ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social policy ° Approximation of laws ° Protection of employees in the event of the employer' s insolvency ° Directive 80/987 ° Scope of application ° Category of employees with the status of employees by reference to national law and not included in Section I of the Annex to the directive ° Inclusion

(Council Directive 80/987, Annex, Section I, as amended by Directive 87/164)

2. Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by the Member States ° Need to ensure effectiveness of directives ° Obligations of national courts

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

3. Social policy ° Approximation of laws ° Protection of employees in the event of the employer' s insolvency ° Directive 80/987 ° Obligation of Member States to establish a single institution for all categories of employee ° None ° National law not enabling higher management staff to obtain the benefit of the guarantee provided for by the directive ° Right of those concerned to obtain reparation from the Member State in question for the loss and damage sustained as a result of the failure to implement the directive

(Council Directive 80/987, Art. 3(1))

Summary

1. Higher management staff may not be excluded from the scope of Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Council Directive 87/164/EEC, where they are classified under national law as employees and they are not listed in section I of the Annex to the directive.

2. When applying the provisions of national law which are intended to ensure the application of Directive 80/987, the national court called upon to interpret them is required to do so, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty.

That principle of interpretation in conformity with directives must be followed in particular where a national court considers that the pre-existing provisions of its national law meet the requirements of the directive concerned.

3. Higher management staff may not rely on Directive 80/987 in order to request the payment of amounts owing to them by way of salary from the guarantee institution established by national law for the other categories of employee. Article 3(1) of the directive requires the Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that guarantee institutions guarantee payment of employees' outstanding claims, but does not oblige them to establish a single institution for all categories of employee.

In the event that, even when interpreted in the light of the aforementioned directive, national law does not enable higher management staff to obtain the benefit of the guarantees for which it provides, such staff are entitled to request the State concerned to make good the loss and damage sustained as a result of the failure to implement the directive in their respect.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

International agreements ° EEC-Austria Agreement ° Protocol 3 ° Origin of goods ° Proof by EUR.1 certificate ° Subsequent verification not leading to a positive result ° Consequences ° Consideration of other evidence or possibility for the importer to rely on the principle of force majeure ° Conditions

(EEC-Austria Agreement, Protocol 3)

Summary

Protocol 3 concerning the definition of the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation, annexed to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria which establishes, within the framework of the free trade envisaged by the Agreement, preferential arrangements for products originating in Austria or the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that where the exporting State, having been requested to check the EUR.1 certificate of origin, does not succeed in establishing the correct origin of the goods, it must conclude that they are of unknown origin and therefore that the EUR.1 certificate and the preferential tariff have been wrongly granted.

However, in a situation in which the customs authorities of the exporting State, having regard to the impossibility of furnishing the usual proof of the origin of the goods envisaged by the protocol, are not in a position duly to carry out such a check, the importing State is not definitively bound, for the purpose of demanding payment of unpaid customs duties, by the negative result of such verification, but may take account of other evidence as to the origin of the goods.

Moreover, an importer may, in certain circumstances, rely upon force majeure where it is impossible for the customs authorities of the exporting State, by reason of their own negligence, to establish the correct origin of goods by means of subsequent verification. It is for the national court to assess all the facts relied upon in that respect.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff - System of generalized tariff preferences granted to developing countries - Origin of goods - Certificate of origin stating the country of destination to be a country other than a Member State - Loss of entitlement to tariff exemption - Retrospective issue of a fresh certificate giving such entitlement - Permissibility - Conditions

(Commission Regulations Nos 3749/83 and 693/88)

Summary

Entitlement to benefit from the system of tariff preferences granted by the Community to certain products from developing countries is lost if the certificate of origin Form A issued when products are exported pursuant to Regulations Nos 3749/83 and 693/88 on the definition of the concept of originating products for purposes of the application of the said tariff preferences states the country of destination to be a country other than a Member State of the European Community.

However, if the products in question satisfy the origin requirements laid down by the Community rules and the issue of the certificate referring to another country of destination can be explained by a situation of an exceptional nature, there is no reason why a fresh certificate may not be issued retrospectively, on the basis of Article 23 of the said regulations, by the competent government authority of the exporting country; the fresh certificate must then be taken into account for the purposes of grant of the tariff exemption, provided that all the other conditions of validity laid down in the Community rules are satisfied.

An exceptional situation, within the meaning of the said regulations, may be regarded as having arisen where the fact that the country of destination indicated is a non-member country is due to the products in question being the subject of a compensation operation with that country and ultimately resold on other markets, because the non-member country has no need for them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social security for migrant workers - Invalidity insurance - Award of benefit - Migrant worker residing in the State of employment at the time of the incapacity for work followed by invalidity - Entitlement to benefit in the State of last employment

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 39(1) and (5) and Art. 71(1)(b)(ii))

2. Social security for migrant workers - Introduction and processing of claims for benefits - Claim for invalidity benefit made to the institution of the State of residence - Obligation to ensure that the claim is forwarded to the institution of the competent State - Whether obligation on the institution of the State of residence to pay invalidity benefit to the claimant - No such obligation

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 86; Council Regulation No 574/72, Art. 35)

Summary

1. The factor which determines whether Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 applies at all is the residence of the person concerned in a Member State other than that to whose legislation he was subject during his last employment. The first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 for that reason does not apply to a worker who moved with his family to a Member State where he resided and worked and where he suffered incapacity for work followed by invalidity, and who subsequently moved to another Member State without working there, before finally taking up residence in a third Member State, where, owing to his invalidity, he does not work or register for employment.

