ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Award of reference quantities exempt from the levy - Producers who suspended deliveries under the non-marketing premium scheme - Grant of a special reference quantity - Definitive allocation to a producer holding an original reference quantity but who has not himself used the provisional special reference quantity in order to increase current milk production on his holding - Excluded

(Council Regulation No 857/84, Art. 3(3), first sentence, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91)

Summary

$$The first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the additional levy on milk, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91, must be interpreted in the light of the principles governing the system for the grant of a special reference quantity as meaning that a producer holding an original reference quantity who provisionally receives a special reference quantity in addition may not be definitively allocated that special reference quantity, regardless of the other conditions required, when he himself has not used it in order to increase current milk production on his holding. That is the case where a producer leases out his original reference quantity and produces on his holding only his provisional special reference quantity of milk.

( see para. 40 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Prohibition on the use of trichloroethylene for industrial purposes accompanied by a system of exemptions - Justification - Protection of public health

(EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 28 EC and 30 EC))

Summary

$$National legislation which lays down a general prohibition on the use of trichloroethylene for industrial purposes and establishes a system of individual exemptions, granted subject to conditions, constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) which is justified under Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC) on grounds of the protection of health of humans.

Taking account of the latest medical research on the subject, and also the difficulty of establishing the threshold above which exposure to trichloroethylene poses a serious health risk to humans, given the present state of the research, it does not appear that such legislation goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective in view. In particular, the system of individual exemptions, granted subject to conditions, established by the regulation appears to be appropriate and proportionate in that it offers increased protection for workers, whilst at the same time taking account of the undertakings' requirements in the matter of continuity.

( see paras 35, 45-46, 49 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport - Road transport - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 93/89 - Tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures - Difference in tariff applied to certain vehicles according to whether they are following the full itinerary or a partial itinerary on a motorway - Indirect discrimination based on the nationality of hauliers and on the destination or origin of the vehicle - Justification - Not permissible

(Council Directive 93/89, Art. 7(b))

2. Transport - Road transport - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 93/89 - Tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures - Obligation to set toll rates by reference to the operating costs of the infrastructure network concerned - Breach

EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC); Council Directive 93/89, Art. 7(h))

Summary

1. A tariff difference to which vehicles with more than three axles carrying goods are subject, depending on whether those vehicles follow the full itinerary on a motorway or one of the partial itineraries, which operates to the detriment of hauliers who are nationals of the other Member States, involves indirect discrimination based on the nationality of hauliers contrary to Article 7(b) of Directive 93/89 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures. Moreover, such a tariff difference also involves indirect discrimination by reason of the origin or destination of the vehicle contrary to that same provision where it operates to the detriment of vehicles engaged in transit traffic.

That tariff difference cannot be justified in either case on grounds of environmental protection or considerations of national transport policy since, in the area covered by the Directive, the Community legislature did not wish to allow States to derogate from the rules laid down therein except on the grounds, and in accordance with the conditions, laid down in the Directive. Neither the recitals in the preamble to the Directive nor the provisions of the Directive contemplate the possibility of relying on such grounds in order to justify tariff arrangements which give rise to indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 7(b) of the Directive.

( see paras 90, 93, 95, 101, 114-115 )

2. A Member State which does not apply the tolls demanded for the full itinerary on a motorway only in order to cover the costs linked with the construction, operation and development of that motorway fails to fulfil its obligation under Article 7(h) of Directive 93/89 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures. The infrastructure network concerned within the meaning of that provision refers only to the section of the infrastructure for the use of which the toll is paid and not to all the sections of the motorway which form part of the same financing system.

( see paras 126, 130, 140 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Computerised database of a Member State - Disclosure by the competent authority to a new operator of information relating to the data provided by a previous applicant for compensatory payments - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 3508/92, Arts 3(1) and 9)

2. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Refusal by the competent authority to disclose the information necessary to ensure the proper submission of an application for aid - Imposition of penalties on the basis of undisclosed information - Not permissible

(Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 9)

Summary

1. Articles 3(1) and 9 of Regulation No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, coupled with the general principles of Community law, allow the competent authorities, after balancing the respective interests of the persons concerned, to disclose data relating to crops sown during the preceding years, and which have been supplied by or on behalf of a former claimant for payment under the arable area payment scheme, to a new farmer who has need of those data in order to be able to apply for such payments in respect of the same fields and who is unable otherwise to obtain them.

( see para. 39 and operative part 1 )

2. In the event of refusal to disclose the information necessary to ensure that an application for aid is valid, the competent authority cannot, on the basis of the information which it did not provide to the applicant at the time of the request for information, impose penalties on him under Article 9 of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes.

