ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Special, simplified registration procedure — Conditions — Medicinal product composed of several homeopathic substances — Requirement of proof of therapeutic efficacy — None

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Arts 14 and 15)

Summary

Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 2001/83 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision which does not permit use of the special simplified registration procedure for a medicinal product composed of several known homeopathic substances if its use as a homeopathic medicine is not generally known.

As is apparent from Article 14(1) of Directive 2001/83, read in conjunction with Article 1(5), a homeopathic medicinal product may be subject to the special simplified registration procedure in so far as it is administered orally or externally, no specific therapeutic indication appears on the labelling of the medicinal product or in any information relating thereto and, finally, there is a sufficient degree of dilution to guarantee its safety. In accordance with Article 15 of that directive, only the homeopathic stock or stocks from which that combination is derived must be well-known. However, that provision does not require the submission of a bibliography showing that the effects of the homeopathic medicinal product itself have been identified. As regards proof of therapeutic efficacy, Article 14(3) of that directive expressly states that such proof is not required for homeopathic medicinal products registered in accordance with paragraph (1) of that article.

(see paras 16, 20, 22, 26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment — Waste — Directive 75/442 — Transport of waste on a professional basis — Meaning

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 12)

Summary

Article 12 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, imposes an obligation of registration on establishments or undertakings which, in the course of their activities, normally and regularly transport waste, whether that waste is produced by them or by others. The concept of transport of waste on a professional basis used in that article covers not only those who, in the course of their business as carriers, transport waste produced by others, but also those who, whilst not professional carriers, nevertheless in the course of their own business activity, transport waste which they have produced.

(see paras 23, 29)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Directive 77/187 — Transfer of the contracts of employment and employment relationships to the transferee — Date of taking effect — Date of the transfer — Unchanged — Specific rules agreed between the transferor and the transferee — No effect

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3(1))

Summary

The transfer of the contracts of employment and employment relationships pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses necessarily takes place on the same date as that of the transfer of the undertaking. The date of that transfer is the date on which responsibility as employer for carrying on the business of the unit transferred moves from the transferor to the transferee. That date is a particular point in time which cannot be postponed to another date at the will of the transferor or transferee.

It follows that, pursuant to Article 3(1), contracts of employment or employment relationships existing on the date of the transfer referred to by that provision between the transferor and the workers assigned to the undertaking transferred are deemed to be handed over, on that date, from the transferor to the transferee, regardless of what has been agreed between the parties in that respect.

(see paras 39, 43-44, operative part 1-2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Refusal of registration or nullity – Absence of distinctive character – Distinctive character acquired through use – Use of a mark as part of or in conjunction with a registered trade mark

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 3(3))

Summary

The distinctive character of a mark referred to in Article 3(3) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks may be acquired in consequence of the use of that mark as part of or in conjunction with another mark.

While, in regard to acquisition of distinctive character through use, the identification, by the relevant class of persons, of the product or service as originating from a given undertaking must be as a result of the use of the mark as a trade mark, in order for the latter condition to be satisfied, the mark in respect of which registration is sought need not necessarily have been used independently. Such identification may be as a result both of the use, as part of a registered trade mark, of a component thereof and of the use of a separate mark in conjunction with a registered trade mark.

(see paras 26-27, 30, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Concept – Grant by a public authority of a concession to operate a public service – Excluded

(Art. 81 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Direct award of a concession for the management of a public gas‑distribution service – Not permissible in the absence of sufficient transparency

(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

1. Article 81 EC, which applies, according to its wording, to agreements ‘between undertakings’, does not, in principle, apply to contracts for concessions concluded between municipalities acting in their capacity as public authorities and concessionaires entrusted with responsibility for a public service.