Such a worker is consequently not covered by Article 39(5) of that regulation and must come within the general rule under Article 39(1), which provides that, with regard to invalidity benefit, the competent Member State is the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred, in this case the State of last employment.

2. It follows from Article 86 of Regulation No 1408/71 and from Article 35 of Regulation No 574/72 that when a claimant submits a claim for invalidity benefit to the institution of the State of residence, that institution is required to forward it to the institution of the competent Member State, that is to say, the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred.

On the other hand, and in contrast to the system laid down with respect to other benefits, there is no provision in Regulation No 1408/71 which requires the institutions of the State of residence to pay invalidity benefit to a claimant, even if the competent State is required to make reimbursement, subject to the application of Article 114 of Regulation No 574/72 in the case of a dispute between the relevant institutions. Community law, however, does not in any way prohibit the institution of the State of residence from assisting a claimant in the submission of a claim to the institution of the competent State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws ° Procedures for the award of public supply contracts ° Directive 77/62 ° Derogations from common rules ° Strict interpretation ° Existence of exceptional circumstances ° Burden of proof

(Council Directive 77/62, Art. 6(1)(b) and (d))

Summary

Article 6(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 77/62 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, which authorize derogations from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of rights conferred by the Treaty in that sector, must be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving the actual existence of exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation lies on the person seeking to rely on those circumstances. They cannot in any way justify general and indiscriminate recourse to the single-tender procedure for all supplies of pharmaceutical products and specialities to social security institutions.

If Article 6(1)(b) is to apply, it is not sufficient for the pharmaceutical products and specialities to be protected by exclusive rights; they must also be capable of being manufactured or delivered only by a particular supplier, a requirement which is satisfied only with respect to those products and specialities for which there is no competition in the market.

With regard to the derogation on the grounds of urgency provided for in Article 6(1)(d), although, having regard to the freedom of doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical products, an urgent need for a particular pharmaceutical speciality may well arise in a hospital pharmacy, that cannot justify systematic recourse to the single-tender procedure for all supplies of pharmaceutical products and specialities to hospitals and, in any event, even if the requirement of urgency were considered to have been satisfied in a particular case, the derogation provided for by that provision may be relied on only if all the conditions it lays down are satisfied cumulatively.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Wine ° Description and presentation of wines ° Quality wines produced in specified regions ° Use of the term "château" by wine-growers cultivating plots formerly belonging to the estate of a château and making wine on the premises of their cooperative ° Whether permissible ° Participation in a cooperative of wine-growers cultivating plots not formerly belonging to the château estate ° No effect in the event of recourse to reliable procedures ensuring that the grapes are not mixed

(Commission Regulation No 997/81, Art. 5(1), and No 3201/90, Art. 6)

Summary

Article 5(1) of Regulation No 997/81 laying down detailed rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts, which makes the use of the term "château" to designate the name of the vineyard where the wine in question was produced subject to the twofold requirement that the wine was made exclusively from grapes harvested from that same vineyard and that the wine-making process was carried out there, like Article 6 of Regulation No 3201/90 which replaced it, and which is couched in similar terms, does not preclude the use of the term in question by wine-growers producing grapes on lands forming part of the original estate of a château, who have formed a cooperative on whose premises they make wine.

The fact that a cooperative includes amongst its members both wine-growers whose land derives from the partition of the original estate of a château, and wine-growers who harvest grapes outside that estate, does not preclude the application of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 997/81 or Article 6 of Regulation No 3201/90, provided that reliable procedures are introduced to ensure that the grapes harvested by the former are not mixed with those harvested by the latter.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers ° Benefits payable under the legislation of one Member State for injury sustained in the territory of another Member State ° Right of recoupment of the institutions responsible for benefits against the liable third party ° Determination according to the national law of the institution responsible ° National law not allowing the institution to be subrogated or bring an action for recoupment ° Not effective against institutions of the other Member States

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 93(1))

Summary

Article 93(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions and extent of the right of recoupment which a social security institution within the meaning of that regulation has against the party who has caused an injury in the territory of another Member State, which has entailed the payment of social security benefits intended to cover costs such as hospital and transport costs, are determined in accordance with the law of the Member State to which that institution is subject. In particular, provisions of a Member State excluding subrogation of the institution responsible for benefits to the rights which the recipient of the benefits has against the third party liable to make good the damage, and excluding the right of the institution to claim directly against the third party, do not exclude claims by institutions responsible for benefits in other Member States.

