ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

In its first submission, the applicant complains that the Commission unfairly allocated a small delivery quota to it. In its view, the Commission was at fault in two ways: in the first place, by permitting Sideradria to deliver on the common market only half of the goods which it produced, it obliged the applicant to use only 25% of its working capacity; secondly, by imposing such an ‘abnormal limitation’ on the applicant, the Commission discriminated against it in relation to the great majority of European undertakings, which are allowed to deliver practically their entire production on the common market. Although the latter contention is not supported by any evidence (the Commission has produced figures showing that as far as the ratio between production and deliveries is concerned, the applicant's situation is at least comparable to that of many other undertakings), the first contention is certainly insufficient to substantiate the allegation that the contested decision is unlawful. In fact, Sideradria does not deny that the supervisory authority, in fixing the disputed quota, complied scrupulously with the applicable rules. It claims however that ‘confronted with the manifest unfairness of the situation in which the applicant finds itself, the Commission cannot take refuge behind a strict application of the rules in force’. That argument cannot be sustained since it is clear that failure to discharge its obligation to determine the size of the quotas by applying the relevant rules would have constituted a misuse of powers on the part of the Commission in favour of Sideradria. That is so even if Sideradria's submission is understood as seeking to challenge not so much the size of the delivery quota as the methods of calculating it, and beyond that, the criteria used to determine the reference figures on the basis of which both types of quota are fixed. Those methods and criteria are set out in general decisions which have been definitive for some time and the lawfulness of which may not for that reason be directly challenged. In conclusion, Sideradria's first submission does not concern the contested decision and, in any event, is not supported by appropriate arguments. It must therefore be rejected.
4.

Those, and only those, are the terms of the dispute. I do not intend to consider the question whether in this case it is really necessary for the Netherlands to adopt a law, as its Government has always maintained. I shall merely draw attention to the 1981 judgment in which the Court stated that, in order to comply with the obligation imposed in Article 11 (2), ‘the ... State is bound to select and put into effect specific measures which will make possible the exercise of the right granted to officials to transfer rights acquired in national employment to the Communities' pension scheme’. The absence of ‘rules for the transfer of pension rights would have the effect of depriving officials of the Community of the very right to exercise the option granted to them by the Staff Regulations’ (the emphasis is mine). The fundamental question is therefore as follows: are any ‘specific measures’ referred to in the Court's decision available to Netherlands officials of the Communities? The Netherlands Government considers that it is able to answer that question in the affirmative, as I have just shown. However, I note that the instructions which it gave to the Pension Fund in no way constitute a set of rules capable of ensuring the effective transfer of pension rights to the Community scheme. On the contrary, in my view, those instructions merely refer to the normal tasks of any public body, which is of course bound to examine any requests submitted by individuals in connection with a right which is specific to them. In other words those instructions do not compel the body to which they were addressed actually to effect the transfer of rights and they do not establish binding criteria which it must observe. Indeed, the Netherlands Government itself acknowledged at the hearing that it was not able to give such specific instructions to the governing board of the Pension Fund, and that clearly explains why so far not a single transfer within the meaning of Article 11 (2) has taken place. An obligation was imposed upon the Netherlands to introduce rules giving effect to the rights granted by Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. It has not done so and that fact provides sufficient grounds for a finding that it has failed to fulfil its Community obligations.
3.

Accordingly, I shall endeavour, having regard to previous decisions of the Court, ( 2 ) to determine the exact scope of the question submitted by the French court, on the basis of the facts of the case. Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972, as amended by Council Regulation No 1382/84 of 7 May 1984, provides for the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables. One of the features of the common organization of the market consists in the introduction and uniform application of ‘quality standards’ for fruit and vegetables marketed within the Community or exported to non-member countries. In those circumstances, compliance with those common standards is essential for the application of intervention measures in the markets for which common organizations exist, with a view to eliminating produce of unsatisfactory quality from the market and avoiding any excessive fall in prices. However, it is equally clear that consumer protection and the satisfaction of consumer requirements constitute one of the essential objectives of the common organization of the market and of the common rules thereof. Accordingly, Article 2 (1) of Regulation No 1035/72 provides that, where ‘quality standards’ exist, they are to be established for ‘products to be delivered fresh to the consumer’. It is therefore against that background that the wording of Article 3 (1) of Regulation No 1035/72, and likewise the scope of the exceptions to it provided for in paragraphs (2) and (3) of that article, should be construed. Article 3 (1) of the regulation provides as follows: ‘When quality standards have been established, products to which they apply may not be displayed or offered for sale, sold, delivered or marketed in any other manner within the Community unless they conform to the standards’. It was with that provision in mind that the tribunal de police, Chaumont, asked the Court whether the transportation by a trader himself of fruit purchased direct from the producers in a specific region to his own commercial premises located outside that region was to be regarded as a delivery or act of marketing.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 1 October 1986. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the implementing measures provided for in directives on the marketing of straight feedingstuffs). - Case 365/85.



European Court reports 1987 Page 00259



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1 . This application for a declaration that Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations presents few difficulties . The failure is established and, moreover, is not contested by the defendant State .

