ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-148/03

Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG

v

Portbridge Transport International BV

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München)

(Brussels Convention – Articles 20 and 57(2) – Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance – Defendant domiciled in another Contracting State – Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road – Conflict between conventions)

Summary of the Judgment

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Relationship with other conventions – Conventions relating to a particular field – Convention containing rules on jurisdiction – Jurisidiction of the court seised challenged by the defendant on the basis of such a convention – Compliance by the court seised, in accordance with Article 57 of the Brussels Convention, with the rules of jurisdiction of the specialised convention

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Arts 20 and 57(2)(a))

Article 57(2)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, should be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued may derive its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even where the defendant, in the course of the proceedings in question, submits no pleas on the merits and formally contests the jurisdiction of the court seised.

In that connection, although it is true that according to Article 20 of the Convention of 27 September 1968, applicable by virtue of the second sentence of Article 57(2)(a), the court in question is required to declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction was derived from the terms of that convention, the jurisdiction of that court must, however, be regarded as derived from the Convention, because Article 57 thereof specifically states that the rules of jurisdiction laid down by specialised conventions are not affected by that convention.

In those circumstances, when verifying of its own motion whether it has jurisdiction with respect to that convention, the court of a Contracting State in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued and fails to enter an appearance must take account of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by specialised conventions to which the first Contracting State is also a party.

(see paras 16-20, operative part)
Case C-150/03 P

Chantal Hectors

v

European Parliament

(Appeal – Officials – Temporary staff in the European Parliament’s political groups – Recruitment – Rejection of candidature – Grounds – Requirement of a statement of specific reasons)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Recruitment of a member of the temporary staff by a political group of the Parliament – Rejection of an application – Duty to state reasons at the latest when rejecting a complaint – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2. Officials – Actions – Actions for damages – Failure to calculate the loss, in the application, or to justify that omission – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

1. The duty to state reasons imposed by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and, as regards decisions taken as a result of a complaint, that imposed by the second subparagraph of Article 90(2) thereof, are intended, on the one hand, to provide the persons concerned with sufficient details to enable them to assess whether the decision was well founded and whether it would be expedient to bring legal proceedings to contest its legality and, on the other hand, to enable the Court to review the decision.

In the case of a decision involving a choice between several candidates, the appointing authority or, by analogy, the authority authorised to conclude contracts of engagement, is bound to give a statement of reasons, at the very least when rejecting a complaint made by an unsuccessful candidate against the decision rejecting his candidature and/or against that appointing another candidate. The extent of that duty must be determined on the basis of the particular facts of each case.

As regards the engagement of a member of the temporary staff in a political group of the European Parliament, inasmuch as the competent authority, whose decision, founded in principle on a comparative assessment, was based also on objective data, namely a comparison of the candidates’ files with the qualifications required and the taking into consideration of the selection board’s proposal in the light of the results of the tests, by definition departed from the board’s opinion and, therefore, from the order of merit based on the result of the tests and communicated to the appellant, a general statement of reasons or one taking the form of a mere reference to the fact that the recruitment procedure had been properly conducted does not enable the person concerned to ascertain the reasons for being overlooked.

(see paras 39-41, 44, 46)

2. As regards the material damage alleged in support of a claim for compensation, in certain special cases, particularly where that loss is difficult to calculate, it is not absolutely necessary to particularise its exact extent in the application nor to calculate the amount of the compensation claimed.

However, an action must be dismissed as inadmissible if the applicant has not established, nor even claimed, the existence of special circumstances justifying the omission to calculate, in the application, the head of alleged loss.

(see para. 62)
Case C-79/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 79/409/EEC – Conservation of wild birds – Hunting using limed twigs)

Summary of the judgment

1. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by the Member States – Derogations from the prohibition on killing or capturing protected species – Prevention of serious damage to crops – Condition – Lack of satisfactory alternative solution

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(a))

2. Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by the Member States – Derogations from the prohibition on killing or capturing protected species – Condition – Capture in small numbers – Criteria

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))

1. A derogation under Article 8 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, which prohibits the use of all means, arrangements or methods used for large-scale or non-selective capture or hunting, may, according to Article 9(1) of the directive, be made only where there is no other satisfactory solution and for reasons exhaustively listed in Article 9(1)(a) and (c), including serious damage to crops.

