ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Telecommunications services — Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences — Directive 97/13 — Fees and charges for undertakings holding individual licences — Imposition of financial charges beyond those authorised by the Directive — Not permissible — ( Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 97/13, Art. 11)

Summary

Directive 97/13/EC on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, prohibit Member States from imposing financial charges, other than and in addition to those allowed by the directive, such as a charge calculated on the basis of a percentage of turnover, on undertakings which hold individual licences in the telecommunications sector solely because they hold such licences.

see para. 42, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law — Direct effect — Individual rights — Protected by national courts and tribunals — Legal proceedings — Detailed national procedural rules — Conditions of application — Determination, by each Member State, of standing and legal interest in bringing proceedings — Limits — Respect for the right to effective judicial protection

2. Community law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — National legislation preventing an importer challenging a measure under which goods sold to a retailer are seized — Whether permissible — Conditions

Summary

1. In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). Moreover, while it is, in principle, for national law to determine an individual ' s standing and legal interest in bringing proceedings, Community law nevertheless requires that the national legislation does not undermine the right to effective judicial protection.

see paras 49-50

2. The principle of effective judicial protection of the rights which the Community legal order confers on individuals is to be construed as not precluding national legislation under which an importer cannot bring court proceedings to challenge a measure adopted by the public authorities under which goods sold to a retailer are seized, where there is available to that importer, because the said authorities also fined him, a legal remedy which ensures respect for the rights conferred on him by Community law.

In the present case it is clear that such an importer ' s interest in not having his trade impeded because of a national provision which is contrary to Community law is sufficiently protected where he can obtain a court decision establishing the incompatibility of that provision with Community law.

see paras 54-56, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods — Trade with third countries — Outward processing relief arrangements — Total or partial relief from import duties on compensating products — Non-compliance with the conditions and obligations of the system — Proof of the absence of any significant effect — Scope — (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 145 to 151)

Summary

Articles 145 to 151 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator who has declared goods under an incorrect tariff heading at the time of their temporary exportation from Community territory under the outward processing procedure is not prohibited, even in the absence of a formal amendment of the temporary export declaration, from adducing proof that the incorrect declaration had no significant effect on the correct operation of the procedure for the purposes of Article 150(2) of that regulation. Such proof must make it possible to establish, without the slightest ambiguity, that the compensating products have resulted from processing of the temporary export goods. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the main proceedings, whether or not the economic operator has adduced that proof. If so, the amount of the import duty which would be applicable to the temporary export goods on the basis of their correct tariff heading may be deducted when the compensating products are released for free circulation.

see para. 55, operative part 1-4
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Persons having left their State of origin to work as officials of the European Communities in another Member State — Expenditure incurred in respect of a household assistant in the latter State — Domicile for tax purposes in State of origin — Deduction of that expenditure from their taxable income — Refusal — Not permissible — (EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC); Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 14)

Summary

Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC), in conjunction with Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, precludes a situation in which officials of the European Communities who are of German origin and are resident in Luxembourg, where they work as officials, and who have incurred expenditure in respect of a household assistant in the latter Member State cannot deduct that expenditure from their taxable income in Germany by reason of the fact that the contributions paid for the household assistant were made to the Luxembourg statutory pension insurance scheme and not to the German scheme.

see para. 44, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Exemption for insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Concept — Assessment of damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that association — Excluded — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(a))

2. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Exemption for the provision of services by independent groups of persons performing an exempted activity with a view to providing services to their members — Conditions — No risk that competition may be distorted — National legislation providing for a temporary exemption — Whether permissible — Conditions — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(f))

Summary

1. Article 13B(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be construed as meaning that motor vehicle damage assessments carried out, on behalf of its members, by an association whose members are insurance companies are neither insurance transactions nor services related to insurance transactions that are performed by insurance brokers or insurance agents within the meaning of that provision.

