ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. ECSC - Aid for the steel industry - Authorization by the Commission - Interpretation of an authorization decision for the purposes of determining the beneficiaries of the aid authorized

(Commission Decision No 83/396)

2. ECSC - Aid to the steel industry - Authorization by the Commission - Separate aid for undertakings in the public sector and those in the private sector, but authorized on the basis of the same criteria - No discrimination

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 4(b); Commission Decision No 83/396)

Summary

1. Article 1 of Decision No 83/396 concerning the aids that the Italian Government proposes to grant to certain steel undertakings authorizes the grant of aid consisting in the reimbursement of increases in the electricity surcharge solely to undertakings belonging to the private sector when the decision was adopted.

2. A Commission decision authorizing aid that a Member State proposes to grant solely to private undertakings does not infringe Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, which prohibits measures or practices which discriminate between producers, if, first, other aid also authorized is intended solely for undertakings in the public sector of that Member State and, secondly, all authorized aid was assessed on the basis of capacity reductions to which each recipient or group of recipients had agreed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Measures adopted by the Community institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Mere administrative practices inadequate

(EEC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.)

Summary

Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of Member States' obligations under a directive in accordance with Article 189 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers ° Equal treatment ° Liability assumed for old-age assurance by the Netherlands scheme under a bilateral social security convention in respect of forced labour performed in Germany by Netherlands nationals ° Netherlands benefits less than amounts paid in Germany to nationals subjected to the same treatment ° Discrimination on the ground of nationality ° None

(EEC Treaty, Art. 7(1); Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 3(1), 7(2)(c) and Annex III)

Summary

Under Article 2 of Complementary Agreement No 4 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the settlement of rights acquired under the German social insurance scheme by Dutch workers between 13 May 1940 and 1 September 1945 (listed in Annex III to Regulation No 1408/71 as an international convention remaining applicable pursuant to Article 7(2)(c) thereof after the regulation' s entry into force), it is compatible with Community law ° more particularly the first paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 ° for forced labour performed by Netherlands nationals in Germany during the Second World War to confer no entitlement under the German pension insurance scheme, but to be accounted for under the Netherlands scheme as if it had been performed in the Netherlands.

The difference between the amounts of pension to which Netherlands and German nationals compelled to perform forced labour are entitled under their respective old-age schemes is not attributable to the Complementary Agreement, which merely determines the law applicable to the workers concerned without stipulating the scope of the benefits, but stems from the fact that the Netherlands legislature determined for pensions for which it is responsible under the Agreement an amount different from that determined by the German old-age insurance scheme for pensions payable by it. As Community law currently stands, each Member State is free to determine the amount of the pensions to be paid by it, provided that such amount does not entail any discrimination founded on nationality. Since Netherlands legislation does not treat differently on account of their nationality different categories of Community nationals who were compelled to perform forced labour, it may not be said to practice discrimination on the ground of nationality.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions on exports ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Systematic frontier inspections as to the composition and quality of skimmed-milk powder intended for denaturing or processing in another Member State and qualifying for aid ° Inspections having no basis in the relevant Community legislation or in the needs recognized by Article 36 of the Treaty ° Not permissible ° Spot checks ° Permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 34 and 36; Commission Regulation No 1624/76, Art. 2(1) and (4), as amended by Regulation No 1726/79 and Regulation No 1725/79, Art. 10)

2. Free movement of goods ° Customs duties ° Charges having equivalent effect ° Levying of a duty in respect of systematic frontier inspections contrary to Community rules carried out at the time of export of skimmed-milk powder to another Member State ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 9 and 12; Commission Regulations No 1624/76 and No 1725/79)

Summary

1. In view of the fact that they are not provided for under the relevant Community rules, that is to say Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1624/76, as amended by Regulation No 1726/79, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1725/79, and are not justified by one of the needs recognized by Article 36 of the Treaty, inspections carried out systematically at the frontier by the Member State of export which are designed to check the composition and quality of skimmed-milk powder to be denatured or processed into animal feed within the territory of another Member State and qualifying for aid in that regard constitute measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on exports in trade between Member States, prohibited under Article 34 of the Treaty.

Frontier inspections serving the same purpose are, however, permissible if they are carried out only by means of spot checks.