(see para. 24)

2. In order to assess whether the derogation granted by a Member State under Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds fulfils the condition that the capture of the birds in question should be carried out in small numbers, the Court may, in the absence before the Court of any element of scientific proof to the contrary, use as a basis of reference the opinion of the ORNIS committee, the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical and Scientific Progress, instituted under Article 16 of the Directive, by means of the acknowledged scientific value of those opinions. That applies to the opinion proposing the criterion of small numbers, notwithstanding the fact that it is not legally binding on the Member States.

(see para. 41)
Case C-92/03

Commission of the European Communities

v

Portuguese Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 75/439/EEC – Disposal of waste oils – Priority to processing by regeneration)

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 28 October 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 27 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Disposal of waste oils – Directive 75/439 – Obligation of the Member States to give priority to the processing of oils by regeneration – Limits – Technical, economic or organisational constraints – Meaning

(Council Directive 75/439, Art. 3(1))

It is clear from Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Directive 87/101, that the reference to ‘technical, economic or organisational constraints’ in that article forms part of a provision giving general expression to the obligation imposed on Member States and that the Community legislature did not thereby intend to provide limited exceptions to a rule having general application, but to define the scope and content of a positive obligation to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

To consider that the technical, economic and organisational circumstances obtaining in a Member State automatically constituted constraints making it impossible to adopt the measures provided for in that article would deprive it of all practical effect, since the obligation imposed on Member States would be limited by maintenance of the status quo, with the result that there would be no genuine obligation to take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

(see paras 35-36)
Case C-235/03

QDQ Media SA

v

Alejandro Omedas Lecha

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de Barcelona)

(Directive 2000/35/EC – Definition of recovery costs – Expenses of abogado or procurador in judicial proceedings where use of those legal practitioners is not required – Impossible to include in the costs on the basis of national law – Impossible to rely on the directive against an individual)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 10 March 2005 .

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Combating late payment in commercial transactions – Directive 2000/35 – Possibility, in the absence of measures transposing the directive, to rely on the right to claim the recovery costs from an individual – Excluded

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 3(1)(e))

In a case which relates to a dispute between individuals, where it is not possible on the basis of natural law to include, in the calculation of the costs which an individual who owes a business debt might be ordered to pay, the expenses arising from representation by an abogado or procurador of the creditor in judicial proceedings for the recovery of that debt, Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions cannot of itself serve as the basis for the inclusion of such expenses, since a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot be relied on against an individual.

(see paras 16-17, operative part)
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 January 2006 – Germany v Commission

(Case C-183/03)

EAGGF – Decision 2003/102/EC – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Arable cultures sector

1. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see para. 47)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes (Commission Regulation No 3887/92, amended by Regulation No 2801/1999, Art. 6(5) (see paras 60-61)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes (Commission Regulation No 3887/92, amended by Regulation No 2801/1999, Art. 9) (see paras 84-89)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February 2003 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under document number C(2003) 500) (OJ 2003 L 42, p. 47) – Checks in the arable crops sector – Case of the Land of Brandenburg

Operative part:

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Directive 98/34 — Technical regulation — Concept — National provision prohibiting the marketing of cotton buds which are not manufactured from biodegradable materials — Whether included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48, Art. 1(11))

2. Approximation of laws — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Directive 98/34 — Duty of Member States to notify the Commission of any draft technical regulation — Scope — Breach of duty — Obligation on a national court to leave unapplied the provision in question

(European Parliament and Council Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 98/48, Art. 8(1))

Summary

1. Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that a national legislative provision including a prohibition on the marketing of cotton buds which are not manufactured from biodegradable materials in accordance with a national standard constitutes a technical regulation within the meaning of that Community provision.

(see para. 14, operative part 1)

2. The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision which constitutes a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1(11) of the directive, such as a prohibition on the marketing of cotton buds which are not manufactured from biodegradable materials in accordance with a national standard, must be notified to the Commission prior to its adoption.

If such a notification has not taken place, the national courts may refuse to apply the national legal provision concerned.

(see paras 19, 24, operative part 2-3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — ‘Sound cards’ for computers — Cards having no specific function within the meaning of note 5(E) to chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature — Included by the Commission under heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature –– Invalidity of Regulations Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98

(Commission Regulations Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98)

Summary

By including, through Regulations Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, sound cards for computers, which have no specific function within the meaning of note 5(E) to chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, under subheading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature, the Commission did not respect the content of heading 8543, which relates solely to electrical machines and apparatus having individual functions. Consequently, those regulations are invalid in so far as they classify sound cards for computers under heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature

(see paras 23, 25-26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Hygiene of foodstuffs – Directive 93/43 – National legislation prohibiting the sale of non-packaged confectionery from vending machines – Justification – Protection of public health

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; Council Directive 93/43, Art. 7)

Summary

It is not contrary to Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and Article 7 of Directive 93/43 on the hygiene of foodstuffs for a provision of national law, adopted before the entry into force of that directive, to prohibit the offer for sale from vending machines of sugar confectionery or products made using sugar substitutes, without wrapping.