The essentials of an insurance transaction, as generally understood, are that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured party, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded. In accordance with that definition, such a transaction necessarily implies the existence of a contractual relationship between the provider of the insurance service and the person whose risks are covered by the insurance, that is to say, the insured party. The unavoidable conclusion is that an association the members of which are insurance companies and which carries out assessments of damage to motor vehicles on behalf of its members does not have any contractual relationship with the insured parties.

see paras 39, 41-42, 46, operative part 1

2. Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be construed as meaning that the grant of exemption from value added tax under that provision to an association which satisfies all of the other conditions of that provision must be refused if there is a genuine risk that the exemption may by itself, immediately or in the future, give rise to distortions of competition. National legislation which allows a temporary exemption to be granted where doubt exists as to whether that exemption is liable at a later date to give rise to distortions of competition is compatible with Article 13A(1)(f), on condition that the exemption is renewed only for as long as the person concerned satisfies the conditions of that provision.

see paras 65, 69, operative part 2-3
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Economic and social cohesion — Structural activities — Community funding — Breach of the conditions laid down — Revocation of financial assistance and requirement of partial repayment — Powers of the Member State which granted the assistance — (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 23(1), first subpara.)

Summary

The first subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an action programme financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), where an examination reveals a breach of the conditions laid down for the implementation of a programme ' s operations, a Member State which has granted financial assistance from the EAGGF may, in order to prevent and to take action against irregularities, revoke that assistance and require partial repayment thereof from the final recipients.

see para. 48, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks devoid of any distinctive character – Three-dimensional marks consisting of the shape of the product – Distinctive character – Criteria by reference to which such character assessed

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b))

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of matters of fact submitted to the Court of First Instance – Excluded unless the sense of the evidence has been distorted – Application to the present cases of the criteria by reference to which the distinctive character of Community trade marks is assessed

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1. The criteria for assessing the distinctive character, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, of three-dimensional shape-of-products marks are no different from those applicable to other categories of trade mark. None the less, for the purpose of applying those criteria, the relevant public’s perception is not necessarily the same in relation to a three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape and colours of the product itself as it is in relation to a word or figurative mark consisting of a sign which is independent from the appearance of the products it denotes. Average consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of products on the basis of their shape or the shape of their packaging in the absence of any graphic or word element and it could therefore prove more difficult to establish distinctiveness in relation to such a three-dimensional mark than in relation to a word or figurative mark.

In those circumstances, the more closely the shape for which registration is sought resembles the shape most likely to be taken by the product in question, the greater the likelihood of the shape being devoid of any distinctive character. Only a trade mark which departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and thereby fulfils its essential function of indicating origin, is not devoid of any distinctive character for the purposes of that provision.

(see paras 36-37)

2. The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to make findings of fact, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. That appraisal thus does not, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced to it has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

The actual application to the present cases of the criteria for assessing the distinctive character of Community trade marks, for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, involves findings of a factual nature and, more specifically, the finding that, as regards everyday consumer products, the level of attention paid by the average consumer to the shape and colours of washing-machine and dishwasher tablets is not high.

(see paras 39, 53)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Packaging – Definition – Plastic carrier bags – Included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 3(1))

2. Environment – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Producer – Definition

(European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 3(1)

Summary

1. Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as meaning that the plastic carrier bags handed to customers in shops, whether free of charge or not, constitute packaging within the meaning of the directive since those plastic bags are intended to contain the goods purchased by customers and are designed to facilitate the transport of sales units in order to prevent physical handling and transport damage, they meet the two conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of the directive. Their exclusion from the definition of packaging would, first, run counter to a broad interpretation of that term and, second, would be likely to impede the attainment of the aims of the directive, which seeks to prevent and reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment of Member States and non-member countries and thus to provide a high level of environmental protection.

(see paras 52-53, 55-57, 59, operative part 1)

2. In the context of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste ‘producer’ refers to the producer of the goods, not the manufacturer of the packaging products.

