ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Industrial and commercial property - Trade mark - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 89/104 - Product put on the market in a Member State by the trade mark owner or with his consent - Importation, after repackaging and reaffixing of the trade mark, into another Member State - Opposition by the trade mark owner - Permissibility - Condition - No artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States - Criteria of assessment in the case of parallel importation of pharmaceutical products

(Art. 30 EC; Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(2))

Summary

$$Whilst the proprietor of a trade mark right which is protected in two Member States at the same time is justified, for the purposes of the first sentence of Article 30 EC and Article 7(2) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, in opposing a product to which the trade mark has lawfully been applied in one of those States from being put on the market in the other Member State after it has been repacked in new packaging to which the trade mark has been affixed by a third party, such opposition will, however, constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 30 EC, where it is established, in particular, that the use of the trade mark right by the proprietor, having regard to the marketing system which he has adopted, will contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States. In the case of parallel imports of pharmaceutical products, in certain circumstances, where repackaging is necessary to allow the product to be marketed in the importing State, opposition to the repackaging is to be regarded as constituting such artificial partitioning.

Replacement packaging of pharmaceutical products rather than simply sticking labels on those packages is objectively necessary if, without such repackaging, effective access to the market concerned, or to a substantial part of that market, must be considered to be hindered as the result of strong resistance from a significant proportion of consumers to relabelled pharmaceutical products.

( see paras 23-24, 33, operative part )
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

2 October 2003

((Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams)) In Case C-179/99 P, Eurofer ASBL, established in Luxembourg, represented by N. Koch, Rechtsanwalt, appellant, APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94 Eurofer v Commission [1999] ECR II-263, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall and W. Wils, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg,defendant at first instance,



THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,



composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,

Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 31 January 2002, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,

gives the following

Judgment

1

Facts and the contested decision

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

─ set aside the judgment under appeal;

─ having regard to the form of order sought at first instance, annul Article 2 of the contested decision and the part of Article 3 of that decision which concerns the appellant;

─ order the Commission to pay the costs.

13

─ dismiss the appeal;

─ order the appellant to pay the costs.

14

1.

2.

3.

4.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

1.

2.

Wathelet Edward La Pergola Jann von Bahr

R. Grass M. Wathelet
Case C-167/99





European Parliament

v

Société d'aménagement et d'équipement de la Région de Strasbourg (SERS) and Ville de Strasbourg





«(Arbitration clause – Late performance of a contract – Penalties for delay – Interim interest)»

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

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 10 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Access to employment and working conditions - Equal treatment - Directive 76/207 - Protection of safety and health of workers - Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Directive 92/85 - Worker recruited for a fixed period, aware that she was pregnant when the contract was concluded, but failing to inform her employer of this - Pregnancy preventing her from working during a substantial part of the contract - Dismissal of the worker on the ground of pregnancy - Not permissible - Size of the undertaking and frequent recourse to temporary employment - Immaterial

(Council Directives 76/207, Art. 5(1), and 92/85, Art. 10)

Summary

$$Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions and Article 10 of Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding are to be interpreted as precluding a worker from being dismissed on the ground of pregnancy

- where she was recruited for a fixed period,

- she failed to inform the employer that she was pregnant even though she was aware of this when the contract of employment was concluded,

- and because of her pregnancy she was unable to work during a substantial part of the term of that contract.

The fact that the worker has been recruited by a very large undertaking which employs temporary workers frequently is of no relevance to the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 and Article 10 of Directive 92/85.

( see paras 34, 39 and operative part )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of the merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into consideration - Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

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

(Art. 226 EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Period prescribed in the reasoned opinion for the Member State - Default subsequently remedied - Interest in pursuing the action - Possible liability of the Member State

(Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. 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 - Evaluation of risks - Employers' obligations

(Council Directive 83/391, Art. 6(3)(a))

2. Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Need for clear and precise transposition - Legal certainty guaranteed to individuals

Summary

1. It follows both from the purpose of Directive 89/391 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, which, according to its 15th recital, applies to all risks, and from the wording of Article 6(3)(a) thereof, that employers are obliged to evaluate all risks to the safety and health of workers. Also, the occupational risks which are to be evaluated by employers are not fixed once and for all, but are continually changing in relation, particularly, to the progressive development of working conditions and scientific research concerning such risks.

( see paras. 12-13 )

2. Transposing a directive into national law does not necessarily require its provisions to be reproduced verbatim in a specific, express law or regulation; a general legal context may be sufficient, provided that it does effectively ensure the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner. It is particularly important, in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, that individuals should have the benefit of a clear and precise legal situation enabling them to ascertain the full extent of their rights and duties and, where appropriate, to rely on them before the national courts.

( see paras. 21-22 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Oils and fats - Compensatory payments for oil-seeds - Regulation establishing the value of the final regional reference amounts for certain oil-seeds

(Council Regulation No 3766/91; Commission Regulation No 525/93)

2. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Regulation establishing the value of the final regional reference amounts for certain oil-seeds

(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC); Commission Regulation No 525/93)

Summary

1. In the context of Regulation No 3766/91 establishing a support system for producers of soya beans, rape seed and colza seed and sunflower seed which was used as the basis for Regulation No 525/93 establishing the value of the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed, the Commission did not commit a manifest error or misuse of power or manifestly exceed the limits of its discretion, when in order to ensure that the observed reference prices were comparable with the projected reference price, the Commission made estimates in order to include forward prices which, being calculated on the basis of a longer period, were therefore a more stable element than spot prices, and took no account of prices which related to a small number of transactions and were therefore not representative of the equilibrium price throughout the 1992/93 marketing year.