Council Directives 77/101 and 79/372 and Commission Directives 79/797 and 80/510 concern the harmonization of national laws applicable to the marketing of animal feedingstuffs . The period for transposing those directives into national law expired on 1 January 1981 and the Member States were under a duty to inform the Commission forthwith of provisions adopted to that effect .

The Italian Republic has not yet adopted legal provisions implementing the directives, as was confirmed by the representative at the hearing .

2 . The Court has consistently held that :

"The governments of the Member States participate in the preparatory work for directives and must therefore be in a position to prepare, within the period prescribed, the draft legislative provisions necessary for their implementation"

( judgments in Cases 136, 148, 149 and 151/81 of 12 October 1982 ).

The transposition of directives in good time is mandatory . Since they concern the harmonization of national laws, any delay in adopting the laws or provisions necessary for their implementation constitutes a breach in the uniformity of application of Community law contrary to the fundamental rules laid down in Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty .

3 . Consequently, I propose that the Court should declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary provisions for the implementation of the abovementioned directives by 1 January 1981, Italy has failed to fulfil its Community obligations .

(*) Translated from the French .
152.

(a) The Verwaltungsgericht has raised this question only in the event of the Court taking the view that the contested measure is covered by Article 4 of Regulation No 1079/77. Should the Court take that view, the Verwaltungsgericht raises the question whether that provision is framed too broadly and thus fails to accord with the constitutional requirements of the principle that there must be a sufficient degree of legislative precision. The principle of administrative legality entails for the adoption of administrative measures not just any grant of authorization but one which is defined and limited in precise terms. Authorization must not be framed so loosely that in the last analysis it is not the legislature but the executive which defines the specific limitations on freedom. Since Article 4 of Regulation No 1079/77 gives the Commission such a broad discretion that it is no longer possible to ascertain how the Commission is to exercise that power — that is to say, what is to be the specific content, purpose and scale of its actions — that provision is not sufficiently precise. It is not made clear that the Community may also achieve the expansion of the markets by giving away to the final consumer an amount of butter equivalent to half of the quantity he buys. It may indeed be asked how the gratuitous disposal of butter can expand markets, since the word ‘markets’ is an economic term whilst the giving away of products cannot be regarded as an economic activity.
39.

May I draw the Court's attention to the following facts: (a) The new regulation was published on 5 September 1986 after the end of the written procedure in the action but several months before the hearing; the Federal German Government informed the Commission that a draft had been drawn up during the pre-litigation procedure and forwarded to the Commission in 1985, apparently in April, before the application was even lodged. (b) At the hearing the Commission's agent mentioned the possibility that it would withdraw the complaint concerning Articles 15 and 16 of the directive in terms which caused the agent for the Federal Republic of Germany to believe that all the complaints had been withdrawn apart from that concerning Article 11 (3) of the directive; (c) After the hearing the Commission expressly withdrew two of the remaining complaints, in the light of the amendment made to the 1980 Law by the Gesetz zum Schutz der Kulturpflanzen (Law on the protection of cultivated plants) of 19 September 1986. However, it made no comment as regards the complaints affected by the new regulation, even though it was requested by the Court to ‘revise its position’ in that regard; (d) The Commission's agent admitted that he had not become aware of the new law on cultivated plants until 4 February 1987, owing to problems connected with the internal organization of the institution and the procedure had raised no ground on which the new decree merited attention; however, no request was made for the hearing to be adjourned to permit further consideration of the question; (e) The questions arising from the present application do not raise questions of principle on Community law, but only technical questions concerning the implementation of a harmonizing directive.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 25 March 1987. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Methods of testing the biodegradability of surfactants - Implementation of certain directiaves in national law. - Case 134/86.



European Court reports 1987 Page 02415



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1 . Since no fresh facts or arguments were raised at the hearing, I may be very brief .

2 . It is common ground that the Kingdom of Belgium has not yet adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with the two directives in question on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to methods of testing the biodegradability of non-ionic and anionic surfactants, although the prescribed period for their implementation expired on 8 October 1983 .

3 . While quite understanding the reasons put forward by the Belgian Government to explain that delay, I can but reiterate what the Court has consistently held in such situations : "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 obligations and time-limits laid down by directives" ( see, most recently, the judgment of 12 March 1987 in Case 9/86 Commission v Belgium (( 1987 )), paragraph 5 ).

4 . I therefore suggest that the Court should allow the Commission' s application, declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil the obligations in question and order it to pay the costs .

(*) Translated from the French .
63.

