ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons Freedom of establishment Treaty provisions Scope Company belonging to a group of companies established in various Member States Included

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC))

2. Freedom of movement for persons Freedom of establishment National authorities reserving the performance of certain optical examinations to professionals holding specific qualifications Justification Protection of public health Whether permissible Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC))

Summary

1. The legal position of a company belonging to a group of companies established in various Member States which markets products and services in the optics sector comes, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of a company established in another Member State, within the scope of Community law pursuant to the provisions of Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC).

( see para. 16 )

2. As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that, within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the objective examination of a client's eyesight, that is to say, an examination which does not use a method under which the client alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are not qualified medical doctors. The choice of a Member State to reserve to such professionals the right to carry out objective eyesight examinations on their patients using sophisticated instruments that make it possible to assess internal eye pressure, determine the field of vision or analyse the condition of the retina, may be regarded as an appropriate means by which to ensure attainment of a high level of health protection.

However, the resulting prohibition of certain optical examinations by opticians who are not qualified medical doctors, which applies irrespective of the nationality and Member State of establishment of those to whom it is addressed, must be necessary and proportionate to secure that objective. In this connection, the assessment of the risks to public health is liable to change with the passage of time, particularly as a result of technical and scientific progress.

It is for the national court to assess, in the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establishment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.

( see paras 27, 30 to 31, 35 to 38 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment of measures - Pleas in law - Not possible to rely on the GATT rules in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act - Exceptions - Community measure intended to implement a GATT rule or expressly and specifically referring thereto

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

2 Acts of the institutions - Publication - Belated publication - Whether the validity of the measure is affected - No effect

3 Acts of the institutions - Council resolution concerning the quality of the drafting of Community legislation - No binding effect

4 Common commercial policy - Community rules - Whether traders have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation will be maintained - No legitimate expectation

5 Community law - Principles - Equal treatment - Discrimination - Meaning

Summary

1 Having regard to their nature and structure, World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions.

It is for the Court to review the legality of a Community measure in the light of the WTO rules only where the Community intended by means of that measure to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or where the measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the WTO agreements.

2 The belated publication of a Community measure in the Official Journal of the European Communities does not affect the validity of that measure.

3 The Council resolution of 8 June 1993 concerning the quality of the drafting of Community legislation has no binding effect and places no obligation on the institutions to follow any particular rules when drafting legislative measures.

4 The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied upon to make a regulation unalterable, especially in sectors such as that of textile imports from non-member countries, where it is necessary constantly to adjust the rules to accommodate changes in the economic situation, and where, accordingly, such changes are reasonably to be expected.

5 The principle of non-discrimination requires that `comparable situations should not be treated in a different manner unless the difference in treatment is objectively justified'.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 International agreements - Community agreements - Direct effect - Article 39(1) of the EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement

(EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement, Art. 39(1))

2 International agreements - EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement - Algerian workers employed in a Member State - Social security - Equal treatment - Refusal, on grounds of nationality, to grant disability allowance to the spouse of a retired Algerian worker residing with him in the Member State concerned - Not permissible

(EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement, Art. 39(1))

Summary

3 Article 39(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and Algeria, which lays down in clear, precise and unconditional terms a prohibition of discrimination, based on nationality, against workers of Algerian nationality and the members of their families living with them in the field of social security, contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure.

It follows from the wording of that provision, and from the purpose and nature of the agreement in which it features, that it is capable of being directly applied, with the result that individuals to whom it applies are entitled to rely on it in proceedings before national courts.

4 Article 39(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and Algeria must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant a benefit, such as disability allowance, provided for under its legislation in favour of nationals resident in that State and irrespective of whether they have been working in an employed capacity, to the disabled spouse of a retired Algerian worker who lives with her husband in the Member State in question on the ground that she is of Algerian nationality and has never been engaged in a trade or profession.