(see para. 74, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers – Community rules – Matters covered – Benefits under a national social security scheme covering the risk of reliance on care – Payment of old age insurance contributions of the carer assisting the reliant person – Inclusion as a sickness benefit

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1)(a))

2. Social security for migrant workers – Equal treatment – National care insurance scheme refusing a national of a Member State other than the competent State payment of old age insurance contributions – Scheme entailing discrimination against a citizen of the Union prohibited by Community law

(Art. 17 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71)

Summary

1. A benefit such as the payment, by the body providing care insurance, of old age insurance contributions of a third party providing care in the home of a person reliant on care constitutes a sickness benefit for the benefit of a person reliant on care covered by Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97.

(see paras 20-21, 23, operative part 1)

2. Article 17 EC and Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, preclude care insurance benefits comprising payment of old age insurance contributions of a national of a Member State in the position of the third party caring for the insured person being refused by the competent institution on the sole ground that that third party or person covered by that insurance resides in a Member State other than the competent State.

In fact, the status of Union citizenship enables nationals of the Member States who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same treatment in law, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for. In that context, in view of the purpose of the activity carried on by third parties assisting persons reliant on care, the condition as to residency on which the refusal of that care insurance benefit is based appears to afford different treatment to comparable situations, rather than to constitute a factor objectively establishing a difference in their situations and thus justifying such different treatment, and therefore constitutes discrimination prohibited by Community law.

(see paras 34-36, operative part 2)
Case C-281/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Council of the European Union





«(International agreements – Community competence – Legal basis – Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC – Energy Star Agreement – Energy-efficient labelling programmes for office equipment)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 12 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 December 2002 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Choice of legal basis – Criteria – Community measure pursuing a twofold purpose or having a twofold component – Reference to the main or predominant purpose or component – Inseparable purposes – Joint legal basis

2.. International agreements – Conclusion – EC-United States agreement on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programmes for office equipment (Energy Star Agreement) – Agreement falling principally within the scope of commercial policy – Predominance over the objective of environmental protection – Legal basis – Article 133 EC, in conjunction with Article 300(3) EC – Irrelevant that participation in the labelling programme is not mandatory

(Arts 133 EC and 300(3) EC)

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

6 March 2003

((Directive 86/653/EEC – Self-employed commercial agents – National legislation requiring enrolment of a commercial agent in a register provided for that purpose as a prior condition of registration in the register of undertakings))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 November 2002,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

30 January 2003

((Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Quality of bathing water – Inadequate implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 October 2002,
Case C-111/01





Gantner Electronic GmbH

v

Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

«(Brussels Convention – Article 21 – Lis pendens – Set-off)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 5 December 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 8 May 2003, I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Lis pendens – Proceedings involving the same cause of action – Criteria for assessment – Account taken only of the applicants' claims to the exclusion of the defence submissions

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 21)

2.. Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments – Protocol on the interpretation of the Convention by the Court of Justice – Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Question without sufficient information to indicate how an answer is necessary – Inadmissible

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968; Protocol of 3 June 1971)

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

3 April 2003

((Appeals – Officials – Reconstruction of career – Consideration of comparative merits)) In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament, represented by H. von Hertzen and D. Moore, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant, APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament [2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Ignacio Samper, official of the European Parliament, residing in Madrid (Spain), represented by E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,applicant at first instance,



THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,



composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed,

Registrar: R. Grass, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 June 2002,

gives the following

Judgment

1

Background to the dispute

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

1.

2.

3.

Wathelet Timmermans La Pergola Jann von Bahr

R. Grass M. Wathelet
Case C-145/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – No proper letter of formal notice – Application inadmissible)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 10 April 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 5 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Letter of formal notice – Delimitation of the subject-matter of proceedings – Reasoned opinion referring to rules other than those cited in the letter of formal notice – Inadmissibility of the action

(Art. 226 EC)

1.

2.
Case C-484/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 97/43/Euratom – Health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure – Incomplete implementation)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 15 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification based on the internal legal order – Not permissible

(Art. 141 EA)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

26 June 2003

((Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets in cereals – Standing invitation to tender – Cereal products for export to ACP States – Event causing time to begin to run for production of proof of entry for consumption into the State of destination – Second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 and Article 47(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87))

and

THE COURT (Third Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV and the Commission at the hearing on 28 November 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 23 January 2003,