ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-189/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Private security firms)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Security firms and detective agencies established in another Member State – Obligation to obtain prior authorisation for the undertakings and their managers and an identity card for their staff – Failure to take into account the obligations in the Member State of establishment – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Art. 49 EC)

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC if it adopts provisions which:

- require that private security firms and detective agencies that wish to provide services in that State and their managers must have a permit, without taking into account the obligations to which foreign service providers are already subject in the Member State where they are established, and by charging fees for this permit, and

- require that members of the staff of these firms seconded from the Member State where they are established to work in the Member State concerned have a proof of identity card issued by its authorities, in so far as the checks to which cross-frontier providers of services are already subject in their Member State of origin are not taken into account for the requirement in question.

Such requirements are restrictions on the freedom to provide services which go beyond what is necessary to attain the stated purpose and cannot therefore be justified on grounds of public interest.

(see paras 18, 20, 30, 33, operative part)
Case C-117/03

Società Italiana Dragaggi SpA and Others

v

Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato)

(Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora – National list of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance – Conservation measures)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 8 July 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 13 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43 – Special areas of conservation – Sites, included in the national lists, eligible for identification as sites of Community importance – Protective measures – Inapplicability of the measures prescribed in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) – Obligation on the Member States to safeguard their ecological interest

(Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5), and 6(2),(3) and (4))

On a proper construction of Article 4(5) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the protective measures prescribed in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of that directive are required only as regards sites which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the directive, are on the list of sites selected as sites of Community importance adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21 of the directive. Consequently, those measures do not apply to the sites included in the national lists transmitted to the Commission pursuant to Article 4(1) of the directive.

However, by virtue of that directive, the Member States are required, as regards the latter sites, which are eligible for identification as sites of Community importance, and in particular as regards those hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, to take protective measures that are appropriate, from the point of view of the directive’s conservation objective, for the purpose of safeguarding the relevant ecological interest which those sites have at national level.

(see paras 21-22, 25, 28-30, operative part)
Case C-36/03

Approved Prescription Services Ltd

v

Licensing Authority

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court))

(Medicinal products – Marketing authorisation – Procedures for essentially similar products)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Medicinal products – Marketing authorisation – Hybrid abridged procedure – Reference medicinal product when considering application for authorisation – Right of competent authority to refer to the new pharmaceutical form of a product which has been authorised within the Community for at least 6 or 10 years

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 10(1)(a)(iii))

An application for marketing authorisation for a Product C may be made under the hybrid abridged procedure established under Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use where the application seeks to demonstrate that Product C is essentially similar to a Product B, in circumstances where Product B is a new pharmaceutical form of Product A, and Product A, but not Product B, has been authorised for marketing in the Community for at least the 6 or 10 year period stipulated therein.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Case C-188/03

Irmtraud Junk

v

Wolfgang Kühnel

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Berlin)

(Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Consultation with workers’ representatives – Notification to the competent public authority – Concept of ‘redundancy’ – Time at which redundancy takes effect)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 30 September 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 27 January 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Concept of collective redundancy – Event constituting redundancy

(Council Directive 98/59, Arts 2 to 4)

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Consultation and notification procedures – Obligation on an employer not to carry out redundancies before the end of the consultation procedure and before the competent authorities have been notified

(Council Directive 98/59, Arts 2 to 4)

1. Articles 2 to 4 of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, which impose obligations on employers as to consultation and notification, must be construed as meaning that the event constituting redundancy consists in the declaration by an employer of his intention to terminate the contract of employment, the actual cessation of that relationship on the expiry of the period of notice being no more than the effect of the decision to carry out the redundancy.

(see paras 36, 39, operative part 1)

2. An employer is entitled to carry out collective redundancies after the conclusion of the consultation procedure provided for in Article 2 of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies and after notification of the projected collective redundancies as provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of that directive.