2. A charge levied by a Member State in respect of frontier inspections carried out when skimmed-milk powder intended for processing into compound feedingstuffs is being exported to another Member State, in the case where such inspections, by reason of their systematic nature, can find no basis in Regulations No 1624/76 and No 1725/79, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on exports which is prohibited under Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty, even if it corresponds to the actual cost of each inspection.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff ° Tariff headings ° Colour monitors forming part of a data-processing system and having no specific function ° Classification under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

On a proper construction of Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions contained in the annexes to Regulations Nos 3174/88, 2886/89 and 2472/90, all three of which amend Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, even before the entry into force of Regulation No 1288/91 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature ° considered in the light of Note 5(B) to that Chapter and the Explanatory Notes to the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council ° colour monitors capable of accepting a signal only from the central processing unit of an automatic data-processing machine and not capable of reproducing a colour image from a composite video signal fall under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Freedom of establishment ° Tax legislation ° Right to exemption from tax on transactions relating to immovable property in connection with a reorganization within a group of companies ° Right reserved to companies acquiring immovable property from a company constituted under national law ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 52 and 58; Council Directive 77/799)

Summary

Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty preclude the law of a Member State from restricting exemption from the tax on transactions relating to immovable property, which is normally payable in connection with a reorganization within a group of companies only to cases where the company liable for tax acquires immovable property from a company constituted under national law, and refusing to grant such relief where the transferor is a company constituted under the law of another Member State.

The fact that the sale of immovable property gives rise to the payment of tax increases the cost of the transaction to the purchaser, and is passed on in the price likely to be obtained by the vendor. Where the latter is a company established in another Member State which transfers property forming part of the capital used in connection with its permanent establishment in the territory of the Member State where such legislation applies, it will be in a less favourable position than if it had operated in the latter State by creating a subsidiary there which would have fulfilled the conditions giving right to exemption.

Although the difference in treatment has only an indirect effect on the position of companies constituted under the law of other Member States, it constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality which is prohibited by Article 52 of the Treaty because a company exercising the right given to it by Article 58 of the Treaty to carry on business in another Member State through the intermediary of a branch or agency is at a disadvantage compared with companies constituted in accordance with the law of that Member State.

Such discrimination cannot be justified by the difficulties encountered by the national authorities in checking equivalence between the forms in which national companies may be constituted and those of other Member States, since the information necessary for that purpose can be obtained with a view to imposing the tax in question by means of the system provided for by Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Total ban on importation of live freshwater crayfish ° Not permissible ° Justification ° Protection of health and life of animals ° None

(EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36)

Summary

A Member State which simply prohibits imports of live European freshwater crayfish from Member States or from non-member countries in free circulation in other Member States in so far as they are not for the purpose of research and teaching when, in order to prevent the risks of crayfish plague and faunal distortion, it could have limited its measures to cause less serious restrictions on intra-Community trade, such as submitting consignments of imported crayfish to health checks and only carrying out checks by sample if such consignments were accompanied by a health certificate, or confining itself to regulating the marketing of crayfish in its territory, acts in breach of its obligations under Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Community law ° Principles ° Equal treatment ° Discrimination on grounds of nationality ° Not permitted ° Not applicable in a situation purely internal to a Member State ° Application of a principle of non-discrimination laid down by national law ° Permissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 7)

Summary

Community law does not preclude a national court from examining the compatibility with its constitution of a national rule which, in a situation unconnected with any of the situations contemplated by Community law, treats national workers less favourably than nationals from other Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Prohibition of sale of articles of precious metal not bearing the statutory hallmark affixed by an independent body ° Application to articles of the same type imported from other Member States ° Whether permissible ° Conditions ° Assessment by the national court ° Application to imports of a prohibition of the sale of such articles not bearing an indication of the date of their manufacture ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

Summary

Article 30 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of national rules prohibiting the sale of articles of precious metal not bearing a hallmark indicating their fineness in accordance with those rules, where those articles do not bear a hallmark, in accordance with the legislation of the Member State of exportation, containing information which is equivalent to that provided by the hallmarks required by the rules of the Member State of importation and which is intelligible to consumers in that Member State. Similarly, where national rules require the hallmark to be affixed by an independent body, the marketing of those articles of precious metal imported from other Member States may be prohibited, where they have not in fact been hallmarked by an independent body in the Member State of exportation.

The findings of fact required in order to determine the equivalence of the information provided by the hallmark are a matter for the national court, which must also examine whether the articles of precious metal have been hallmarked by an independent body in the Member State of exportation.

On the other hand, Article 30 precludes the application of national rules which prohibit the marketing of articles of precious metal not indicating the date of their manufacture, where those articles have been lawfully marketed without that indication in other Member States, from which they have been imported.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Assignment ° Re-assignment under a staff rotation system ° Distinguished from the filling of a vacant post

(Staff Regulations, Arts 4, 29 and 45)

2. Officials ° Distinction between "post" and "job" ° Consequences

3. Officials ° Members of the temporary staff ° Engagement ° Occupation of a permanent or temporary post

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 2(a), 2(b) and 9)

Summary

1. A procedure for the rotation of staff within an institution, pursuant to which officials are re-assigned together with their posts, does not constitute a procedure for the filling of a vacant post. It follows that Articles 4, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations do not apply to a procedure of that kind.

Similarly, it is not possible to infer from the engagement of a member of the temporary staff to fill a post which the budgetary authorities have classified as temporary the existence of a permanent post.