The persons covered by the above provision include not only the Algerian worker but also members of his family living with him in the Member State in which that worker receives an old-age pension after having worked there, and it is not appropriate to draw a distinction, in regard to those family members, between derived rights and personal rights, while the matters covered by that provision include all those benefits to which, by virtue of Article 4, Regulation No 1408/71 applies.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence - Excluded save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(EC Treaty, Art 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea raised for the first time in the appeal - Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

3 Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure governing the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attributed to the evidence produced to it. That assessment does not, therefore, constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

4 In an appeal, the Court's jurisdiction is confined to review of the assessment carried out by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid - Meaning - Non-application to an undertaking of the generally applied rules concerning fixed-term employment contracts - Advantage granted without any transfer of public resources - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1))

Summary

A national provision which relieves only one undertaking of the obligation of complying with the generally applicable legislation concerning fixed-term employment contracts does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty provided that it does not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources to that undertaking.

Only advantages granted directly or indirectly through State resources are to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 92(1). The distinction made in that provision between `aid granted by a Member State' and aid granted `through State resources' does not signify that all advantages granted by a State, whether financed through State resources or not, constitute aid but is intended merely to bring within that definition both advantages which are granted directly by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Refunds paid in advance - Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of export - Repayment of refunds paid in advance - Obligation incumbent on the exporter - Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 - Regulation No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance - Breach of the principles of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity - None - Validity of Regulation No 773/96

(Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239)

Summary

Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation No 1615/90, must be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result of, in particular, force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the Member State of export, the exporter is obliged to repay any export refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, the formalities for release of the product for consumption in the country of destination have not been completed, so that it cannot be regarded, for the purposes of payment of the differentiated refund, as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87.

By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef from the United Kingdom from retaining all or part of any export refunds paid in advance in circumstances where

(1 exports of beef from the United Kingdom to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy,

(2 bans on the importation of beef from the United Kingdom have also been imposed by a number of third countries,

(3 exporters of beef were in the process of carrying goods to third countries on the date on which Decision 96/239 was adopted,

(4 those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the United Kingdom,

(5 the exporters had received, in accordance with Regulation No 565/80 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products and Regulation No 3665/87, advance payments of export refunds in respect of the export transactions in issue, and

(6 the exporters suffered loss as a result of their inability to sell their beef on the export markets in question,

Regulation No 3665/87 does not contravene the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity.

Furthermore, and since none of those principles require exporters, in the circumstances described, to be authorised to retain all or part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation No 773/96 laying down special measures derogating from Regulations No 3665/87, No 3719/88 and No 1964/82 in the beef and veal sector does not provide for such retention does not render it invalid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - National court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty - Definition - Body having jurisdiction in cases relating to agricultural aid

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2 Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Structural reform - Improving the efficiency of agricultural structures - Less-favoured areas system - Compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps - Grant not subject to the condition of residence on the farm - National legislation laying down a further residence requirement and, where that is not complied with, conditions relating to activity - Breach of the principles of equal treatment or legal certainty - None

(Council Regulation No 2328/91, Arts 17 and 18; Council Directive 75/268, Art. 1)

Summary

1 In order to determine whether a body is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty, which is a question governed by Community law alone, account must be taken of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether procedure before it is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law, and whether it is independent. The Finnish Rural Businesses Appeals Board satisfies those conditions, since it is established by law and composed of members appointed by public authority and enjoying the same guarantees as judges against removal from office; it has jurisdiction by law in respect of aid for rural activities, gives legal rulings in accordance with the applicable rules and the general rules of procedure, and, under certain conditions, an appeal lies against its decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.

2 It is not contrary to Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation No 2328/91 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures or to Article 1 of Directive 75/268 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas to grant a compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps to a farmer whose home is not on the farm. A farmer achieves the essential objective of the Community legislation, which is to support the continuation of farming in less-favoured areas, where he keeps his farm running, and the objective of maintaining population levels, to which the continuation of farming undoubtedly contributes, cannot of itself imply a requirement of permanent residence.

