ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Procedure before the Disciplinary Board -Time-limits fixed by Article 7 of Annex IX - Failure to observe time-limits - Time-limits not mandatory

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7)

2. Appeals - Grounds - Incorrect appraisal of the facts - Inadmissible - Dismissal - Legal characterisation of the facts - Admissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

3. Officials - Disciplinary measures - Procedure before the Disciplinary Board - Time-limits fixed by Article 7 of Annex IX - Considerably exceeded - Breach of general principles of Community law - Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Annex IX, Art. 7)

Summary

1. The time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations are not mandatory but constitute rules of sound administration, with the result that a failure to observe those time-limits may render the institution liable for any damage caused to those concerned, but cannot of itself affect the validity of a disciplinary sanction imposed after their expiry.

( see para. 21 )

2. An appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. When the Court of First Instance has established or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the inferences in law it has drawn from them.

( see para. 37 )

3. It cannot be precluded that the fact that the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations are exceeded to a considerable extent may in certain cases amount to an infringement of a general principle of Community law applicable to such proceedings. More specifically, such a situation may prevent the person concerned from defending his interests effectively or cause him to have a legitimate expectation that no disciplinary measure will be imposed.

In such exceptional circumstances, a delay in adopting a disciplinary decision would constitute a breach of the rights of defence or of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which would justify the decision being declared void by the Community judicature.

( see paras 43-44 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Financing by the EAGGF - Principles - Aid paid in breach of Community legislation - Failure to observe certain formalities relating to proof or supervision - Charge to the Fund - Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 729/70, Arts 2 and 3)

2. Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Disallowance of expenditure incurred as a result of failure to apply the Community rules correctly - Financial correction - Assessment of the extent of the shortcomings and the degree of risk to the EAGGF - Where contested by the Member State concerned - Burden of proof

(Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 6)

Summary

1. Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy allow the Commission to charge to the EAGGF only sums paid in accordance with the rules laid down in the different agricultural sectors. Where it proves impossible to establish with certainty the extent to which a national measure incompatible with Community law has caused an increase in the expenditure entered under a budgetary item of the EAGGF, the Commission has no choice but to disallow all the expenditure in question.

( see paras 38-39 )

2. When the Commission, in the course of clearing the EAGGF accounts, finds structural weaknesses in the control system set up by the authorities of the Member State concerned, the inadequate quality of the on-the-spot checks gives rise to serious doubts concerning the establishment of an adequate and effective set of supervisory measures and inspection procedures for the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, such as to justify applying a flat-rate correction. Moreover, where, instead of disallowing all the expenditure affected by the infringement, the Commission has endeavoured to establish rules for treating irregularities differently, depending on the extent of the shortcomings in the checks and the degree of risk to the EAGGF, it is for the Member State to show that those criteria are arbitrary and unfair.

( see paras 48-50 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Obstacles resulting from privileges retained by Member States in the management of privatised undertakings - Justification - Systems of property ownership - None

(Arts 56 EC and 295 EC)

2. Free movement of capital - Restrictions - National rules vesting in the State a golden share in a company - Power to grant prior authorisation where certain limits on shareholdings are exceeded and right to oppose the transfer or use as security of the capital of the company - Not permissible - Justification on grounds of public security - None

(Arts 56 EC and 58(1)(b) EC)

Summary

$$1. Depending on the circumstances, certain concerns may justify the retention by Member States of a degree of influence within undertakings that were initially public and subsequently privatised, where those undertakings are active in fields involving the provision of services in the public interest or strategic services. However, those concerns cannot entitle Member States to plead their own systems of property ownership, as referred to in Article 295 EC, by way of justification for obstacles, resulting from privileges attaching to their position as shareholder in a privatised undertaking, to the exercise of the freedoms provided for by the Treaty, such as the free movement of capital between Member States. That article does not have the effect of exempting the Member States' systems of property ownership from the fundamental rules of the Treaty.

( see paras 43-44 )

2. A Member State which maintains in force national rules vesting in that State a golden share in an oil company, according to which the following rights attach to that golden share:

- a right of prior authorisation by the State where certain ceilings in respect of shareholdings or voting rights are exceeded;

- a right to oppose any decision to transfer or use as security the majority of the capital of various subsidiaries of the company,

fails to comply with its obligations under Article 56 EC.

Such rules constitute a restriction on the movement of capital within the meaning of that article which cannot be justified. Although, in that regard, the objective of safeguarding supplies of petroleum products in the event of a crisis falls within the ambit of public-security considerations which may justify an obstacle to the free movement of capital, in accordance with Article 58(1)(b) EC, such rules go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective, since the structure of the system established does not include any precise, objective criteria.