(see para. 54, operative part 2)
Case C-467/03

Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH

v

Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München)

(Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Tariff classification of a digital recording machine – Classification under the Combined Nomenclature)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 20 January 2005

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Machine which records and reproduces signals for video surveillance purposes – Machine which performs a specific function other than data processing within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature





A machine which, for video surveillance purposes, records signals from cameras and, after compressing them, reproduces them on screen, performs a specific function other than data processing within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2031/2001.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Import regime – Tariff quota – Barley – Quota referring only to high-graded barley – Breach of the principle of non-discrimination – None

(Art. 34( 2), second para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 1269/1999 and 822/2001)

Summary

The restriction of the scope of the Community tariff quotas opened by Regulations Nos 1269/1999 and 822/2001 to high-graded barley only, intended for the production of malt to be used in the manufacture of beers aged in tanks containing beechwood, does not constitute a breach of the principle of non-discrimination where it is objectively justified by the differences between that barley on the one hand, and barley intended for the production of other beers on the other.

(see para. 22)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers — Insurance relating to old age and death — Calculation of benefits — Determination of the theoretical amount — Inclusion of the amount necessary to reach the minimum pension under national legislation of a Member State — Not included — Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 46(2)(a))

Summary

Article 46(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the theoretical amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro rata pension is based, the competent institution is not required to take into consideration a supplement intended to bring the pension to the minimum level under national legislation where, on account of the fact that the income limits fixed by the national legislation on that supplement are exceeded, an insured person who has worked exclusively in the Member State concerned cannot lay claim to such a supplement.

(see para. 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Amount legally owed — Meaning — Failure properly to communicate the amount to the debtor — Included

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 221(1) and 236(1), first para.)

Summary

Article 236(1), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code provides that import duties or export duties shall be repaid in particular where it is established that ‘when they were paid the amount of such duties was not legally owed’. For the purposes of that provision, import duties or export duties are legally owed where a customs duty has been incurred within the conditions laid down by Chapter 2 of Title VII of that Code and where the amount of those duties could be determined by the application of the Common Customs Tariff in accordance with the provisions of Title II of that Code.

The amount of the import duties or export duties remains legally owed within the meaning of that article, even where that amount has not been communicated to the debtor in accordance with Article 221(1) of the Code.

The incurring of a customs debt precedes the communication of its amount and is therefore necessarily independent of that communication. That communication cannot therefore have an influence on the existence of the customs debt.

(see paras 26, 29, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Privileges and immunities of the European Communities — Officials and servants of the Communities — Decision of a community institution defining the status of one of its servants and determining his conditions of employment — Binding on the national activities

(Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, Arts 13 and 16)

Summary

For the purposes of applying Articles 13 and 16 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the decision of a Community institution defining the status of one of its servants and determining his conditions of employment is binding on national judicial and administrative authorities, so that they cannot make an independent classification of the employment relationship in question.

(see para. 39, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – Domestic legislation requiring a self-employed worker resident in the Member State concerned to register there a vehicle made available to him by his employer established in another Member State – Not permissible – No justification

(Art. 43 EC)

Summary

It is contrary to Article 43 EC for the domestic legislation of one Member State to require a self-employed worker residing in that Member State to register there a company vehicle made available to him by the company for which he works, established in another Member State, when it is not intended that that vehicle should be used essentially in the first Member State on a permanent basis and it is not, in fact, used in that manner.

Such an obligation to register cannot be justified on grounds of preventing tax avoidance or abuse, of the need for reliable identification, of road safety or yet of environmental policy.

(see paras 44-45, 48-49, 52, 55, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374

(Council Directive 85/374, Art. 11)

2. Approximation of laws – Liability for defective products – Directive 85/374

(Council Directive 85/374, Arts 1 and 3)

Summary

1. Article 11 of Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, which establishes that the rights conferred on the injured person are extinguished upon the expiry of a period of 10 years from the date on which the product was put into circulation, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product is put into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed.

It is irrelevant whether the product is sold directly by the producer to the user or to the consumer or that sale is carried out by one or more of the links in the distribution chain. When one of the links in the distribution chain is closely connected to the producer, the consequence of that link is that that entity may be regarded as being involved in the manufacturing process of the product concerned.

(see paras 27-29, 32, operative part 1)

2. When an action is brought under Directive 85/374 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products against a company mistakenly considered to be the producer of a product whereas, in reality, it was manufactured by another company, it is as a rule for national law to determine the conditions in accordance with which one party may be substituted for another in the context of such an action.