( see para. 47 and operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC - Steel aid - Commission authorisation - General decisions and individual decisions - Adoption of individual decisions to authorise aid not coming under any of the categories of aid authorised by a general decision - Competence

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(c) and 95; Decision No 3855/91, Art. 1(1))

2. ECSC - Steel aid - Commission authorisation - General decisions and individual decisions - Protection of legitimate expectations arising under the Fifth Code as to the possibility of derogation from that Code - No legitimate expectation

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 95; Decision No 3855/91)

Summary

1. Article 1(1) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code contains no general prohibition of aid but simply defines in general terms the scope of the derogation provided for in Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. Accordingly, that provision of the Code is not intended to exclude the adoption of other measures derogating from the prohibition laid down in Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.

Moreover, Article 1(1) of the Code must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is not competent, under the Code, to approve, in accordance with the simplified procedures introduced by the latter, aid not covered by Articles 2 to 5 of the Code, and that, on the contrary, it is competent to adopt, pursuant to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, with the unanimous assent of the Council, supplementary measures, whether general or individual, approving aid not covered by the Fifth Aid Code.

Consequently, the Court of First Instance was right to hold, first, that the Fifth Aid Code represented a binding legal framework only for aid compatible with the ECSC Treaty and enumerated by it and, second, that the Commission is empowered to have recourse to Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty in order to adopt individual decisions.

( see paras 30, 34, 43 )

2. After finding that the Fifth Aid Code did not pursue the same purpose as the Commission decisions adopted to deal with an exceptional situation, the Court of First Instance was right to infer that the Code was not capable in any circumstances of giving rise to legitimate expectations regarding the possibility of derogating from that Code, in exceptional cases, by means of individual decisions based on Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty.

The Court of First Instance was also correct in holding that the proper functioning of the common market in steel clearly involves the obvious need for constant adjustments to fluctuations in the economic situation and economic operators cannot claim a vested right to the maintenance of the legal situation existing at a given time. An undertaking cannot legitimately expect that a given legal situation will remain unchanged even though the economic conditions in the steel market are subject to changes which, in some cases, call for specific measures of adjustment.

( see paras 51-52 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653 - Provisions guaranteeing certain rights to the agent after termination of the agency contract - Territorial scope - Agent carrying on his activity in a Member State - Application of those provisions - Principal established in a non-member country - Agency contact governed by the law of that country - No effect

(Council Directive 86/653, Arts 17 to 19)

Summary

$$Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, which guarantee certain rights to commercial agents after termination of agency contracts, must be applied where the commercial agent carried on his activity in a Member State although the principal is established in a non-member country and a clause of the contract stipulates that the contract is to be governed by the law of that country.

The purpose of the regime established in Articles 17 to 19 of the Directive, which is mandatory in nature, is to protect, for all commercial agents, freedom of establishment and the operation of undistorted competition in the internal market, so that they must be applied where the situation is closely connected with the Community

( see paras 21, 24-26 and operative part )
Keywords



Keywords

Member States Obligations Implementation of directives Failure to fulfil obligations Justification Not permissible

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Statement of reasons for a decision rejecting a complaint

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

2. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Account taken of Community interest attached to the investigation of a case - Criteria of assessment

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

Summary

1. When it rejects a complaint submitted to it under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, the Commission is required to set out the reasons for its decisions to reject it, and more particularly to state the reasons for its assessment of whether or not it was appropriate to examine the complaint any further, in a sufficiently precise and detailed manner to enable the Community judicature effectively to review the Commission's use of its discretion to define priorities. On the other hand, it is under no obligation to include in its decision an express reference to the concept of Community interest.

( see para. 54 )

2. The Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, must take into consideration all the relevant matters of law and of fact in order to decide on what action to take in response to a complaint and more particularly, must consider attentively all the matters of fact and of law which the complainant brings to its attention. However, in view of the fact that the assessment of the Community interest raised by a complaint depends on the circumstances of each case, the number of criteria of assessment to which the Commission may refer should not be limited nor, conversely, should it be required to have recourse exclusively to certain criteria.

( see paras 57-58 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax - National legislation allowing an employer to deduct, as input tax, a certain percentage of an allowance paid to an employee for business use of a private vehicle - Not permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a))

Summary

$$A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes if it provides that an employer who is a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax may deduct part of an allowance paid to an employee for business use of a private car.

It follows from the wording of Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive that the right to deduct which that provision confers on a taxable person concerns value added tax paid in respect of goods and services supplied to that taxable person by another taxable person. The fact that an employee uses his own vehicle in connection with his employer's business cannot have the effect of transforming the employee into a taxable person within the meaning of the Sixth Directive or, therefore, Article 17(2)(a) thereof, even if the costs linked to such use give rise to reimbursement by the employer. Also, use by an employee of his own vehicle in connection with his employer's business cannot constitute a supply of goods, within the meaning of the Sixth Directive, to his employer. Accordingly, neither the vehicle belonging to the employee nor the fuel consumed by that vehicle can be regarded as supplied to the taxable employer, within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a), simply because depreciation of the vehicle and fuel costs linked to such use give rise to partial reimbursement by the employer.

