ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social policy ° Men and women ° Equal pay ° Pay ° Concept ° Survivor' s pension paid by a private occupational scheme ° Included ° Benefit intended for the worker' s survivor ° Irrelevant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 119)

2. Social policy ° Men and women ° Equal pay ° Article 119 of the Treaty ° Applicability to private occupational pension schemes ° Finding in the judgment of 17 May 1990 in Case C-262/88 Barber ° Effects limited to benefits payable in respect of periods of service subsequent to the date of pronouncement of that judgment

(EEC Treaty, Art. 119)

Summary

1. A survivor' s pension paid by an occupational pension scheme the rules of which were not laid down directly by law but were the result of an agreement between both sides of the industry concerned, with the public authorities doing no more than, at the request of such employers' and trade union organizations as were considered to be representative, to declare the scheme compulsory for the whole of the industry concerned and which is funded wholly by the employees and employers in the industry concerned, to the exclusion of any financial contribution from the public purse, constitutes pay for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty, with the result that it is subject to the prohibition of discrimination based on sex laid down by that provision.

The fact that, by definition, a survivor' s pension is not paid to the employee but to the employee' s survivor does not alter that interpretation since entitlement to such a benefit is a consideration deriving from the survivor' s spouse' s membership of the scheme, the pension being vested in the survivor by reason of the employment relationship between the employer and the survivor' s spouse and being paid to him or her by reason of the spouse' s employment.

2. By virtue of the judgment of 17 May 1990 in Case C-262/88 Barber, the direct effect of Article 119 of the Treaty may be relied upon, for the purpose of claiming equal treatment in the matter of occupational pensions, only in relation to benefits payable in respect of periods of service subsequent to the date of pronouncement of that judgment, subject to the exception in favour of workers or those claiming under them who have, before that date, initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Individual decision ° Notification ° Concept

(EEC Treaty, Art. 191, second para.)

2. Procedure ° Time-limit for initiating proceedings ° Proceedings time-barred ° Excusable error ° Concept

3. Procedure ° Time-limit for initiating proceedings ° Proceedings time-barred ° Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure ° Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 42, second para.)

Summary

1. Dispatch of a Commission decision by registered letter with postal acknowledgement of receipt is a suitable method of giving notice. In the event of proceedings being brought, it is the date of signature of that receipt which must be regarded as the date of notification, without its being necessary to take account of the date on which the addressee returned an ordinary acknowledgement-of-receipt form attached to the decision for the purpose of mitigating any failure on the part of the postal services.

2. In the context of the Community rules on time-limits for instituting proceedings, the concept of excusable error justifying a derogation from those rules can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of the party concerned. An undertaking to which a Commission decision is addressed cannot therefore rely either on the inadequate functioning of its internal organization or on a failure to apply its own internal instructions in support of its claim that the error which it committed was excusable.

3. In order for an applicant whose application has been declared time-barred to be able, as provided in the second paragraph of Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, to be exempted from that finding by reason of the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, there must be abnormal difficulties, independent of the will of the person concerned and apparently inevitable, even if all due care is taken.

It follows that the concepts of force majeure and unforeseeable circumstances both contain an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the trader in question and a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the trader must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Directive 76/768 - List of substances which may not be used - Amendment procedure - Mandatory consultation of the Scientific Committee - Addition by Directive 90/121, in a manner contrary to that procedural requirement, of the substance 11 alpha OHP - Substantial defect - Invalidity of the provision in question

(Council Directive 76/768, Art. 8(2); Commission Directive 90/121, Art. 1)

Summary

Article 8(2) of Directive 76/768 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended, provides that the amendments necessary for adapting Annexes II to VII of that directive to technical progress, and more particularly Annex II listing substances the use of which is prohibited, are to be adopted after consultation of the Scientific Committee for Cosmetology at the initiative of the Commission or of a Member State. While it is not clear from the wording of that provision in the different language versions and a comparison of those versions whether that Committee has to be consulted in all cases, it follows from an examination of the Committee' s role in the procedure in question that such consultation is mandatory in all cases in so far as it is designed to ensure that the measures adopted at Community level are necessary and adapted to the objective of protecting human health pursued by the directive.

Since the failure to consult the Scientific Committee on the question of the prohibition of 11 alpha OHP by the Twelfth Directive 90/121 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III, IV, V and VI to Directive 76/768 constituted a substantial defect vitiating the procedure for the adoption of the Twelfth Directive, the provisions of Article 1 of that directive are invalid in so far as they add 11 alpha OHP and its esters to the "list of substances which must not form part of the composition of cosmetic products" appearing in Annex II to Directive 76/768.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Approximation of laws ° Labelling of tobacco products ° Directive 89/622 ° Health information and warnings ° Fixing by the directive of a percentage of the surface area of cigarette packets to be reserved for such information and warnings ° Option for Member States to fix a higher percentage for their domestic production

(Council Directive 89/622, Arts 3(3) and 4(4))

Summary

Articles 3(3) and 4(4) of Directive 89/622 on the labelling of tobacco products provide respectively that the indications of tar and nicotine yields and the general and specific health warnings that cigarette packets must carry shall cover at least 4% of the surfaces for which they are intended. Those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that, if they consider it to be necessary, Member States are at liberty to decide, so far as domestic production is concerned, that those indications and warnings should cover a greater surface area in view of the level of public awareness of the health risks associated with tobacco consumption.

In so far as those Member States cannot make subject to the same requirement products imported from the other Member States which comply with the minimum requirements of the directive, there is a risk of less favourable treatment for national products and of inequality in conditions of competition, although this is inherent in harmonization which confines itself to laying down minimum requirements.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Drafting procedure ° Consultation of the Parliament ° Consultation anew in the event of a substantial amendment to the initial proposal

2. Transport ° Inland navigation ° Structural improvements ° Scrapping premiums ° Special contribution ° Transitional rules ° Breach of the principles of non-retroactivity, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment ° None

(Council Regulation No 1101/89, Art. 8(1)(a) and (3)(a))

Summary

1. Where consultation of the European Parliament is provided for, there must be consultation anew on each occasion when the text finally adopted, viewed as a whole, departs substantially from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted, except in cases where the amendments essentially correspond to the wishes of the Parliament itself.

2. The principles of non-retroactivity, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment are not infringed by the transitional rules laid down in Article 8 of Regulation No 1101/89 on structural improvements in inland waterway transport, which, for a specified period, make the commissioning of newly constructed vessels subject to the requirement that the owner of the vessel to be brought into service must either scrap a tonnage of carrying capacity equivalent to the new vessel without receiving a scrapping premium or pay into the scrapping fund a special contribution equal to the scrapping premium, unless he proves that construction was under way when the regulation entered into force, that the work already carried out represents at least 20% of the steel weight or 50 tonnes and that delivery and commissioning of the vessel is to take place within the six months following entry into force of the regulation.

Whilst it is true that the regulation, which was not applicable until after it had entered into force, has onerous effects for certain economic agents who had already placed orders for vessels, there was no basis for any legitimate expectation on their part that new vessels ordered shortly after publication of the proposal for a regulation would be capable of being brought into service under the conditions ° which are less strict than those finally adopted ° laid down in that proposal since the Commission was entitled to amend its proposal at any time, the Council was entitled to adopt an act constituting an amendment to the proposal and they must have known that the industry was in favour of stricter transitional rules.

From the point of view of proportionality, moreover, the scheme adopted is appropriate and was properly considered necessary by the Council in order effectively to limit new investments in a sector in which there was structural overcapacity.

Finally, as regards the principle of equal treatment, the Community legislature cannot be required to adjust conditions objectively determined for the application of a scheme in order to accommodate specific decisions such as the choice of a shipyard which is not able to shorten its delivery times.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social security for migrant workers ° Community regulations ° Scope ratione materiae ° Benefits covered and benefits excluded ° Distinguishing criteria ° Benefit awarded, on the basis of objective and legally defined criteria, to unemployed persons who are elderly or suffering from partial incapacity for work ° Inclusion ° Non-contributory benefit ° Not relevant

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(2))

2. 2. Social security for migrant workers ° Unemployment ° Calculation of benefits ° National legislation varying the amount of benefit according to family situation ° Account to be taken of family members living in another Member State

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 68(2))

Summary

1. The distinction between benefits excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 and benefits which come within it is based essentially on the constituent elements of each benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for granting it, and not on whether it is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation.

A benefit may be regarded as an unemployment benefit within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 where it is granted ° without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs ° on the basis of a legally defined position, solely to unemployed persons who are elderly or suffering from partial incapacity for work and, where applicable, to their spouses, and where it takes the place of public unemployment benefit, is paid only until the person concerned reaches the statutory retirement age and only if he is available for employment.

The fact that such a scheme is financed by the public authorities is irrelevant because Article 4(2) of the regulation provides that the regulation applies to non-contributory schemes.

2. 2. Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 68(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, the competent institution of a Member State whose legislation provides that the amount of unemployment benefits varies with the number of members of the family must also take into account, for the calculation of benefits, members of the family of the person concerned who are residing in the territory of another Member State as though they were residing in the territory of the competent State. If the amount of an unemployment benefit provided for by national legislation may vary according to the family situation of the person concerned, the national legislation in question comes within the scope of that provision, irrespective of the methods of calculation used. Subject to the case described in the second sentence of Article 68(2), that provision precludes benefits granted to a national of another Member State from being calculated without taking account of his spouse who lives in another Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Workers ° Equal treatment ° Conditions of employment ° Exemption, exclusively for foreign-language assistants, from the obligation to justify recourse to fixed-term contracts of employment by objective reasons ° Disguised discrimination ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 48(2))

Summary

Article 48(2) of the Treaty precludes the application of national law according to which posts for foreign-language assistants must or may be the subject of employment contracts of limited duration whereas, for other teaching staff performing special duties, recourse to such contracts must be individually justified by an objective reason.

Since the great majority of foreign-language assistants are foreign nationals, such a difference of treatment is such as to place them at a disadvantage by comparison with nationals of the host country and therefore constitutes indirect discrimination, prohibited by Article 48(2) of the Treaty, unless it is justified by objective reasons, which do not include the need to ensure up-to-date instruction.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of pleas and arguments relied on before the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissible ° Dismissed

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Not possible to rely on pleas withdrawn at first instance or declared inadmissible when that finding is not itself contested

3. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Incorrect assessment of the facts ° Inadmissible ° Dismissed

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

Summary

1. It follows from Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that an appeal which merely reiterates the pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance in fact constitutes a request for re-examination of the application bought before the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, thus rendering those pleas and arguments inadmissible.

2. An appeal may not be based on pleas in law which the appellant expressly withdrew in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or pleas declared inadmissible by that Court, where the finding that they are inadmissible is not itself contested.

3. Under Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on pleas as to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. A fresh assessment of the facts thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. A plea which merely challenges the assessment of the facts made by the Court of First Instance is therefore inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Vacant post ° Filling by promotion or transfer ° Consideration of comparative merits of candidates ° Discretion of the administration ° Choice of a procedure involving interview with each candidate ° Procedure not followed ° Judgment of the Court of First Instance declaring unlawful a decision rejecting the application of an official not invited to interview ° Dismissal of appeal

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 51; Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1))

2. Officials ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Rejection of an application for a post ° Obligation to provide a statement of reasons at the latest by the stage of rejection of the complaint ° Failure to comply ° Rectification during legal proceedings ° Not permissible ° Judgment of the Court of First Instance penalizing failure to state grounds ° Dismissal of appeal

(Staff Regulations, second para. of Art. 25 and Art. 90(2))

Summary

1. Where the Court of First Instance, in its findings and assessments of fact which fall solely within its jurisdiction, has found on the one hand that the appointing authority, for the purpose of filling a vacant post, has decided in the exercise of its discretion to consider the comparative merits of candidates for promotion or transfer on the basis in particular of an interview with each of the candidates and, on the other hand, that the procedure determined for such consideration has not been followed, inasmuch as not all the candidates were interviewed, that Court was right to declare that a decision rejecting the application of one official who was not invited to interview was unlawful. An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance is therefore unfounded.

2. Although the appointing authority is not required to provide a statement of grounds for promotion or transfer decisions in respect of unsuccessful candidates, it is required to provide a statement of grounds for rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by an unsuccessful candidate, the statement of grounds for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of grounds for the decision against which the complaint was directed.

Although it is true that the appointing authority is not, in general, required to reply to a complaint, the position is different where the decision which is the subject of it is not reasoned, since a reasoned reply coming after an action has been commenced would not meet its purpose as regards either the person concerned or the Court.

An appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance penalizing such a lack of a statement of grounds is therefore unfounded.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

ECSC - Aid for the steel industry - Authorization by the Commission - Interpretation of an authorization decision for the purposes of determining the period covered by the authorization

(Commission Decision No 83/396, Art. 1)

Summary

Article 1 of Decision No 83/396 concerning the aids that the Italian Government proposes to grant to certain steel undertakings does not preclude application of Article 1 of Decree-law No 495 of 4 September 1981 on urgent measures to assist the steel industry and on pollution abatement plants, as amended by Conversion Law No 617 of 4 November 1981, in so far as it provides for the reimbursement of increases in the electricity surcharge on electricity consumed by steel undertakings between 1 January and 30 June 1983.

In authorizing the defrayal by the exchequer of increases in the electricity surcharge decided between 31 March 1981 and 31 December 1982, Article 1 of Decision 83/396 was intended to refer to the period in which the said increases were decided, not to the period within which the electricity on which the surcharge could be defrayed by the Italian State was consumed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Beef and veal - Private storage aid - Regulation No 2267/84 - Partial removal from storage of selected portions of boned forequarters before the expiry of the minimum storage period - Conditions of entitlement to aid - Retention in storage of a minimum quantity of beef

(Commission Regulation No 2267/84, Art. 4(2))

Summary

Regulation No 2267/84, which provides for the grant of private storage aid fixed at a standard rate in advance in respect of carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and forequarters of beef, is designed primarily to ensure storage of as large as possible an amount of beef irrespective of the nature of the portions stored; Article 4(2) of that regulation is designed, both in order to take account of commercial practice and for practical reasons, to leave the storer a certain margin regarding the quantities to be stored as stipulated in the storage contract. That is why Article 4(2)(b) must be interpreted as meaning that where selected portions of boned forequarters of beef are prematurely removed from storage before the expiry of the minimum two-month storage period stipulated in Article 7(1) of the regulation, the storer is entitled to private storage aid if the portions of meat remaining in the private warehouse during that minimum storage period represent a quantity of unboned meat employed which is not less than 90% of the contractual quantity, without its being necessary that the portions of beef remaining in storage are capable of constituting whole boned forequarters.