V — I therefore propose that the Court should give the following answers to the questions submitted by the Gerechtshof, Arnhem: (1) Regulation No 827/68 of the Council of 28 June 1968 does not prevent a Member State from adopting a system under which all poultry offal intended for processing, so as to render it harmless by converting it into useful products, must be handed over, in principle free of charge, to a limited number of duly licensed undertakings, provided that the same objectives cannot be attained by a system which is less restrictive of freedom of trade within the Community. (2) Article 30 of the Treaty prevents the imposition, as part of such a system, of restrictions on the importation of offal lawfully marketed in other Member States, which make it impossible to take advantage of such market conditions as exist, provided that the other marketing requirements applicable to national traders are fulfilled. (3) The Community rules on free movement of goods and, in particular, Article 34 of the Treaty, prohibit a system of the type provided for by the Destruc-tiewet for the collection and destruction of poultry offal unfit for human consumption to the extent to which it leads to an absolute prohibition of exports of such offal, purportedly justified by the fact that such a system is necessary to ensure the profitability of licensed rendering plants. Any restriction introduced under Article 36 of the Treaty, in particular for the protection of the life and health of humans and animals, must be non-discriminatory and proportionate to the objective pursued.
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 15 June 1989. - Andreas Jaeger v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Former employee of the European Association for Cooperation. - Case 161/86.



European Court reports 1989 Page 02467

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered his Opinion on 15 June 1989 . (* ) He proposed that the application should be dismissed as unfounded and, pursuant to Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties be ordered to bear their own costs .

(*) Original language : French .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 12 January 1989. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure to fulfil obligations - VAT Directive - Implementation. - Case 353/87.



European Court reports 1989 Page 00263

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion on 12 January 1989 . (*) He proposed that the Court should find that the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations and order it to pay the costs .

(*) Original language : French .
61988C0046

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 11 April 1989. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Mergers and division of public limited liability companies; transposition of certain directives in international law. - Case 46/88.



European Court reports 1989 Page 01133

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm
JOINED OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS DELIVERED ON 27 JUNE 1989. - HELMUT MUELLERS AND CLAUDE LAVAL V ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE. - OFFICIALS - REORGANISATION OF DEPARTMENTS - ESTABLISHMENT. - CASES 81/88 AND 95/88.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-00249

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion on 27 June 1989 . (*) He concluded that the Court should :

( 1)dismiss the application;

( 2 ) orderthe Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs .

(*) Original language : English .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 27 September 1989. - Dimitrios Patrinos v Economic and Social Committee des Communautés européennes. - Officials - Non-establishment of a probationary official at the end of his proabationary period. - Case C-17/88.



European Court reports 1989 Page 04249

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion on 27 September 1989 . (*) He proposed that the Court should :

( 1)Dismiss the application;

( 2 ) Orderthe parties to bear their own costs .

(*) Original language : German .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 16 January 1990. - Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - Clearance of EAGGF accounts - Birth premiums for calves. - Case C-10/88.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-01229

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion on 16 January 1990 . (*) He proposed that the Court should :

( 1 ) declare void Commission Decision 87/541/EEC of 21 October 1987 amending Decisions 87/468/EEC and 87/469/EEC on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, expenditure for 1984 and 1985, in so far as the Commission refuses to charge to the EAGGF for 1985 an amount of LIT 19 045 553 222 presented by the Italian Republic in respect of payments of birth premiums for calves ( 1983/84 );

( 2 ) order the Commission to pay the costs .

(*) Original language : Dutch .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 14 February 1990. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - State aid - Recovery - Failure to implement. - Case C-74/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-00491

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion on 14 February 1990 . (*) He proposed that the Court should :

( i)declare that by not recovering within the prescribed period the aid in the sum of BFR 725 million granted to a synthetic fibre producer, thereby failing to comply with the Commission Decision of 30 November 1983 on the proposal of the Belgian Government to grant aid to a synthetic fibre producer, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

( ii)order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .

(*) Original language : German .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 16 May 1990. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect - Marketing of food extracts of animal or vegetable origin. - Case C-177/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-02429

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion on 16 May 1990 . (*) He proposed that the Court should declare that, by subjecting imports of extracts, concentrated soups, or stock cubes of animal or vegetable origin intended for consumption, from other Member States in which they were lawfully manufactured and marketed to a system of authorization by the minister and to restrictions relating to the composition, description and packaging of the products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty . He proposed that the Court should order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs, including those relating to the head of claim withdrawn by the Commission .

(*) Original language : French .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 27 June 1990. - Beate Reibold v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundessozialgericht - Germany. - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) Nº 1408/71, Article 71 (1) (b) (ii) - Concept of residence. - Case C-216/89.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-04163

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion on 27 June 1990 . (*) He proposed that the Court should rule as follows :

Article 71(1)(b)(ii ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 must be interpreted as applying in the case where a worker accepts employment in another Member State for some two years, where he obtains that employment under a university exchange scheme which normally limits the duration of the employment at the outset and where the work of the person concerned is interrupted by long holiday periods which the worker spends in accommodation he retained in his State of origin .

(*) Original language : Italian .
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 23 October 1990. - Haniel Spedition GmbH v Commission of the European Communities. - Commission Regulation (EEC) Nº 2200/87 - Withholding of part of payments in respect of food aid. - Case C-226/89.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-01599

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++

Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion on 23 October 1990. (*) He concluded that the Court should:

(1) Declare void the Commission' s decision of 8 May 1989 deducting ECU 55 451.50 from the amount due under the tender;

(2) Order the Commission to pay the costs.

(*) Original language: English.
61989C0375

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 24 January 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure of a State to fulfil obligations - Failure to comply with the judgment in Case 5/86. - Case C-375/89.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-00383

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm