ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS - AID FOR SKIMMED MILK - COST OF THE NECESSARY INSPECTIONS - CHARGING TO THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

( COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1725/79 , ART . 10 )

Summary

ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION NO 1725/79 DOES NOT PROHIBIT MEMBER STATES FROM CHARGING , UNDER NATIONAL LEGISLATION , THE COST OF CARRYING OUT INSPECTIONS PURSUANT TO THAT ARTICLE TO THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED PROVIDED THAT THE CHARGES WHICH THE UNDERTAKING IS ASKED TO PAY REPRESENT THE NORMAL COST OF INSPECTIONS OF THAT NATURE AND ARE NOT SO GREAT AS TO BE LIABLE TO DETER UNDERTAKINGS FROM CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITIES WHICH THE AID FOR SKIMMED MILK IS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 34 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - MARKETING OF A PRODUCT - DISPARITIES BETWEEN NATIONAL LAWS - OBSTACLES TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 30 )

3 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PROHIBITION OF A FREE-GIFT SCHEME INTRODUCED FOR SALES PROMOTION PURPOSES - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 30 AND 34 )

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 34 OF THE TREATY IS CONCERNED WITH NATIONAL MEASURES THE AIM OF WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY TO RESTRICT THE FLOW OF EXPORTS AND THUS ESTABLISH A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT BETWEEN THE DOMESTIC TRADE OF A MEMBER STATE AND ITS EXPORT TRADE , IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CONFER A PARTICULAR ADVANTAGE ON THE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OR THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF THE STATE IN QUESTION .

2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMON RULES , OBSTACLES TO MOVEMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY RESULTING FROM DISPARITIES BETWEEN NATIONAL RULES RELATING TO THE MARKETING OF A PRODUCT MUST BE ACCEPTED IN SO FAR AS THOSE RULES , BEING APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS WITHOUT DISTINCTION , ARE JUSTIFIABLE AS BEING NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SATISFY MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS RELATING , INTER ALIA , TO CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FAIR TRADING .

3 . ARTICLES 30 AND 34 OF THE EEC TREATY DO NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION BY A MEMBER STATE TO PRODUCTS FROM , OR INTENDED FOR , ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH PROHIBITS THE OFFERING OR GIVING , FOR SALES PROMOTION PURPOSES , OF FREE GIFTS IN THE FORM OF BOOKS TO PURCHASERS OF AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA AND REQUIRES , FOR THE APPLICATION OF AN EXCEPTION TO THAT PROHIBITION , THE EXISTENCE OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSUMPTION OR USE OF THE FREE GIFT AND THE PRODUCT CONSTITUTING THE BASIS FOR THE OFFERING OF THE GIFT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE DOMESTIC PRODUCTS - PROVISIONS GOVERNING AID GRANTED BY STATES - WHETHER APPLICABLE TO THE METHOD OF FINANCING THE CAMPAIGN - POSSIBILITY WHICH DOES NOT EXCLUDE APPLICATION OF THE PROHIBITION ON MEASURES HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT .

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 30 , 92 AND 93 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE DOMESTIC PRODUCTS - PRACTICE CONSTITUTING A MEASURE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - REQUIREMENTS - PRACTICE BASED ON MEASURES WHICH ARE NOT BINDING - NOT SIGNIFICANT

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 2 , 3 AND 30 )

Summary

1 . THE FACT THAT ARTICLES 92 AND 93 OF THE EEC TREATY MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE METHOD OF FINANCING A CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS , WHICH MAY BE CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY , DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF MAY ESCAPE THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 30 .

2 . THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAMME DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH AFFECTS THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AS A WHOLE AND WHICH IS INTENDED TO CHECK THE FLOW OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES BY ENCOURAGING THE PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS , BY MEANS OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN ON A NATIONAL SCALE , AND BY ORGANIZING SPECIAL PROCEDURES APPLICABLE SOLELY TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS , SUCH ACTIVITIES BEING ATTRIBUTABLE AS A WHOLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND PURSUED IN AN ORGANIZED FASHION THROUGHOUT THE NATIONAL TERRITORY , IS TO BE REGARDED AS A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS .

SUCH A PRACTICE CANNOT ESCAPE THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY SOLELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT BASED ON DECISIONS WHICH ARE BINDING UPON UNDERTAKINGS . EVEN MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH DO NOT HAVE BINDING EFFECT MAY BE CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING THE CONDUCT OF TRADERS AND CONSUMERS IN THAT STATE AND THUS OF FRUSTRATING THE AIMS OF THE COMMUNITY AS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 2 AND ENLARGED UPON IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - INTERPRETATION - PROVISIONS OF GATT - DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 , FIRST PARA .)

2 . PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - INTERPRETATION - ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS - CONCEPT - TARIFF PROTOCOLS CONCLUDED BY THE COMMUNITY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF GATT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 , FIRST PARA . UNDER ( B ))

3 . INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS - AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED BY THE MEMBER STATES - GATT - TARIFF PROTOCOLS CONCLUDED BY THE COMMUNITY - PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ENTERED INTO FORCE - EFFECTS IN THE LEGAL ORDER OF THE MEMBER STATES - LIMITS

4 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - TRADE WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES - CUSTOMS DUTIES - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT IMPOSED PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

Summary

1 . SINCE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE MEMBER STATES IN RELATION TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE COMMITMENTS LAID DOWN BY THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 1968 , THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF WAS BROUGHT INTO FORCE , THE PROVISIONS OF THAT AGREEMENT HAVE SINCE THAT DATE BEEN AMONGST THOSE WHICH THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION , BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , TO INTERPRET BY WAY OF A PRELIMINARY RULING , REGARDLESS OF THE PURPOSE OF SUCH INTERPRETATION . WITH REGARD TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THAT DATE , SUCH INTERPRETATION IS A MATTER EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER STATES .

2.THE TARIFF PROTOCOLS OF 16 JULY AND 30 JUNE 1967 ARE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBPARAGRAPH ( B ) OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY AND AS SUCH FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION TO GIVE PRELIMINARY RULINGS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT OF JUSTICE .

3.IN RELATION TO THE PERIOD BEFORE 1 JULY 1968 , THE DATE OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , THE TARIFF PROTOCOLS OF 16 JULY 1962 AND 30 JUNE 1967 , CONCLUDED BY THE COMMUNITY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE , DID NOT PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE IMPOSITION BY A MEMBER STATE OF A CHARGE ON PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES .

4.IN RELATION TO THE PERIOD AFTER 1 JULY 1968 , THE DATE OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , NO PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW PREVENTED THE IMPOSITION ON PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF A NATIONAL CHARGE SUCH AS THE DUTY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN SO FAR AS IT WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE ON THAT DATE .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Application rendered devoid of purpose - No need to give judgment
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY - NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - INTEREST IN REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY RULES ON COMPETITION - INTEREST IN TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL

( EEC TREATY , ART . 173 , SECOND PARA .; REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 3 ( 2 ) ( B )) 2 . COMPETITION - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE - REQUEST BY A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON TO ESTABLISH AN INFRINGEMENT - REQUEST BY A TRADER NOT GRANTED A DEALERSHIP BY A COMPANY OPERATING A SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT - COMMISSION ' S DUTY TO CONSIDER THE LEGALITY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE COMPANY OF ITS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

( EEC TREATY , ART . 85 ( 1 ); REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 3 ( 2 ) ( B ))

Summary

1 . IT IS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SATISFACTORY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND OF THE PROPER APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 85 AND 86 THAT NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS WHO ARE ENTITLED , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 17 , TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO FIND AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLES 85 AND 86 SHOULD BE ABLE , IF THEIR REQUEST IS NOT COMPLIED WITH EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART , TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS . SINCE THE REFUSAL BY A COMPANY WHICH OPERATES A SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT TO GRANT A DEALERSHIP TO A TRADER MAY BE CAPABLE OF AFFECTING HIS LEGITIMATE INTERESTS HIS APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY DIRECTED AGAINST THE POSITION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN A COMMUNICATION INFORMING HIM OF ITS INTENTION NOT TO FOLLOW UP HIS COMPLAINT IS ADMISSIBLE .

2 . WHEN IT HAS RECEIVED FROM A TRADER WHO HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED A DEALERSHIP BY A COMPANY WHICH OPERATES A SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INFRINGEMENT , THE COMMISSION MUST EXAMINE THE FACTS PUT FORWARD BY THE TRADER IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COMPANY ' S APPLICATION OF ITS SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF DISTORTING COMPETITION WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET AND OF AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - SICKNESS INSURANCE - AGGREGATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS - COMPETENT INSTITUTION - DETERMINATION - LEGISLATION APPLICABLE - LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE WHEREIN THE WORKER IS OR WAS LAST EMPLOYED

( REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ARTS 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) AND 18 )

2 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - SICKNESS INSURANCE - CALCULATION OF BENEFIT - TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF A PERIOD OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - REDUCTION OF BENEFIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 - PERMISSIBILITY

( REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ARTS 40 ( 3 ) AND 46 ( 3 ))

Summary

1 . ONLY THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OR INSTITUTIONS OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE WORKER IS OR WAS LAST EMPLOYED ARE COMPETENT TO AGGREGATE THE INSURANCE PERIODS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 18 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND ONLY THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE IS APPLICABLE TO SICKNESS BENEFIT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF THAT REGULATION .

2.INVALIDITY BENEFIT DUE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE FOLLOWING A PERIOD OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK DURING WHICH THE WORKER RECEIVED BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF THAT INCAPACITY , INCLUDING BENEFIT FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MAY , WHERE APPROPRIATE , BE VALIDLY REDUCED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ) OF THAT REGULATION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . OFFICIALS - STAFF REGULATIONS - INTERPRETATION - METHODS - REFERENCE TO REPEALED RULES - UNACCEPTABLE METHOD OF INTERPRETATION

2 . OFFICIALS - REMUNERATION - RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE - CONDITIONS FOR GRANTS - OFFICIAL REJOINING HIS FAMILY - ALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF TWO MONTHS ' BASIC SALARY NOT PAID TO THE OFFICIAL - LAWFULNESS

( STAFF REGULATIONS , ANNEX VII , ART . 6 )

Summary

1 . THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AT PRESENT IN FORCE MUST BE INTERPRETED WITH REGARD TO THEIR CONTEXT AND PURPOSE AND NOT IN THE LIGHT OF RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN REPEALED .

2 . ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS GIVES THE RIGHT TO A RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE EQUAL TO TWO MONTHS ' BASIC SALARY TO AN OFFICIAL ENTITLED TO THE HOUSEHOLD ALLOWANCE AND DOES NOT MENTION ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE OFFICIAL ' S FAMILY MUST RESETTLE , THE AMOUNT OF THE RESETTLEMENT EXPENSES WILL NEVERTHELESS GENERALLY BE HIGHER WHERE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF THE OFFICIAL AND HIS FAMILY THAN WHERE HE REJOINS HIS FAMILY .

IT IS THEREFORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 6 NOT TO GRANT THE RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF TWO MONTHS ' BASIC SALARY TO AN OFFICIAL WHO HAS RECEIVED THE HOUSEHOLD ALLOWANCE AND WHO DOES NOT RESETTLE TOGETHER WITH HIS FAMILY .

IN CASE 79/82
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - SPECIAL JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION IN MATTERS RELATING TO A CONTRACT - INDEPENDENT CONCEPT

( CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ART . 5 ( 1 ))

2 . CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - SPECIAL JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION IN MATTERS RELATING TO A CONTRACT - CONCEPT OF MATTERS RELATING TO A CONTRACT - OBLIGATIONS TO PAY MONEY HAVING THEIR BASIS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS BY VIRTUE OF MEMBERSHIP - INCLUSION

( CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ART . 5 ( 1 ))

Summary

1 . THE CONCEPT OF MATTERS RELATING TO A CONTRACT IN ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED SIMPLY AS REFERRING TO THE NATIONAL LAW OF ONE OR OTHER OF THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED , BUT SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN INDEPENDENT CONCEPT WHICH , FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION , MUST BE INTERPRETED BY REFERENCE CHIEFLY TO THE SYSTEM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONVENTION , IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT IT IS FULLY EFFECTIVE .

2 . OBLIGATIONS IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF MONEY WHICH HAVE THEIR BASIS IN THE RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN AN ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS BY VIRTUE OF MEMBERSHIP ARE ' ' MATTERS RELATING TO A CONTRACT ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION , WHETHER THE OBLIGATIONS IN QUESTION ARISE SIMPLY FROM THE ACT OF BECOMING A MEMBER OR FROM THAT ACT IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONE OR MORE DECISIONS MADE BY ORGANS OF THE ASSOCIATION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS - WITHDRAWAL - CONDITIONS

Summary

THE RETROACTIVE WITHDRAWAL OF A LEGAL MEASURE WHICH HAS CONFERRED INDIVIDUAL

RIGHTS OR SIMILAR BENEFITS IS CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . OFFICIALS - TRANSFER - REASSIGNMENT - CRITERIA - INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE - DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATION - EQUIVALENCE OF POSTS - PERSONAL INTEREST OF THE OFFICIAL - CONSIDERATION THEREOF - LIMITS

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 7 ( 1 ))

2 . OFFICIALS - ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL - DUTY TO GIVE REASONS - EXTENT

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , SECOND PARA . OF ART . 25 )

Summary

1 . DECISIONS REASSIGNING OFFICIALS ARE SUBJECT IN THE SAME WAY AS TRANSFERS TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE OFFICIALS CONCERNED INASMUCH AS THE OFFICIALS MAY , IN PARTICULAR , BE REASSIGNED ONLY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE POST MUST CORRESPOND TO THE OFFICIAL ' S GRADE .

AS REGARDS THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS HAVE A WIDE DISCRETION IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO THEM AND IN THE ASSIGNMENT , WITH THOSE TASKS IN VIEW , OF THE STAFF PLACED AT THEIR DISPOSAL . THAT DISCRETION CANNOT BE RESTRICTED BY THE FACT THAT AN OFFICIAL WAS RECRUITED PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . ANY PROBLEMS WHICH MIGHT BE CAUSED TO HIS FORMER DEPARTMENT BY THE DEPARTURE OF THE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION , THE BENEFIT TO HIS NEW DEPARTMENT WHICH MIGHT BY OBTAINED FROM HIS REASSIGNMENT AND THE EFFECTS WHICH THE CHANGE MIGHT HAVE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO DEPARTMENTS AND OUTSIDE PERSONS ARE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THAT SAME DISCRETIONARY POWER .

AN OFFICIAL MAY NOT OBJECT , BY REFERENCE TO HIS PERSONAL INTEREST , TO MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE ORGANIZATION OR REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENTS AND RECOGNIZED AS BEING IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .

2 . SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE DUTY TO STATE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED IS BOTH TO PERMIT THE PERSON CONCERNED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION IS DEFECTIVE , MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR ITS LEGALITY TO BE CHALLENGED , AND TO ENABLE IT TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT , IT FOLLOWS THAT THE EXTENT OF THAT OBLIGATION MUST BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF EACH CASE .

THE DUTY TO STATE THE GOUNDS ON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , IS SATISFIED IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE CONTESTED MEASURE WAS ADOPTED AND NOTIFIED TO THOSE CONCERNED MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THOSE PERSONS TO RECOGNIZE THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS WHICH GUIDED THE ADMINISTRATION IN ITS DECISION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - GENERALIZED PREFERENCE SCHEME IN FAVOUR OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES UP TO A CERTAIN CEILING - CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN OF GOODS - PRODUCTION AFTER RE-INTRODUCTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES - NO ENTITLEMENT TO EXEMPTION

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2789/79 , ART . 1 ( 3 ) AND ART . 3 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ))

Summary

IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 2789/79 OPENING PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES , ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 1 ( 3 ) AND 3 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) THEREOF , THAT PRODUCTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION IS NECESSARY FOR THE GOODS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST THE CEILING ON IMPORTS WHICH ENJOY SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES DETERMINED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) AND THAT THE GOODS MUST BE CHARGED AGAINST THE CEILING IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EXEMPTION FROM DUTIES .

ACCORDINGLY , THE SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES PROVIDED FOR IN THE REGULATION MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO GOODS IMPORTED AND ENTERED FOR FREE CIRCULATION BEFORE THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES IF THE CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN IS PRODUCED AFTER THE RE-INTRODUCTION HAS COME INTO EFFECT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - TARIFF HEADINGS - ' ' WADDING , GAUZE , BANDAGES . . . PUT UP IN RETAIL PACKINGS FOR MEDICAL OR SURGICAL PURPOSES ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF HEADING NO 30.04 - CONCEPT

Summary

HEADING NO 30.04 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE EXPRESSION ' ' PUT UP IN RETAIL PACKINGS FOR MEDICAL OR SURGICAL PURPOSES ' ' IMPLIES THAT A PRODUCT , IN ORDER TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THAT HEADING , MUST NOT EXCEED THE DIMENSIONS WHICH ENABLE IT TO BE SOLD BY RETAIL TO ANY USER , INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL PERSONS . THAT HEADING THEREFORE EXCLUDES A PRODUCT WHICH IS PACKED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT CAN BE SOLD , WITHOUT RE-PACKING , ONLY TO HOSPITALS OR OTHER LARGE-SCALE USERS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - ASSIGNMENT OF GRADE - CLASSIFICATION IN STEP - INTERNAL DIRECTIVE OF AN INSTITUTION CONCERNING APPLICABLE CRITERIA - LEGAL EFFECTS

Summary

THE DECISION OF A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION , COMMUNICATED TO ALL MEMBERS OF ITS STAFF AND DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT IDENTICAL CONDITIONS OF RECRUITMENT AND CAREER PROSPECTS SHALL BE ENJOYED BY ALL OFFICIALS IN THE SAME CATEGORY OR SERVICE AS FAR AS GRADING AND CLASSIFICATION IN STEP ON RECRUITMENT ARE CONCERNED , CONSTITUTES AN INTERNAL DIRECTIVE , EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION AT ISSUE MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A GENERAL IMPLEMENTING PROVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 110 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . AS SUCH IT MUST BE REGARDED AS A RULE OF CONDUCT , INDICATING THE PRACTICE TO BE FOLLOWED , WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION IMPOSES ON ITSELF AND FROM WHICH IT MAY NOT DEPART WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE REASONS WHICH HAVE LED IT TO DO SO , SINCE OTHERWISE THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WOULD BE INFRINGED .

SUCH AN INTERNAL DIRECTIVE MAY NOT , IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES , LEGALLY ESTABLISH RULES WHICH DEROGATE FROM THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . COMMUNITY LAW - INFRINGEMENT BY PRIVATE PERSONS - JUSTIFYING GROUNDS - WRONGFUL ACT BY THE COMMISSION - NO EFFECT

2 . COMMUNITY LAW - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS - CONDITIONS - UNDERTAKING BY COMMISSION OFFICIALS NOT TO APPLY COMMUNITY LAW - SITUATION NOT GIVING RISE TO A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

3 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS - PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF QUOTAS - JUSTIFYING GROUNDS - STATE OF NECESSITY OF A THIRD PARTY - NO EFFECT

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 58 )

4 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF STEEL PRODUCTION QUOTAS - PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF QUOTAS - FIXING OF A FINE - POWERS OF THE COMMISSION - SCOPE

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 58 ( 4 ); COMMISSION DECISION NO 2794/80/ECSC , ART . 9 )

Summary

1 . A WRONGFUL ACT ON THE PART OF A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION CANNOT JUSTIFY AN INFRINGEMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW BY AN UNDERTAKING , REGARDLESS OF THE ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION RELIED UPON BY THE LATTER .

2 . NO OFFICIAL OF A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION CAN GIVE A VALID UNDERTAKING NOT TO APPLY COMMUNITY LAW AND NO LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION CAN BE AROUSED BY SUCH AN UNDERTAKING .

3 . AN UNDERTAKING CANNOT RELY ON THE ALLEGED NECESSITY OF A THIRD PARTY IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATIONS INCUMBENT UPON IT UNDER A SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS .

4 . ARTICLE 9 OF DECISION NO 2974/80 , AS INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 58 ( 4 ) OF THE ECSC TREATY , WHICH MERELY REFERS TO FINES ' ' NOT EXCEEDING THE VALUE ' ' OF THE EXCESS PRODUCTION , AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE TERM ' ' GENERALLY ' ' CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 9 ITSELF , IN NO WAY PRECLUDES THE COMMISSION FROM MODIFYING THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES , HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INFRINGEMENT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . OFFICIALS - ACTION - LEGALLY ACTIONABLE MEASURE - VERBAL ACT - INCLUSION

( STAFF REGULATIONS , ARTS 25 AND 90 )

2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - COMPETITION - DUTY OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO FILL A POST DECLARED VACANT - SCOPE

Summary

1 . THE POSSIBILITY THAT A LEGALLY ACTIONABLE DECISION MAY HAVE ORAL FORM IS NOT IN PRINCIPLE PRECLUDED EITHER BY A PROVISIONS OF GENERAL SCOPE OR BY ANY SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

IN PARTICULAR , ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH PROVIDES THAT OFFICIALS ' ' MAY SUBMIT TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN ACT . . . ' ' , DOES NOT PREVENT SUCH AN ACT FROM BEING EXPRESSED ORALLY .

THE POSSIBILITY THAT AN ACT MAY HAVE ORAL FORM IS NOT PRECLUDED BY ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH PROVIDES THAT : ' ' ANY DECISION RELATING TO A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL . . . SHALL AT ONCE BE COMMUNICATED IN WRITING TO THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED . ' ' THE COMMUNICATION IS , INDEED , AN ACT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION , THAT DECISION HAVING BEEN ALREADY ADOPTED AND HAVING PRIOR EXISTENCE . IT IS THEREFORE WRONG TO INTERPRET ARTICLE 25 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AS MEANING THAT IT CALLS FOR WRITING AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE ACT TO BE COMMUNICATED .

2.WHILST THE STAFF REGULATIONS DO NOT PLACE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PURSUE A RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE ONCE IT HAS BEGUN , BY FILLING THE VACANCY CONCERNED , THE RULE IS NONE THE LESS THAT , IN FILLING A POST DECLARED VACANT , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY MUST PROCEED WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPETITION RESULTS AND CANNOT DEVIATE FROM THAT RULE EXCEPT FOR WEIGHTY REASONS , JUSTIFYING ITS DECISION CLEARLY AND FULLY .