2. It is a feature of the Community civil service that the existence of a post is the result of a decision on the part of the budgetary authority, whereas the existence of a job requires a decision on the part of the authority responsible for the departmental organization of an institution; consequently, the fact that, after a redistribution of staff, a job previously held by an official has remained unfilled does not imply that there is a vacant post.

3. Although Article 9 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants states that the purpose of engaging a member of the temporary staff is to fill a vacant post provided for in the budget, it does not prohibit the division of budgetary posts into permanent and temporary posts, provided for respectively by Articles 2(b) and 2(a) of those conditions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff ° Tariff headings ° Mechanical components of video recorders ° Classification, on the basis of rule of interpretation 2(a), under CN code 8521 relating to video recorders ° Not permissible in view of the importance of the electronic components in a video recorder ° Invalidity of Commission Regulation No 2275/88

(Commission Regulation No 2275/88, item 9 of the annex)

Summary

General rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, under which any reference in a heading to an article is to be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article, cannot authorize the classification under CN code 8521, relating to video recording or reproducing apparatus (video recorders), of components thereof consisting of magnetic tape drive mechanisms, in so far as those components, which represent only 30 to 40% of the value of the complete apparatus, are only the mechanical part of the video recorder, whereas the essential character of a video recorder is to be found in the combination of the mechanical and electronic components.

In view of the distinction drawn in the combined nomenclature between apparatus and parts of apparatus, and in view of the obvious importance of the electronic components, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in classifying, in item 9 of the annex to Regulation No 2275/88, the components in question under tariff subheading 8521 10 39. The regulation was therefore invalid in that respect.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom to provide services ° Restrictions ° Roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles ° Legislation of a Member State confining the right to issue test certificates to undertakings established on its national territory ° Justification ° Protection of road safety ° Disadvantage for providers of services established in other Member States resulting from the issue of free test certificates when maintenance is carried out by an authorized undertaking ° Irrelevant ° Conformity with Directive 77/143 ° Infringement of the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of goods and to competition ° None

(EEC Treaty, Arts 30, 59, 62 and 85; Council Directive 77/143)

Summary

Neither the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of goods, to the freedom to provide services and to competition nor those of Directive 77/143 concerning roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles preclude legislation of a Member State which does not permit test certificates in respect of cars registered in that State to be issued by garages established in another Member State.

So far as concerns the freedom to provide services, the authorization as testers of operators established in another Member State, in so far as it involves the extension outside the national territory of rights and powers pertaining to the exercise of State authority, does not fall within the scope of Article 59 of the Treaty; furthermore, the fact that national legislation of that nature ° in so far as it provides that test certificates are to be issued free when the test is carried out in conjunction with the maintenance or repair of a vehicle ° may lead to a loss of custom for foreign garages which, since they are not authorized, cannot extend the benefit of that free facility to their customers when they are entrusted with maintenance work, does not support the conclusion that the Treaty has been infringed, because the monopoly with respect to the issue of test certificates which is conferred only on undertakings which, because of their location, can be supervised by the national authorities, may be justified by the requirements of road safety.

So far as Directive 77/143 is concerned, that directive imposes a territorial limitation on periodic testing and, in any event, only partially harmonizes the criteria for testing.

So far as concerns the provisions of the Treaty which relate to the free movement of goods, those provisions are not relevant, since the supply of goods to which vehicle maintenance services may give rise is only incidental to the provision of services which the maintenance represents.

So far as concerns the rules on competition, it need only be observed that the purpose of national legislation of that nature is neither to impose nor to facilitate conduct prohibited by those rules.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Administrative procedure ° Observance of the rights of the defence ° Access to the file ° Limits

(Council Regulation No 17; Commission Regulation No 99/63)

2. Appeals ° Jurisdiction of the Court ° Review, on grounds of fairness, of assessment by the Court of First Instance of amounts of fines imposed on undertakings ° Excluded

Summary

1. In the context of proceedings aimed at establishing infringements of the rules on competition in the Treaty, observance of the rights of the defence requires, inter alia, that the undertaking concerned must have been enabled to express its views effectively on the documents used by the Commission to support its allegation of an infringement.

The Commission may, however, justifiably refuse to communicate to undertakings under investigation its own purely internal documents, confidential correspondence with the Member States and published documents and studies, which are, by definition, accessible to them.

The Commission may also refuse access to documents which third-party undertakings have submitted, subject to a confidentiality proviso, in the context of correspondence or of a request for information. Since an undertaking holding a dominant position on the market might adopt retaliatory measures against competitors, suppliers or customers who have collaborated in the investigation carried out by the Commission, third-party undertakings which submit documents to the Commission in the course of its investigations and consider that reprisals might be taken against them as a result can do so only if they know that account will be taken of their request for confidentiality.

Finally, reports on inspections carried out in third-party undertakings, being documents capable of providing evidence of infringements by third parties, may obviously not be disclosed.

2. It is not for the Court of Justice, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the Court of First Instance exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of Community law.