( see paras 42, 47, 53, operative part 1 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Parafiscal charge on pigs levied in respect of every animal produced in a Member State and slaughtered in that Member State or exported live which benefits those two types of production - Classification as a tax having an equivalent effect to customs duties - Excluded - Classification as an internal charge - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Arts 9, 12 and 95 (now, after amendment, Arts 23 EC, 25 EC and 90 EC))

2. State aid - Commission decision authorising a tax scheme as State aid - Obstacle to examination by national courts of compatibility with other Treaty provisions - No obstacle

(EC Treaty, Arts 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and 93 (now Art. 88 EC))

Summary

1. A levy charged by a body established under public law according to identical criteria on pigs produced in a Member State for slaughter on the domestic market or for live export to other Member States, the revenue from which is allocated to activities benefiting the two types of production, does not fall under the prohibition of charges having equivalent effect to customs duties on exports within the meaning of Article 9 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 23 EC), Article 12 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 25 EC) and Article 16 of the Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam). Such a levy may, however, be classified as discriminatory internal taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) if and to the extent to which the advantages deriving from the use made of its revenue compensate in part the charge imposed on pigs produced for slaughter in the Member State concerned, thereby placing at a disadvantage the production of pigs for live export to other Member States.

( see para. 49, operative part 1 )

2. The fact that a national levy is intended to finance an aid scheme authorised by the Commission pursuant to the Treaty provisions on State aid does not preclude a national court from examining whether such a levy is compatible with other directly effective Treaty provisions.

This assessment carried out by national courts makes it possible to guarantee individuals the legal protection deriving from the direct effect of the Community law provisions and, should those provisions be infringed, to re-establish internal legality, without thereby encroaching on the central and exclusive role which Articles 92 (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) and 93 (now Article 88 EC) of the Treaty reserve to the Commission in determining whether aid is compatible with the common market.

( see paras 62, 65, operative part 2 )
Case C-194/99 P





Thyssen Stahl AG

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 26 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Appeals – Grounds – Erroneous assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Appeal dismissed

(Art. 32d(1) CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2.. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Right of access to the Commission's file – Infringement – Condition – Refusal to allow access to documents which may be useful for the undertaking's defence

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1))

3.. Competition – Decision applying competition rules – Judicial review – Scope – Limits

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 33 and 65; Arts 81 EC and 82 EC)

4.. ECSC – Agreements – Concerted practice – Meaning – Criteria of coordination and cooperation – Interpretation – Agreement on the exchange of information

( ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(1); Art. 81(1) EC)

5.. Appeals – Grounds – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissible

(Art. 32d(1) CS; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

6.. ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Fines – Amount – Determination thereof – Criteria – Anti-competitive effects of the infringement – Criterion not conclusive

( ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5))

7.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision imposing fines for infringement of the competition rules – Merely desirable that the method of calculating the fine be disclosed

( ECSC Treaty, Arts 15, first para., and 65(5))

8.. Proceedings – Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance – Reasonable period – Criteria of assessment

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00





Italian Republic and SIM 2 Multimedia SpA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Action for annulment – Decision 2000/536/EC – State aid granted to Seleco SpA)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 27 September 2001 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 8 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Definition – Aid from State resources – Aid granted by a private-law company owned essentially by a public authority – Resources of the undertaking constantly remaining under public control – Included

(Art. 87(1) EC)

2.. State aid – Definition – Financial assistance granted by a Member State to a public or private undertaking – Assessment on the basis of the private investor criterion – Account to be taken of the context in which aid was granted

(Art. 87(1) EC)

3.. State aid – Definition – Private investor test put into practice – Commission's power of assessment – Judicial review – Limits

(Art. 87(1) EC)

4.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Obligation resulting from unlawfulness – Subject-matter – Restoration of the previous legal situation

(Art. 88(2) EC)

5.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Procedures for recovery – Conduct of a private creditor – Obligation to use all the legal means available, including liquidation of the beneficiary

(Art. 88(2) EC)

6.. State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Determination of the debtor where assets are transferred to a subsidiary – Economic continuity test

(Art. 88(2) EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions Directives Implementation by Member States Need to ensure their effectiveness

(Arts 10, first para., EC, and 249, third para., EC)

Summary

$$Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, the Member States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. Such action includes directives which, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, are binding as to the result to be achieved upon each Member State to which they are addressed. That obligation involves, for each Member State to which a directive is addressed, the adoption, within the framework of its national legal system, of all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective which it pursues.

( see para. 9 )
Keywords



Keywords

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

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination by the Court of the merits - Situation to be taken into account - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements - Agreements concluded by Member States - Bilateral convention concluded between a Member State and a non-member country - Obligations on the Member State to implement undertakings which it has assumed - Compliance with the fundamental principle that Community nationals should be treated equally

(Art. 307 EC)

2. Social security for migrant workers - Insurance relating to old age and death - Calculation of insurance periods - Bilateral convention concluded between a Member State and a non-member country recognising, for the purpose of acquiring the right to benefits in the Member State, that account may be taken of periods of insurance completed under the legislation of the non-member country by nationals of that Member State - Obligation on the Member State to take account of such periods completed by a national of another Member State - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality

(Art. 39 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 1(j))

Summary

1. When a Member State concludes a bilateral international convention with a non-member country, the fundamental principle of equal treatment requires that Member State to grant nationals of other Member States the same advantages as those which its own nationals enjoy under that convention unless it can provide objective justification for refusing to do so. When giving effect to commitments assumed under international agreements, be it an agreement between Member States or an agreement between a Member State and one or more non-member countries, Member States are required, subject to the provisions of Article 307 EC, to comply with the obligations that Community law imposes on them. The fact that non-member countries, for their part, are not obliged to comply with any Community-law obligation is of no relevance in this respect.

( see paras 33-34 )

2. The competent social security authorities of one Member State are required, pursuant to their Community obligations under Article 39 EC, to take account, for purposes of the acquisition of rights to old-age benefits, of periods of insurance completed in a non-member country by a national of a second Member State in circumstances where, under identical conditions of contribution, those competent authorities will take such periods into account where they have been completed by nationals of the first Member State pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between that Member State and the non-member country.

( see para. 39 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - National court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC - Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale - Included

(Art. 234 EC)

2. Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Tax on satellite dishes introduced by a municipal council - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC) and Arts 60 and 66 (now Arts 50 EC and 55 EC)

Summary

1. In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC, which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent. The Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, which has jurisdiction in local tax proceedings, satisfies those criteria.

( see paras 10, 12, 22 )

2. Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Articles 60 and 66 of the Treaty (now Articles 50 EC and 55 EC) must be interpreted as preventing the application of a tax on satellite dishes introduced by a municipal council of a Member State, where it is shown that such a tax is liable to impede more the activities of operators in the field of broadcasting or television transmission established in other Member States, while giving an advantage to the internal market of the Member State concerned and to radio and television distribution within that Member State.

( see paras 35, 39 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Protection of health and safety of workers - Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work - Assessment of risks - Employers' obligations - Duty to be in possession of an assessment in documentary form of risks - National legislation not ensuring that the obligation applies to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all circumstances - Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/391, Arts 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a))

Summary

$$Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work imposes a duty on the employer to be in possession of documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, documents to which workers and/or their representatives with specific responsibility for the safety and health of workers must have access under Article 10(3)(a) of the Directive.

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under the above provisions if it fails to ensure that the obligation to be in possession of an assessment in documentary form of those risks applies also to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all circumstances.

( see paras 24, 37, operative part 1 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Admissibility - Decisions against which an appeal may be brought - Examination by the Court of its own motion - Application for the annulment of a judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it declared it unnecessary to rule on an objection of inadmissibility brought against an action that was dismissed as unfounded - Dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49(1))

Summary

$$The Court must examine of its own motion whether the claims formulated by an appellant are directed against a decision of the Court of First Instance that is open to appeal under the first paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.

Decisions which dispose of a procedural issue concerning a plea of inadmissibility, within the meaning of that provision, are decisions which adversely affect one of the parties by upholding or rejecting that objection of inadmissibility.

That is not the case where the contested judgment shows that the Court of First Instance considered that it was not necessary to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant since the claims by the applicants had in any event to be dismissed on the merits.

It is for the Court of First Instance to assess whether the proper administration of justice justifies the dismissal of the action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant, a course of action which cannot be regarded as adversely affecting the latter.

( see paras 46, 50-52 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into account - Situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification put forward - Not acceptable - Obligation of cooperation in good faith between the Member State and the Commission - Scope

(Arts 10 EC and 226 EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings - To be exercised at its discretion

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

1. In an action under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

( see para. 16 )

2. A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. While, pursuant to the principle of cooperation, the Commission and the Member States must work together in good faith, such cooperation must be in full compliance with the Treaty and secondary legislation.

( see para. 18 )

3. Under the system established by Article 226 EC, the Commission enjoys a discretionary power as to whether it will bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations and it is not for the Court to judge whether that discretion was wisely exercised.

( see para. 19 )