A national court examining the conditions governing such a substitution must, however, ensure that due regard is had to the personal scope of the Directive, as determined by Articles 1 and 3 thereof, in so far as the determination in those provisions of the class of persons liable must be regarded as exhaustive.

(see paras 35, 39, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)( b))

Summary

Where it is established in fact that the objective characteristics of a given product mean that the average consumer purchases it only after a particularly careful examination, it is important in law to take into account that such a fact may reduce the likelihood of confusion, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, between marks relating to such goods at the crucial moment when the choice between those goods and marks is made.

The fact that the relevant public is also likely to perceive such goods and the marks relating to them in circumstances unconnected with any act of purchase and to display, where appropriate, a lower level of attention on such occasions does not prevent the taking into account of the particularly high level of attention exhibited by the average consumer when he prepares and makes his choice between different goods in the category concerned.

First, it is clear that, whatever the goods and marks at issue, there will always be situations in which the public faced with them will grant them only a low degree of attention. However, to require that account be taken of the lowest degree of attention which the public is capable of displaying when faced with a product and a mark would amount to denying all relevance, for the purpose of an assessment of the likelihood of confusion, to the criterion relating to the variable level of attention according to the category of goods.

Second, the authority called upon to assess whether there is a likelihood of confusion cannot reasonably be required to establish, for each category of goods, the consumer’s average amount of attention on the basis of the level of attention which he is capable of displaying in different situations.

(see paras 40-43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Applicable legislation – Person simultaneously employed in one Member State and self-employed in another Member State

(EC Treaty, Arts 48 and 52 (now, after amendment, Arts 39 EC and 43 EC); Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 14c(b), as amended by Regulation No 1606/98)

Summary

As regards a person simultaneously employed in one Member State and self-employed in another Member State, Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) and Article 14c(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1606/98, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which includes, in the basis for calculating social security contributions, interest such as that paid by a company established in that Member State to a national of the first State resident in the second State and who is subject, under that regulation and taking into account the nature of his occupational activities, to the social security legislation of both those Member States.

Even if the rule prohibiting the levy of double contributions, laid down under Article 14c(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, to the effect that each of the Member States concerned can levy contributions only on the part of the income obtained in its territory, applies not only to income from gainful employment and income from self-employed activity, but extends to all the income of persons falling within the provisions of that article, the fact that that regulation does not lay down any criterion connecting the income earned through interest payments to the Member State where the worker pursues an activity cannot in itself prevent that Member State from levying social security contributions in respect of that income where it is not subject to the levy of social contributions in the Member State in which the worker resides and pursues the other activity.

In that regard, the Treaty offers no guarantee to a worker that extending his activities into more than one Member State or transferring them to another Member State will be neutral as regards social security. Given the disparities in the social security legislation of the Member States, to which, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it falls to determine the conditions governing the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme, such an extension or transfer may be to the worker’s advantage in terms of social security or not, according to circumstance. It follows that, even where its application is less favourable, such legislation is still compatible with Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty if it does not place the worker at a disadvantage as compared with those who pursue all their activities in the Member State where it applies or as compared with those who were already subject to it and if it does not simply result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return.

(see paras 29-32, 34, 40, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable amount – Importation of goods

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 29; Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2(2) and 11B(1))

2. Common Customs Tariff – Value for customs purposes – Transaction value – Determination

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 29)

Summary

1. Since the Island of Jersey is an integral part of the Community customs territory but constitutes a third territory as regards the rules established by Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, the supply of goods by a company established in Jersey to a customer resident in the United Kingdom constitutes an importation within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Sixth Directive. The taxable amount is defined by Article 11B(1) of that directive as ‘the value for customs purposes, determined’ in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.

In the case of a transaction composed of several elements, the principles derived from case‑law, relating to the scope of such a transaction subject to value added tax within a Member State, cannot be used to determine the elements of the transaction to be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 29 of the Customs Code.

(see paras 17, 22, operative part 2)

2. Article 29 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that payment for a supply of services, such as examination, consultation or aftercare required in connection with contact lenses, and for goods, consisting of those lenses, the cleaning solutions and the soaking cases, constitutes as a whole the ‘transaction value’ within the meaning of Article 29 of the Customs Code and is, therefore, dutiable, to the extent that the offer is a global one in respect of which a single payment is made.

(see paras 34-35, operative part 1)