That provision has the object of allowing a social security institution, which has paid benefits following an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State, to exercise against the third party liable for the injury the rights of action provided for by the legislation which it administers, that being a logical and fair counterpart to the extension of the obligations of those institutions throughout the entire Community, and must be seen as a conflict-of-laws rule requiring the national court hearing an action for compensation brought against the party liable for the injury to apply the law of the Member State to which the institution responsible is subject, not only to determine whether that institution is subrogated by law to the rights of the injured party or has direct rights against the third party liable, but also to determine the nature and extent of the claims to which the institution responsible for benefits is subrogated or which it can bring directly against a third party.

The purpose of Article 93(1) is not, however, to alter the rules applicable for determining whether and to what extent there is non-contractual liability on the part of the third party who has caused the injury, so that that liability remains subject to the substantive rules which are normally to be applied by the national court before which proceedings are brought by the institution responsible or by the victim, in other words, in principle the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the injury has occurred.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws ° Protection of plant health ° Directive 77/93 ° Requirement of prior authorization for all imports of plants susceptible to fire blight introduced unilaterally by a Member State ° Not permissible ° Breach of the prohibition of measures having equivalent effect

(EEC Treaty, Arts 30, 36 and 100; Regulation No 234/68 of the Council, Art. 10(1); Council Directive 77/93, Art. 11)

Summary

A Member State which requires prior authorization for all imports of plants susceptible to fire blight (Erwinia amylovara) is in breach of its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 77/93 on protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of harmful organisms of plants or plant products, as amended by Directives 88/572 and 89/439, and under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 10(1) of Regulation No 234/68 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage.

The directive, which, in view of the fact that it is designed to harmonize all inspection measures relating to plants, precludes the unilateral introduction of such measures by Member States, does not include such a requirement among the inspection arrangements which the Member State of destination may adopt in intra-Community trade. The barrier to trade which the requirement in question represents cannot be permitted on the ground of the protection of plants within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty, since recourse to that article is no longer justified where, as in this case, Community directives adopted in application of Article 100 of the Treaty provide for the harmonization of the measures necessary to that end and establish procedures to check that they are observed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Oils and fats ° Compensatory payments for oil seeds ° Not possible to lodge more than one application per marketing year in respect of the same plot of land ° Implementation by the Commission of a principle laid down by the Council ° Lawfulness

(Council Regulation No 1765/92; Commission Regulation No 2294/92, Art. 4)

Summary

Since Council Regulation No 1765/92 introducing a support system for producers of certain arable crops includes, in respect of compensatory payments, provisions which appear to give effect to the principle underlying the regulation, which can be inferred from its statement of reasons, that such payments are available on one occasion only for a given area in respect of a given marketing year, the Commission cannot be said to have adopted an implementing measure not falling within the powers conferred by the said basic Council regulation when it laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2294/92 that producers of oil seeds are allowed to lodge only one application per marketing year.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Prohibited ° Exemption ° Net price system for books established in a Member State ° Factors to be taken into consideration ° Existence of a single language area covering more than one Member State

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(3))

2. Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Prohibited ° Exemption ° Justification ° Benefits ° Localization

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(3))

3. Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Extent ° Decision applying the competition rules

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

1. Where two Member States form a single language area, the court which has to review the lawfulness of the Commission' s refusal to grant an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty for a net price system for books established in one of those Member States must not fail to determine the extent to which, having regard to the existence of that single language area, the objectives pursued by that system, the restrictions of competition arising therefrom, and the relationship between the objectives and the restrictions are to be assessed in the same way or differently depending on whether the assessment relates only to the territory of the Member State for which the system has been established or to the Community market.

2. Nothing in the wording or the spirit of Article 85(3) of the Treaty allows that provision to be interpreted as meaning that the possibility for which it provides, of declaring the provisions of paragraph 1 inapplicable in the case of certain agreements which contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, is subject to the condition that those benefits should occur only on the territory of the Member State or States in which the undertakings who are parties to the agreement are established and not in the territory of other Member States. Such an interpretation is incompatible with the fundamental objectives of the Community and with the very concepts of common market and single market.

3. While Article 190 of the Treaty does not require the Commission to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by undertakings seeking an exemption, the statement of reasons in any adverse decision must enable the Court to review its lawfulness and the Member States and the persons concerned to know the circumstances in which the Commission has applied the Treaty.

That requirement is not met by a decision not to grant an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty which mentions decisions of a national court with jurisdiction in competition cases, put forward by the applicant as evidence of the benefits of the agreements for which exemption is sought, but does not discuss their content and gives no explanation of why that court' s conclusions are of no relevance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Transport ° Road haulage operator ° Pursuit of occupation ° Requirement concerning financial standing ° National provisions requiring guarantee ° Nature of debts secured ° Discretion of Member States

(Council Directive 74/561, Art. 3(3) in the version applicable until 31 December 1989)

Summary

Article 3(3) of Council Directive 74/561 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator in national and international transport operations, in the version applicable until 31 December 1989, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not determine the debts which must be covered by a guarantee, where a Member State chooses to set up such a system to ensure the financial standing of road haulage operators.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Action against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of grounds by the Court - Situation to be taken into consideration - Situation upon the expiry of the period prescribed by the reasoned opinion

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)