ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures Suspension of operation of a measure Provisional measures Conditions for granting Prima facie case Urgency Serious and irreparable harm Weighing up of all the interests involved

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2))

2. Applications for interim measures Suspension of operation of a Council regulation amending the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria Serious and irreparable harm Right to full and effective judicial protection Whether permissible

(Council Regulation Nos 3298/94 and 2012/2000)

Summary

1. The judge hearing an application for interim relief may order suspension of operation of an act, or other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law and that it is urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant's interests, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Where appropriate, the judge hearing such an application must also weigh up the interests involved.

( see para. 73 )

2. The possible unlawfulness of Articles 1 and 2(1) of Regulation No 2012/2000 amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation No 3298/94 with regard to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria is likely to cause irreversible damage to the party seeking suspension of operation, since it is conceivable that, when judgment is given on the substance of the case, the provisions of the contested Regulation will already have taken almost full effect. Consequently, it appears necessary to grant the applicant appropriate interim protection in order to prevent the damage which would result from the application of provisions the legality of which may be very seriously in doubt. Indeed, the general principle of the right to full and effective judicial protection means that individuals must be granted interim protection if this is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the subsequent definitive judgment, in order to prevent a lacuna in the legal protection afforded by the Court.

( see paras 83-100, 105-108, 111 )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Answer capable of being clearly deduced from existing case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public works contracts - Directive 93/37 - Scope - Works contract not exceeding the threshold value provided for in the directive - Excluded - Clause in the contract documents requiring the use for the contract of a product of a particular make, without any possibility of using an equivalent product - Free movement of goods - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC); Council Directive 93/37)
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2002. - Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic. - Removal from the register. - Case C-374/00.



European Court reports 2002 Page I-09133



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

In Case C-374/00,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and initially by P. Pangiotopoulos, then by M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Hellenic Republic, represented by P. Skandalou and A. Samoni-Rantou, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to notify to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 15 July 2002, the Commission of the European Communities informed the Court, in accordance with Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure, that it wished to withdraw its application and requested the Court to order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

2 By a letter lodged at the Court Registry on 20 August 2002, the Hellenic Republic took note of the decision to withdraw the action and did not put forward any claim as regards costs.

3 Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(5) of the Rules of Procedure, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for by the other party in its observations on the discontinuance or withdrawal. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party.

4 In the present case, the application and the subsequent withdrawal of the Commission were the result of the conduct of the Hellenic Republic, which did not notify the Commission of the measures adopted to comply with its obligations until after the Commission brought its action.

5 The Hellenic Republic should therefore be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

hereby orders:

1. Case C-374/00 is removed from the register.

2. The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Date of publication of the measure in question - Calculation

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 80(1)(a))

Summary

1. Under Article 80(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the day of the event from which the period is to run is excluded in the calculation of procedural time-limits. Those rules are designed to ensure that parties are able to make full use of the periods allowed. In the case of a measure which has to be published, time does not begin to run until the end of the day of notification, regardless of the hour of day at which the measure in question is notified. Where the time-limit for commencing proceedings is expressed in months, that period therefore expires at the end of the day which, in the month indicated by the time-limit, bears the same number as the day from which time started to run, that is to say the day of notification.

The same reasoning can be applied to the case, provided for under Article 81(1) of the Rules of Procedure, where time-limits begin to run from the publication of the measure in question. In that provision it is stated specifically that these periods are to be calculated, for the purposes of Article 80(1)(a) of the same rules, from the end of the 14th day after publication. Article 81(1) of the rules therefore gives the applicant 14 full days in addition to the normal period of two months, and the day from which the time-limit is calculated is, therefore, postponed until the 14th day following publication of the measure in question.

( see paras 14-15 )

2. The right to effective judicial protection is in no way undermined by the strict application of Community rules concerning procedural time-limits which meets the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid all discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. The rules governing time-limits applicable pursuant to Articles 80(1)(a) and (b) and 81(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice do not pose any particular difficulty of interpretation. Accordingly, it cannot be accepted that the applicant might make an excusable error justifying derogation from the strict application of the abovementioned rules.