However, Article 18(3) of the regulation expressly authorises the Member States to lay down additional or limiting conditions for the grant of the compensatory allowance. In view of that discretion, it is not contrary either to the principle of equal treatment or to that of legal certainty for a farmer claiming the compensatory allowance who does not live on his farm but more than 12 kilometres by road from its operational centre to be required to work the farm himself and to derive at least 50% of his income from farming or similar activities and, in addition, to establish the existence of special grounds.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Community law - Principles - Rights of the defence - Right to a judicial hearing - Obligation to incorporate in the decision all the submissions of the parties - None

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Incorrect assessment of the facts - Plea recording disagreement on the facts found but not raising any points of law - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1 The right to be heard in the context of judicial proceedings does not mean that the court has to incorporate in full in its decision all the submissions put forward by each party. The court, after listening to the submissions of the parties and assessing the evidence, has to decide whether or not to grant the relief sought in the application and give reasons for its decision.

2 Under Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may only be based on pleas relating to the breach of rules of law, any assessment of the facts being excluded.

A plea alleging breach of the right to be heard, on the ground of failure to take into consideration certain parts of the appellant's submissions, is therefore inadmissible as seeking to obtain from the Court of Justice a new assessment of the facts found by the Court of First Instance, where the plea does not contain any point of law requiring analysis but merely records disagreement on the facts found by the Court of First Instance and, in particular, where it has not been shown what effect the alleged failure had on the outcome of the proceedings.

3 By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted at first instance, with no precise criticism of the legal reasoning of the Court of First Instance being adduced.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Special non-contributory benefits - Coordination rules set out in Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 - Entitlement to benefits subject to a residence requirement - Where `habitual residence' presupposes not only an intention to reside, but also completion of an appreciable period of residence - Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 1(h) and 10a)

Summary

Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1247/92, read together with Article 1(h) thereof, precludes the Member State of origin - in the case of a person who has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to establish himself in another Member State, in which he has worked and set up his habitual residence, and who has returned to his Member State of origin, where his family lives, in order to seek work - from making entitlement to one of the benefits referred to in Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 conditional upon `habitual residence' in that State, which presupposes not only an intention to reside there, but also completion of an appreciable period of residence there.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Persons doing the same work - `Same work' - Meaning - Persons in a comparable situation - Factors to be taken into account - Persons performing seemingly identical tasks but having different professional training and qualifications - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC); Council Directive 75/117)

Summary

In order to determine whether different groups of persons who perform seemingly identical tasks but who do not have the same training or professional qualifications for the practice of their profession do the same work within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, it is necessary to ascertain whether, taking into account the nature of the tasks that may be assigned to each group respectively, the training requirements for performance of those tasks and the working conditions under which they are performed, the different groups can be considered to be in a comparable situation.

That is not the case for two groups of persons, such as psychologists and doctors employed as psychotherapists, who have received different professional training and who, because of the different scope of the qualifications resulting from that training, on the basis of which they were recruited, are called on to perform different tasks or duties. Thus the term `the same work' does not apply, for the purposes of the aforementioned provisions, where the same activities are performed over a considerable length of time by persons the basis of whose qualification to exercise their profession is different.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Tax on company profits - Company carrying on business in a Member State other than that in which it has its seat - Taxed at a higher rate than resident companies - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 58)

Summary

$$Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty are to be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State which, in the case of companies having their seat in another Member State and carrying on business in the first Member State through a permanent establishment situated there, excludes the possibility, accorded only to companies having their seat in the first Member State, of benefiting from a lower rate of tax on profits, when there is no objective difference in the situation between those two categories of companies which could justify such a difference in treatment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - `Establishments' or `organisations' within the meaning of Article 13A(1) of the Directive - Meaning - Natural persons running a business - Covered

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1))

Summary

$$It cannot be inferred from the fact that Article 13A(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes mentions different categories of economic operators that the exemptions provided for thereunder are confined to legal persons where it refers expressly to activities undertaken by `establishments' or `organisations', whilst in other cases an exemption may also be claimed by natural persons. While it is true that the terms `establishment' and `organisation' suggest the existence of an individualised entity performing a particular function, those conditions are satisfied not only by legal persons but also by one or more natural persons running a business.

It follows that Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the terms `other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature' and `other organisations recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned', which appear in subparagraphs (b) and (g) of that provision respectively, do not exclude from that exemption natural persons running a business.