Such a provision, even if constitutes in principle, a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC, may be justified under Article 30 EC on the grounds of the protection of public health, if it constitutes an adequate and proportionate measure to attain the objective pursued.

(see paras 29, 33, 36, 38, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Wine – Description and presentation of wines – Regulation No 753/2002 – Use on the label of optional terms – Competition relating to the award of such terms – Conditions for organisation of those competitions – Excluded from the scope of the regulation

(Commission Regulation No 753/2002, Art. 21)

Summary

Article 21 of Regulation No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products allows awards or medals to be featured on the labels of table wines with a geographical indication or quality wines produced in specified regions (‘quality wines psr’) awarded in a competition authorised by a Member State or third country and run with complete impartiality. That article is not therefore designed to lay down rules for the organisation of wine competitions.

It follows that entrants or potential entrants to a wine competition cannot rely on that provision to contest the conditions for the organisation of that competition and, in particular, the rules determining the entry fees.

(see paras 16-17, 21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature – Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 concerning heading 1006 – Semi-milled rice

(Council Regulation No 2658/87)

Summary

The validity of Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff , as amended by Regulation No 2388/2000, concerning heading 1006 of the Combined Nomenclature, is not affected on the ground that it gives a definition of semi-milled rice which includes an element, concerning the germ of the rice grain, which is not mentioned in the Explanatory Note to the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System.

(see paras 24, 37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Fused magnesia – Classification under subheading 2519 90 10 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

Fused magnesia, which is essentially composed of magnesium oxide and is the result of magnesite being subjected to two stages of heat treatment, namely calcination and fusion, comes under subheading 2519 9010 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulations Nos 3115/94, 1359/95, 2448/95 and 3009/95.

(see paras 22-23, 30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Marketing methods

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

Article 28 EC does not preclude a national provision by which a Member State prohibits in its territory the selling of, and collecting of orders for, silver jewellery in a door-step-selling situation where such a provision applies to all relevant traders in so far as it affects in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and that of products from other Member States. It is for the national court to ascertain whether the application of the national provision is liable to prevent the access to the market of products from other Member States or to impede that access more than it impedes the access to the market of domestic products and, if that is the case, to determine whether the measure concerned is justified by an objective in the general interest within the meaning given to that concept in the Court’s case-law or by one of the objectives listed in Article 30 EC, and whether that measure is proportionate to that objective.

(see para. 30, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents – Regulation No 1348/2000

(Council Regulation No 1348/2000, Arts 4 to 11 and 14)

Summary

Council Regulation No 1348/2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not establish any hierarchy between the method of transmission and service through agencies under Articles 4 to 11 thereof and the method of service by post under Article 14 thereof and that, consequently, it is possible to serve a judicial document by one or other or both of those methods. First, neither the recitals in the preamble to the regulation nor its provisions state that a method of transmission and service, used in accordance with the rules of the regulation, would rank below the method of service through agencies. Secondly, in the light of the spirit and purpose of the regulation, which is intended to ensure that judicial documents are served effectively, while respecting the legitimate interests of the persons on whom they are served, and in view of the fact that all the methods of service provided for by the regulation can ensure, as a rule, that those interests are respected, it must be conceivable to use one or other, or indeed two or more at once of those methods of service which appear the most suitable or appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case.

Consequently, where service is being effected both through agencies and by post, in order to determine vis-à-vis the person on whom service is effected the point from which time starts to run for the purposes of a procedural time-limit linked to effecting service, reference must be made to the date of the first service validly effected. In order not to render meaningless the provisions of the regulation governing those methods of service, all the legal effects which follow when one of those methods is validly effected must be taken into account irrespective of subsequent successful service by another method. Moreover, the regulation is intended to expedite the transmission of judicial documents for service and, therefore, the conduct of judicial proceedings. If, for the purposes of computing a procedural time-limit, the first service of the document in question is taken into consideration, the person on whom that document is served is required to defend judicial proceedings earlier, which can enable the competent court to give a ruling within shorter time-limits.

(see paras 20-21, 28-32, operative part)