the subject of such a procedure, if such an interpretation is necessary in order to resolve the dispute before them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Turnover taxes ° Common system of value added tax ° Taxable amount ° Provision of services ° Consideration actually received by the provider of services ° Slot machines ° Exclusion of the fixed proportion of the stakes compulsorily paid out to players in the form of winnings

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11 A(1)(a))

Summary

The taxable amount in respect of a provision of services within the meaning of Article 11 A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 consists of the consideration actually received in return for the service provided. In the case of gaming machines offering a chance of winning (slot machines) which, pursuant to mandatory statutory requirements, are set in such a way that they pay out as winnings a certain percentage of the stakes inserted, the consideration actually received by the operator in return for making the machines available consists only of the proportion of the stakes which he can actually take for himself.

Consequently, the aforementioned provision must be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount in respect of such machines does not include the statutorily prescribed proportion of the total stakes inserted which corresponds to the winnings paid out to the players.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure - Justification based on delay in transposing earlier, related directive - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

If a directive has not been transposed into national law by a Member State within the period allowed, a claim of failure to fulfil obligations in that respect must be regarded as well founded. Failure to transpose cannot be justified by the delay in implementing an earlier directive, linked to the one at issue, which ought itself to have been transposed before the end of the said period.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers ° Legislation applicable ° Worker residing in a Member State, employed by an undertaking from another Member State and working in a non-member country ° No provision of Community law dealing expressly with that situation ° Application, based on the criterion of the connecting link, of the legislation of the Member State in which the employer is established

Summary

The rules of Community law which are designed to achieve freedom of movement for workers within the Community, and in particular the rules on determining the national legislation applicable set out in Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude the collection of contributions from a person who resides in one Member State and, in the employment of an undertaking established in another Member State, works exclusively outside the Member States on the basis of which employment he is liable to pay contributions under the social legislation of the other Member State.

The mere fact that the activities of a worker are carried out outside the Community is not sufficient to exclude the application of the Community rules on the free movement of workers, as long as the employment relationship retains a sufficiently close link with the Community, and in the absence of a provision dealing expressly with the case of a person in such a situation, the legislation of the Member State in which the worker resides should not be applied, since there is no link connecting it with the employment relationship, and the legislation to be applied is that of the Member State where the employer is established with which there is such a link.