(see para. 12)

2. Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude the direct award by a municipality of a concession for the management of the public gas-distribution service to a company in which there is a majority public holding and in the capital of which the municipality in question has a 0.97% holding, if that award does not comply with transparency requirements which, without necessarily implying an obligation to hold an invitation to tender, are, in particular, such as to enable an undertaking located in the territory of a Member State other than that of the municipality in question to have access to appropriate information regarding that concession, so that, if that undertaking had so wished, it would have been in a position to express its interest in obtaining that concession.

(see paras 21, 28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Award of contracts – Criteria – Conditions of admissibility – Specific case

(Art. 49 EC)

Summary

Article 49 EC precludes a contracting authority from providing, in the tendering specifications for a public contract for health services of home respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques, first, for an admission condition which requires an undertaking submitting a tender to have, at the time the tender is submitted, an office open to the public in the capital of the province where the service is to be supplied and, second, for evaluation criteria which reward, by awarding extra points, the existence at the time the tender is submitted of oxygen production, conditioning and bottling plants situated within 1 000 kilometres of that province or offices open to the public in other specified towns in that province, and which, in the case of a tie between a number of tenders, favours the undertaking which was previously providing the service concerned, in so far as those criteria are applied in a discriminatory manner, are not justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, are not suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue or go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

(see para. 79, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Approximation of laws on animal health – Veterinary checks in intra-Community trade – Directive 89/662 – National legislation maintaining a system of compulsory prior notification for imports of certain food products of animal origin – Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/662, Art. 5)

Summary

A Member State which maintains a system of compulsory prior notification for imports of certain food products of animal origin from other Member States, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 89/662 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market.

Directive 89/662 set up a system of veterinary checks, which is based on full inspection of the goods in the Member State of dispatch, and which is intended to replace, in principle, inspection in the Member State of destination and must allow for the free movement of the goods concerned in conditions similar to those of an internal market by abolishing checks at internal frontiers of the Community. In that regard, considerations related to the need to protect public health cannot justify additional specific constraints imposed unilaterally by a Member State when the frontier is crossed. In addition, the national legislation in dispute cannot be regarded as consistent with the requirements of Article 5 of that directive.

(see paras 51-53, 60, 69, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision No 1/80 – Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Access by Turkish nationals duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State to paid employment of their choice in that Member State and the corresponding residence permit

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 6(1) and (2))

Summary

Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council is to be interpreted as meaning that:

– enjoyment of the rights conferred on a Turkish worker by the third indent of paragraph 1 of that article, namely that a Turkish worker is to enjoy free access, after four years of legal employment in a Member State, to paid employment of his choice, presupposes in principle that the person concerned has already fulfilled the conditions set out in the second indent of that paragraph, namely that he has worked for three years for the same employer;

– a Turkish worker who does not yet enjoy the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under that third indent must be in legal employment without interruption in the host Member State unless he can rely on a legitimate reason of the type laid down in Article 6(2) to justify his temporary absence from the labour force;

– Article 6(2) covers interruptions in periods of legal employment, which are characteristic of the occupation in question, since such interruptions are beyond the employee’s control.

(see para. 69, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax provisions – Corporation tax – Tax relief – National provisions preventing the deduction by a parent company of the losses incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that State – Lawfulness – Limits

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

Summary

As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not preclude provisions of a Member State which generally prevent a resident parent company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that Member State although they allow it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary.

However, it is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC to prevent the resident parent company from doing so where the non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for previous accounting periods and where there are no possibilities for those losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.

(see para. 59, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom of movement for workers

–

Workers

–

Restrictions (Art. 39 EC) (see paras 49-52, 55, operative part 1

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 10 EC and 39 EC – Conditions for the use by workers residing in Finland and employed abroad of vehicles registered abroad and made available to them by the employer