In the absence of any supply of goods or services between two taxable persons and, therefore, of any possibility of an invoice or a document considered to be an invoice being delivered by one such taxable person to another, the deduction of value added tax authorised under the national legislation in question can, by definition, only occur in breach of the requirements laid down for exercise of a right to deduct by Article 18(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive.

( see paras 44, 46-48, 75-77 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) - Applicability to private, inter-occupational, supplementary retirement pension schemes based on defined contributions and run on a pay-as-you-go basis - Criteria - Schemes discriminating in respect of the age of entitlement to a survivor's pension - Not permissible - Creating equal treatment for benefits payable in respect of periods of service subsequent to the date of the judgment in Case C-262/88 Barber

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Arts 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Arts 136 EC to 143 EC); Council Directive 86/378, Art. 2(1))

Summary

$$Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) applies to private, inter-occupational, supplementary retirement pension schemes based on defined contributions and run on a pay-as-you-go basis to the extent that the purpose of those schemes is to supplement the benefits provided by statutory social security schemes or to replace them and where the pension is paid to the worker by reason of the employment relationship between him and his former employer, whether membership of such schemes is compulsory or optional.

That provision precludes, moreover, those schemes from discriminating between men and women in respect of the age at which their spouse is entitled to a survivor's pension following the death of those employees, its being clear that the equal treatment in the matter of occupational pensions may be relied on in relation to benefits payable in respect of periods of service subsequent to 17 May 1990, the date of the judgment in Case C-262/88 Barber, and that those schemes were therefore required to achieve equal treatment as from 17 May 1990.

( see paras 26, 31, 44-46 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not permissible

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

Summary

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of references - Need to provide the Court with sufficient details of the factual and legal context

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC))

2. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Directive 73/239 - Insurance companies prohibited from business activities other than insurance - Scope - Creation by such undertakings of bodies having their own legal personality and carrying on commercial business - Conditions governing permissibility - Direct effect of the corresponding provision

(Council Directive 73/239, Art. 8(1)(b))

Summary

1. The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary for the national court to define the factual and legal context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, to explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. Those requirements are of particular importance in certain areas, such as that of competition, where the factual and legal situations are often complex. The information provided in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court to reply usefully but must also give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to interested parties

( see paras 42-43 )

2. Article 8(1)(b) of First Directive 73/239 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Directive 92/49, under which insurance undertakings must limit their objects to the business of insurance and operations arising directly therefrom, to the exclusion of all other commercial business, does not preclude mutual benefit societies engaged solely in insurance business from creating between themselves a body with legal personality and legal autonomy - such as an association of mutual benefit societies - which engages in commercial business, provided that the capital subscribed to that body by those societies does not exceed the value of their free assets and provided that, in each case, the society's liability is limited to the value of its capital contribution.

Article 8(1)(b) is, moreover, sufficiently precise and unconditional to be relied upon before the national courts as against the administrative authorities and entails the inapplicability of any rule of national law incompatible with it.

( see paras 64, 70 and operative part 1-2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social security for migrant workers - Community rules - Substantive scope - Allowance paid to recipients of a pension to subsidise contributions to a sickness insurance scheme - Included

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

2. Social security for migrant workers - Benefits - Residence clauses - Removal - Application to allowances paid to recipients of a pension to subsidise contributions to a sickness insurance scheme

(Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council, Art. 1(t) and Art. 10(1))

Summary

1. An allowance provided for by the legislation of a Member State, which is paid by the pension insurance institution and is designed to supplement old-age pension benefits by subsidising the contributions payable in respect of sickness insurance for the purpose of reducing their cost to the pensioner, is a benefit within the meaning of Article 1(t) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97. The fact that the payments are made directly to the sickness insurance institution rather than to the recipient of the pension who is compulsorily affiliated to the sickness insurance scheme concerned does not affect the determining factor that these payments are made for the benefit of the pensioner and that their effect is to increase the value of his pension in order to offset the cost to him of paying his contributions.

( see paras 40, 43 )

2. On a proper construction of Article 1(t) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, an allowance provided for by the legislation of a Member State, which is designed to supplement old-age pension benefits by subsidising the contributions payable in respect of sickness insurance for the purpose of reducing their cost to the pensioner, in so far as it takes the form of an increase in the value of the pension, constitutes an old-age cash benefit for the purposes of those provisions. The recipient of an old-age pension payable under that legislation may claim such a subsidy even if he is resident in another Member State where he is compulsorily affiliated to the sickness insurance scheme.

( see paras 40, 44, 52 and operative part )