ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directives 92/83 and 92/84 - Alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Minimum excise duty required for beer but not wine - Within the discretion of the Member States

(EC Treaty, Art. 95 (now, after amendment, Art. 90 EC); Council Directives 92/83 and 92/84)

2 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directives 92/83 and 92/84 - Alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Minimum excise duty required for beer but not wine - Whether permissible - Within the discretion of the Community legislature - Whether Article 99 of the Treaty (now Article 93 EC) infringed - No such infringement

(EC Treaty, Art. 99 (now Art. 93 EC))

3 Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directive 92/84 - Alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Difference between the minimum rates for wine and beer - Whether a specific statement of reasons required - No such requirement

(Council Directive 92/84)

Summary

1 Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Directive 92/84 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages merely require Member States to apply a minimum excise duty on beer. Consequently, the Member States retain a sufficiently wide margin of discretion to ensure that the relationship of the taxes on wine and beer excludes any protection for domestic production within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC).

2 The intention of the Community legislature in adopting Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Directive 92/84 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages was not to harmonise taxation as between wine and beer. Under the powers expressly conferred on it by Article 99 of the Treaty (now Article 93 EC), and in order to ensure the establishment and operation of the internal market, the Council was seeking to harmonise, first, national legislation on excise duty applicable to wine and, secondly, that relating to excise duty on beer. Moreover, the Community institutions are free to introduce harmonisation gradually or in stages. Accordingly, the adoption by the Council of those Directives, which require Member States merely to apply a minimum excise duty to beer, is not incompatible with Article 99.

3 The difference between the minimum rates for wine and beer, provided for by Directive 92/84 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages is not, strictly speaking, a measure adopted by the Council but the consequence of parallel harmonisation of domestic excise duties on wine and beer, so that it does not require any specific statement of reasons.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Free movement of goods - Community transit - Offences or irregularities - Recovery of import duty - Competent Member State

(Council Regulation No 222/77, Art. 36(3); Commission Regulation No 1062/87, Art. 11a(2))

2 Free movement of goods - Community transit - Offences or irregularities - Recovery of import duty - Lack of competence of the Member State in which the office of departure is located - Obligation to refund

(Council Regulation No 222/77, Art. 36(3), third subpara.; Commission Regulation No 1062/87, Art. 11a(2), second subpara.)

Summary

1 Article 36(3) of Regulation No 222/77 on Community transit - as amended by Regulation No 474/90 with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal frontier of the Community, in conjunction with Article 11a(2) of Regulation No 1062/87 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Regulation No 1429/90 - is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs may recover import duty only if it has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to prove where the offence or irregularity was actually committed and such proof has not been provided within that period.

2 The third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation No 222/77 as amended by Regulation No 474/90 is to be interpreted as not applying to a case in which the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has recovered duty in respect of goods cleared for the Community transit procedure even though the principal has not been set a time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of Regulation No 1062/87 as amended by Regulation No 1429/90, and in such a case the refund of the duty irregularly recovered is not subject to the condition that the duty due from the principal have been paid in the Member State where the offence was committed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Lump-sum payment made exclusively to women taking maternity leave - Whether permissible - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Arts 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Arts 136 EC to 143 EC))

Summary

$$The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does not preclude the making of a lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity leave, where that payment is designed to offset the occupational disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of being away from work. In such cases, male and female workers are in different situations, which excludes any breach of the principle of equal pay.

Such disadvantages may consist in the fact that a woman on maternity leave may not be proposed for promotion; that, on her return, her period of service will be reduced by the length of her absence; that a woman on maternity leave may not claim performance-related salary increases; that she may not be able to take part in certain training; lastly, that, since new technology is constantly changing the nature of jobs, her adaptation on returning from maternity leave becomes complicated.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification put forward - Not acceptable

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

2 Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings - To be exercised at its discretion

(EC Treaty, Art. 169, second para. (now Art. 226, second para., EC))

Summary

1 A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.

2 If the Member State to which a reasoned opinion has been issued has not, by the end of the period which it is for the Commission to lay down pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 226 EC), put an end to the infringement with which it is charged, the Commission is at liberty to decide whether or not to bring the matter before the Court.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Mere administrative practice does not constitute fulfilment of that obligation

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para. (now Art. 249, third para., EC))

2 Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination by the Court of the merits - Situation to be taken into account - Situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

Summary

1 Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State's obligations under Article 189 of the Treaty (now Article 249 EC).

2 In an action under Article 169 of the Treaty (now Article 226 EC), the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Review by the Court of the legal nature of the facts - Whether permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Article 225 EC))

2 Officials - Rights and obligations - Freedom of expression - Observance, despite the obligation of allegiance to the Communities - Official's comments on staff report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43, second para.)

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law - Operative part well founded on other legal grounds - Dismissal

Summary

1 Where the Court of First Instance has found or assessed facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 168a of the EC Treaty (now Article 225 EC) to review the legal nature of those facts and the legal consequences thereof as determined by the Court of First Instance.

2 The obligation of allegiance to the Communities imposed on officials in the Staff Regulations cannot be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with the right to freedom of expression.

Observance of that right is particularly important where an official is exercising his right under the second paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations to make any comments he considers relevant on a staff report communicated to him.

Therefore, whilst it would seem to be legitimate to require officials to show discretion, as indeed they are expressly required by Articles 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations to do, that requirement is not to be narrowly construed in respect of an official exercising his right under the second paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly, an official cannot be considered to have failed to meet that requirement unless he uses seriously insulting language or language which seriously undermines the respect due to the reporting officer.

3 Where the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance disclose an infringement of Community law but the operative part of the judgment is shown to be well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action brought by bodies representing the employees of the recipient undertaking - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) (now Art. 88(2) EC) and Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC, fourth para.))

Summary

$$Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 (now, after amendment, fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC) of the Treaty only if the decision at issue affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons, and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.

By itself, their status as negotiators with regard to social aspects of a decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market does not suffice to distinguish bodies representing the employees of the undertaking in receipt of aid individually just as in the case of the person to whom the decision at issue was addressed, where it is apparent from the account of the facts in the decision at issue that that status constitutes only a tenuous link with that decision and that the applicant bodies did not participate in the procedure initiated under Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC).

The fact that in one point of the grounds for the decision at issue the Commission mentioned considerations of a social nature is irrelevant, given that that institution did not base its assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the common market on that observation but that it is clear on the contrary from that decision, taken as a whole, that it is based on other grounds.

( see paras 39, 47-49, 51, 53-54 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid - Definition - Legal nature - Interpretation on the basis of objective factors - Judicial review - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

2. State aid - Definition - Aid from State resources

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

Summary

1. State aid, as defined in the Treaty, is a legal concept which must be interpreted on the basis of objective factors. For that reason, the Community courts must in principle, having regard both to the specific features of the case before them and to the technical or complex nature of the Commission's assessments, carry out a comprehensive review as to whether a measure falls within the scope of Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).

( see para. 25 )

2. Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) covers all the financial means by which the public sector may actually support undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those means are permanent assets of the public sector.

( see para. 50 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision concerning freedom of movement for workers - Family living together - Right of members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force in a Member State to work in an employed capacity in that Member State - Condition - Actual residence with the migrant worker for an uninterrupted period of three years - Periods to be taken into account for calculation of that period - Periods of marriage interrupted by a period of cohabitation - Included

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 7, first para.)

Summary

$$The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council must be interpreted as covering the situation of a Turkish national who has been authorised in her capacity as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State to join that worker there, in circumstances where that spouse, having divorced before the expiry of the three-year qualification period laid down in the first indent of that provision, still continued in fact to live uninterruptedly with her former spouse until the date on which the two former spouses remarried. Such a Turkish national must be regarded as legally resident in that Member State within the meaning of that provision, so that in that State she may rely directly on her right, after three years, to respond to any offer of employment, and, after five years, to enjoy free access to any paid employment of her choice.

( see para. 48 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Restrictions arising from the legislation of the Member State of establishment on the exercise of certain activities - Situation not regulated by a directive on mutual recognition of diplomas - Obligation of the Member State to compare the diplomas and qualifications required by national law with those obtained by the person concerned

(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 57 (now, after amendment, Arts 43 EC and 47 EC))

Summary

$$Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in a situation not regulated by a directive on mutual recognition of diplomas, a Community national applies for authorisation to practise a profession access to which depends, under national law, on the possession of a diploma or professional qualification, or on periods of practical experience, the competent authorities of the Member State concerned must take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications of the person concerned and his relevant experience, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and that experience with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules.

That interpretation is merely the expression in individual cases of a principle which is inherent in the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty. While that principle was indeed applied in cases concerning professions for the practice of which there were no harmonisation or coordination measures in existence at the time, its legal ambit cannot be reduced as a result of the adoption of directives on mutual recognition of diplomas. The object of such directives is to make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons, and hence to make the existing possibilities of taking up those activities easier for nationals of other Member States.

The function of directives which lay down common rules and criteria for mutual recognition of diplomas is thus to introduce a system in which Member States are obliged to accept the equivalence of certain diplomas and cannot require the persons concerned to comply with requirements other than those laid down by the relevant directives, and where the requirements set out in the directives are satisfied, that recognition renders superfluous the recognition of the diplomas under the above principle. However, that principle remains relevant in situations not covered by such directives.

( see paras 24, 31 to 34, 40 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of capital - Treaty provisions - Scope - Purchase of immovable property - Included

(EC Treaty, Art. 73b (now Art. 56 EC))

2. Free movement of capital - Restrictions on the acquisition of immovable property - Requirement of prior authorisation for the purchase of real estate situated in areas of military importance - Exemption only for nationals - Not permissible - Justification - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art 73b (now Art. 56 EC))

Summary

1. Whatever the reasons for it, the purchase of immovable property in a Member State by a non-resident constitutes an investment in real estate which falls within the category of capital movements between Member States. Freedom for such movements is guaranteed by Article 73b of the Treaty (now Article 56 EC).

( see para. 14 )

2. Article 73b of the Treaty (now Article 56 EC) precludes national legislation of a Member State which, on grounds relating to the requirements of defence of the national territory, exempts the nationals of that Member State, and only them, from the obligation to apply for an administrative authorisation for any purchase of real estate situated within an area of the national territory designated as being of military importance.

The position would be different only if it could be demonstrated to the competent national court that, in a particular area, non-discriminatory treatment of the nationals of all the Member States would expose the military interests of the Member State concerned to real, specific and serious risks which could not be countered by less restrictive procedures.

( see para. 24 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws - Public procurement procedures in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 93/38 - Effects of the directive on decisions of the contracting authority adopted before expiry of the period for transposition - None

(Council Directive 93/38)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Proof of failure - Burden on Commission - Submission of evidence that the obligation has not been fulfilled

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

Summary

1. In the area of public procurement, Community law does not require an awarding authority in a Member State to intervene, at the request of an individual, in existing legal relations established for an indefinite period or for several years where those relations came into being before expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the directive in question. That general principle can be applied to all the stages of a procedure for the award of a contract which are completed before the expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of a directive but form part of a procedure which ended after that date. Accordingly, Directive 93/38 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors is not applicable to the choice made by the contracting entity's decision to use a negotiated procedure without a prior call for competition to award a contract, made before the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing that directive and forming part of an award procedure which was not completed until after the expiry of the period prescribed.

( see paras 38-39, 41-42 )

2. In proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty (now Article 226 EC) for failure to fulfil an obligation, it is incumbent on the Commission to prove that the obligation has not been fulfilled and to place before the Court the evidence necessary to enable it to determine whether that is the case.

( see para. 45 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect - Internal taxation - Ad valorem charge on exported products, not imposed on either the same products on the domestic market or those imported from another Member State - Criterion for classification

(EC Treaty, Arts 9, 12 and 95 (now, after amendment, Arts 23 EC, 25 EC and 90 EC) and Art. 16 (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam))

Summary

1. An ad valorem charge on exported tobacco products, which is not levied either on the same tobacco products when they are sold on the domestic market or on those imported from another Member State, cannot escape, by reason of its social objective, classification as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on exports that is incompatible with Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 23 EC and 25 EC) and Article 16 of the Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), unless the allegedly comparable charge levied on domestic products is applied at the same rate, at the same marketing stage and on the basis of a chargeable event which is identical to that giving rise to a charge on exports.

( see para. 26 and operative part 1 )

2. Although Community law does not preclude a Member State from refusing repayment of charges levied in breach of its provisions where it is established that repayment would entail unjust enrichment, it does preclude any presumption or rule of evidence intended to shift to the trader concerned the burden of proving that the charges unduly paid have not been passed on to other persons and to prevent him from adducing evidence in order to refute any allegation that the charges have been passed on.

( see para. 42 and operative part 2 )