( see paras 20-21 )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Question to which the answer may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directives 92/12 and 92/81 - Mineral oils - Procedures for the levying and collection of duty - Power of Member States subject to non-discrimination - Refusal by a Member State to reimburse an excise duty paid by a trader where the customer of such a trader fails to make payment - Whether permissible

(EC Treaty, Article 3(a) and (b) (now, after amendment, Art. 3(1)(a) and (b) EC; Council Directives 92/12, first recital and Art. 3(2), and 92/81)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Questions asked in a context precluding a useful answer — Manifestly inadmissible — (Art. 234 EC)

Summary

In the context of a procedure instituted by way of Article 234 EC, it is for the Court to examine, in exceptional circumstances, the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction. In this connection, particular note should be taken of the importance of the national court stating the precise reasons which caused it to raise the question of the interpretation of Community law and to consider it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.

It is thus essential that the national court give at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions of which it requests an interpretation and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute.

A request by a national court which does not contain any information establishing the relationship between the facts and the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings on the one hand, and, on the other, the interpretation of the Community provisions sought by the national court is therefore manifestly inadmissible as it does not allow the Court to give a useful answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling.

see paras 22-23, 30-31
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

9 April 2003

((Public contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures for the award of public contracts – Action for annulment of a decision of the contracting authority – Application for interim measures – Duty or discretion of the body responsible for review procedures to take account of the prospects of success of the substantive claim – Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Question the answer to which does not admit of any reasonable doubt))

and

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

the national court having been informed that the Court proposes to give its decision by way of a reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Community legal framework

3

4

(a)

(b)

(c)

5

6

7

8

1.

2.

(a)

(b)

3.

9

1.

3.

4.

6.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.

2.

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

R. Grass C.W.A. Timmermans
Keywords



Keywords

1. Appeals ? Pleas in law ? Erroneous assessment of the facts ? Inadmissible ? Dismissed

Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

2. Appeals ? Pleas in law ? Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal ? Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Damage to the environment - System for limiting road traffic transiting through Austria

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession; Council Regulation No 3298/94)

Summary

$$Although environmental damage such as that linked to the density of traffic on certain road axes is irreversible since it cannot be eliminated retroactively, the judge hearing an application for interim relief may not, in connection with the system for limiting road traffic transiting through Austria established by Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation No 3298/94, for the purpose of establishing the urgency justifying his intervention, take into account such damage in order to restrict the transit possibilities introduced by a Commission decision, until the time when the negative effects of such transit traffic exceed the level which had been considered acceptable when the Protocol was adopted.

Consequently, where it is not clear, after an initial examination, that that level has in fact been exceeded, the grant of a suspension of operation or interim measures does not appear justified, in view of the fact that the virtually definitive effects of a measure which would result in limiting the transit traffic in question must be weighed against the direct and considerable impact on the activities of undertakings operating in the market under consideration and, more generally, on the proper functioning of the internal market.

( see paras 92-94, 96-97 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of goods wrongly invoiced as being exempt from tax – Recovery, after the event, from the taxable person making the supply – Not a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality – Tax on the later sale of the goods to the end user paid to the public purse – Not relevant

(Council Directives 67/227 and 77/388)

Summary

The principle of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax does not preclude a Member State from recovering value added tax, after the event, from a taxable person which has wrongly invoiced a supply of goods as being exempt from that tax. It is irrelevant, in that regard, whether the value added tax on the later sale of the goods concerned to the end user has been paid to the public purse or not.

(see para. 3, operative part)
Case C-395/02

Transport Service NV

v

Belgische Staat

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – First and Sixth VAT Directives – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Application of VAT to each production or distribution transaction – Recovery)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Supply of goods wrongly invoiced as being exempt from tax – Recovery, after the event, from the taxable person making the supply – Not a breach of the principle of fiscal neutrality – Tax on the later sale of the goods to the end user paid to the public purse – Not relevant

(Council Directives 67/227 and 77/388)

The principle of the neutrality of the common system of value added tax does not preclude a Member State from recovering value added tax, after the event, from a taxable person which has wrongly invoiced a supply of goods as being exempt from that tax. It is irrelevant, in that regard, whether the value added tax on the later sale of the goods concerned to the end user has been paid to the public purse or not.

(see para. 3, operative part)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

6 November 2003

((Removal from the register))

In Case C-169/02,

and

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing Advocate General Geelhoed, makes the following

Order

1

2

3

4

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

R. Grass V. Skouris
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Transfer of milk by the producer to a third party for the purposes of processing in performance of a contract for services without the passing of title in the milk – Operation constituting a delivery

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, Arts 1, 2, and 9(g); Commission Regulation No 536/93, Art. 1)

Summary

Articles 1, 2 and 9(g) of Regulation No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector and Article 1 of Regulation No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products are to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining milk quotas and the application of the additional levy, the transfer of a quantity of milk by the producer to a third party without the passing of title in it, in performance of a contract for the treatment of that milk and its processing into cheese, butter and whey for consideration, should be classified as a delivery.

(see para. 28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Independent commercial agents — Directive 86/653 — Scope — Persons acting on behalf of a principal but in their own name — Not included — (Council Directive 86/653)

Summary

Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that persons who act on behalf of a principal, but in their own name, do not come within the scope of that directive.

The activity pursued by persons acting on behalf of a third party but in their own name is different from that pursued by commercial agents and the interests and need for protection of the two occupations are not the same.

see paras 17, 21, operative part
ORDER OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

8 January 2004

((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Regulations (EEC) Nos 1079/77 and 1822/77 – Co-responsibility levy on cows' milk – Concept of delivery to a purchaser))

and

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

having informed the national court that the Court proposes to give its decision by way of a reasoned order in accordance with Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, having invited the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

The relevant provisions of Community law

3

4

5

1.

2.

(a)

─ a purchasing body which is an association treating or processing milk,

─ an undertaking or association which purchases milk, but which restricts its activities to collection, storage and cooling operations or to one of these operations;

(b)

6

7

8

9

(c)

─ selling milk or other milk products directly to the consumer,

─ and/or supplying the purchaser;

(e)

─ to treat or process them,

─ to sell them to one or more undertakings treating or processing milk or other milk products.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

R. Grass V. Skouris
Case C-156/03 P-R





Commission of the European Communities

v

Les Laboratoires Servier SA





«(Interim relief – Application for suspension of operation of a judgment – Appeal – Medicinal products for human use – Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation – Competence of the Commission – Serotonergic anorectics: dexfenfluramine, fenfluramine – Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC – Judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling a decision of withdrawal – Suspension of operation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Urgency – None)»

Order of the President of the Court, 20 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2007 – Artegodan v Commission

(Joined Cases C-440/01 P(R)-DEP and C-39/03 P-DEP)

Taxation of costs

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Factors to be taken into consideration (Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 73(b)) (see para. 27)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court of 24 July 2003.

Operative part

The total amount of costs which the Commission of the European Communities must repay to Artegodan GmbH is fixed at EUR 22 383.49.
Case C-268/03

Jean-Claude De Baeck

v

Belgische Staat

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Fiscal legislation – Taxation on income of natural persons – Assignment of a major holding in the capital of a resident company – Detailed rules governing charge to tax of resultant gain)

Summary of the Order

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Fiscal legislation – Income tax – Gains secured on the assignment for valuable consideration of shares or stock in companies established in the Member State of taxation not chargeable to tax – Not permissible – Restriction on the freedom of movement of capital where the assignee does not obtain sufficient influence in the company

(Arts 43 EC, 48 EC and 56 EC)

Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation pursuant to which gains secured on the assignment for valuable consideration, otherwise than in the exercise of a business activity, of shares or stock in companies, associations, establishments or bodies, attract a charge to tax where the transfer is made to companies, associations, establishments or bodies established in another Member State, whereas, in the same circumstances, those gains are not chargeable to tax where that transfer is made to companies, associations, establishments or bodies established in the Member State concerned, provided that the shareholding transferred gives its holder definite influence over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its activities.

Article 56 EC precludes such national legislation, where the shareholding transferred is not of that kind.

(see para. 28, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Definition of the market – Subject-matter (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) (see paras 30-31)

2. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in an anti-competitive initiative (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) (see para. 48)

3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Excluded unless the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 49, 62)

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Reduction in fine in exchange for cooperation (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15) (see para. 91)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case T-61/99 Adriatica di Navigazione v Commission , dismissing as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission decision of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 – Greek Ferry Boats)

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Dismisses the cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities;

3. Orders Adriatica di Navigazione SpA to pay 90% of the costs;

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay 10% of the costs.