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by preventing cross-frontier workers residing in Finland and employed in another Member State from benefiting from the use of company vehicles which are made available by their employers established in another Member State and registered in the latter State on the sole ground that the cross-frontier workers concerned reside on Finnish territory, into which the vehicles belonging to their employers have been imported,

and

by preventing the cross-frontier workers concerned from benefiting, for professional and private purposes, from the use of company vehicles which are made available by their employers established in another Member State and registered in the latter State, while those vehicles are neither intended to be used mainly in Finland on a permanent basis nor, in fact, used in that way, on the sole ground that those workers reside on Finnish territory, into which the vehicles belonging to their employers have been imported,

the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
Case C-310/03





Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement Directive 1999/44/EC)»

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Indirect taxes on the raising of capital

(Council Directive 69/335, Arts 10(c) and 12(1)(a) and (e))

Summary

Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital precludes the charging of notarial fees for the authentication of a transfer of shares in a company made as a contribution in the course of an increase in the share capital of a capital company, in a system characterised by the fact that notaries are employed as civil servants and that the fees are, at least in part, paid to the State to subsidise public expenditure.

The fact that notaries are themselves creditors of the fees in question and that the part which they have to transfer to the State is relatively moderate, has no effect on the classification of the fees as a ‘tax’ within the meaning of Directive 69/335.

Those fees cannot constitute a tax on the transfer of securities within the meaning of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335. That provision must be strictly interpreted and cannot be understood as extending to taxes other than ‘duties on the transfer of securities’ in the proper sense of the term.

Nor do those fees constitute ‘duties paid by way of fees or dues’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335, since their amount increases directly, without limit, in proportion to the value of the shares transferred and thus to the underlying economic transaction. Only remuneration the amount of which is calculated on the basis of the cost of the service rendered can be qualified as ‘duties paid by way of fees or dues’. By contrast, where the amount payable is wholly unrelated to the cost of the service in question or is calculated, not by reference to the costs of the transaction for which it constitutes the consideration, but to all the operating and capital costs incurred by the administrative body, it must be regarded as a tax prohibited under Articles 10 and 11 of that directive.

(see paras 44, 46, 58-59, 62, 64-66, operative part)
Case C-168/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 89/655/EEC and 95/63/EC – Incomplete transposition – Additional adjustment period)

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/655 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work – Compliance with the minimum requirements – Work equipment in use – Grant of an additional adjustment period – Conditions

(Council Directive 89/655, as amended by Art. 4(1)(b) of Directive 95/63, and Annex I, point 1, para. (2))

The second paragraph of point 1 of Annex I to Directive 89/655 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work, as amended by Directive 95/63, according to which the minimum requirements laid down in that directive, inasmuch as they apply to work equipment in use, do not necessarily call for the same measures as the essential requirements concerning new work equipment, must be understood as meaning that it also amends to some extent the scope of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/655 in its original version, which obliges the employer to obtain and/or use work equipment which, if already provided to workers in the undertaking and/or establishment by 31 December 1992, complies with the minimum requirements laid down in the Annex to the directive no later than four years after that date.

Thus, the concession in relation to work equipment in use after 31 December 1996 must be understood in the light of the minimum requirements laid down in Annex I to Directive 89/655, as amended, which, according to the second paragraph of point 1 thereof, continue to apply to that equipment. Inasmuch as the lastmentioned provision states that, as regards such equipment, the minimum requirements do not necessarily call for the same measures as the essential requirements concerning new work equipment, it must be interpreted as increasing the opportunities for choice in the field of technical solutions if the measures taken are capable of securing the protection which those provisions are intended to achieve.

The transposition of Directive 89/655, as amended, is not carried out with the necessary clarity and precision by national provisions which make no reference to the rules contained in Annex I to the directive and which, for that reason, grant an additional adjustment period for work equipment already provided to workers in the undertaking and/or establishment before 27 August 1997.

(see paras 33-38)
Case C-166/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 28 EC – Marketing of articles made of precious metals – ‘Gold’ and ‘gold alloy’)

Summary of the Judgment

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)

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)
Case C-445/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Requirements imposed by the host Member State on undertakings which deploy within its territory salaried workers who are nationals of non‑member countries)

Summary of the Judgment

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

(Art. 49 EC)

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

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

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