( see paras 34, 37 )

2. The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the nature of the measure in question and must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which enacted the measure, so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review. It is not necessary, however, for details of all relevant factual and legal aspects to be given, in so far as the question whether the statement of grounds for a measure meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.

( see para. 42 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Identification and registration of the animals eligible for grant of aid - Register of animals kept by the farmer - Refusal of entitlement to a compensatory allowance - Conditions

(Council Regulation No 3508/92, Art. 5; Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Arts 6(5) and 13; Council Directive 92/102)

Summary

$$Article 5 of Regulation No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, read together with Directive 92/102 on the identification and registration of animals and Articles 6(5) and 13 of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying that integrated system, as amended by Regulation No 1648/95, must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to a compensatory allowance must be refused, except in cases of force majeure, solely because of the absence of any entries in the register of animals kept by the farmer.

( see para. 33 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment - Waste - Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste - Classification of planned shipments by the notifier - Competence of the authority of dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment on the ground of an incorrect classification

(Council Regulation No 259/93, Arts 2(c), 7(2), 26 and 30(1))

2. Environment - Waste - Directive 75/442 on waste - Annexes II A and II B - Distinction between disposal and recovery operations - Deposit of waste in a disused mine - Classification on a case- by-case basis

(Council Directive 75/442, Annexes II A, item D, and II B)

Summary

1. It follows from the system established by Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Decision 98/368, and in particular Articles 20 and 30(1) thereof, that the competent authority of dispatch, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of that regulation, is competent to verify whether a proposed shipment classified in the notification as a shipment of waste for recovery does in fact correspond to that classification, and that, if that classification is incorrect, the authority must oppose the shipment by raising an objection founded on that misclassification within the period prescribed by Article 7(2) of that regulation.

( see paras 40-41, 50, operative part 1 )

2. The deposit of waste in a disused mine does not necessarily constitute a disposal operation for the purposes of D 12 of Annex II A to Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350. The deposit must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the operation is a disposal or a recovery operation within the meaning of that directive since a single operation cannot be classified simultaneously as both a disposal and a recovery operation. Such a deposit constitutes a recovery if its principal objective is that the waste serve a useful purpose in replacing other materials which would have had to be used for that purpose.

( see paras 63, 71, operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy - Regulation by the Community institutions - Regulations Nos 519/94 and 3285/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries - Scope - Effect on a Member State's rules as regards the placing on the market of products imported from third countries - Absence

(Council Regulations Nos 519/94 and 3285/94)

Summary

$$Regulation No 519/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 and Regulation No 3285/94 on common rules for imports and repealing Regulation No 518/94, contain no provisions relating to the placing on the market of the products to which they refer. Those regulations do not affect a Member State's rules as regards the placing on the market of products imported from third countries.

( see paras 33, 35, operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment - Waste - Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 - Definition - Substance which is discarded - Criteria of assessment

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156)

Summary

$$Leftover stone resulting from stone quarrying which is stored for an indefinite length of time to await possible use must be classified as waste within the meaning of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, if the holder discards or intends to discard that leftover stone. The place of storage of leftover stone, its composition and the fact, even if proven, that the stone does not pose any real risk to human health or the environment are not relevant criteria for determining whether the stone is to be regarded as waste.

( see paras 39, 51, operative part 1-2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Directive 91/676 - Scope - Identification of waters affected by pollution - Criteria

(Council Directive 91/676, Art. 3(1) and (2))

Summary

$$Restricting the scope of Directive 91/676 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources to exclude certain categories of water owing to the supposedly fundamental role of phosphorus in the pollution of those waters is incompatible with both the logic and the objective of the Directive.

First, notwithstanding the role that phosphorus may play in eutrophication, plant species whose growth is accelerated by nitrogen may appear in such waters, giving rise to a disturbance of the balance between the different organisms which are present there. Secondly, taking account of the fact that the obligations arising from Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive are intrinsically linked, a restrictive identification of waters affected by pollution or which could be so affected under Article 3(1) would result in an incomplete designation of vulnerable zones under Article 3(2). Finally, while it is true that the Member States have been granted a wide discretion in the identification of waters referred to in Article 3(1) of the Directive, because of the complexity of the assessments which they are called upon to carry out in that context, it nevertheless remains the case that when they carry out that identification, they are obliged to respect the objectives of the Directive, namely, the reduction of water pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

( see paras 45, 50-51, 53 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Recognition and enforcement - Grounds for refusal - Irreconcilable judgments - Interlocutory judgments, one granting an injunction the other refusing to grant an injunction

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(3))

2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Recognition and enforcement - Grounds for refusal - Irreconcilable judgments - Mandatory nature of requirement to refuse recognition

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(3))

Summary

$$1. On a proper construction of Article 27(3) 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 and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, a foreign decision on interim measures ordering an obligor not to carry out certain acts is irreconcilable with a decision on interim measures refusing to grant such an order in a dispute between the same parties in the State where recognition is sought.

( see para. 47, operative part 1 )

2. Where a court of the State in which recognition is sought finds that a judgment of a court of another Contracting State is irreconcilable with a judgment given by a court of the former State in a dispute between the same parties, it is required to refuse to recognise the foreign judgment.

( see para. 52, operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive — Exemption for the letting of immovable property — Definition — Letting of a pre-fabricated building sunk into the ground and intended to be dismantled and re-used elsewhere — Whether included — Whether it is the building and the land or the building alone which is made available to the lessee — Irrelevant — (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

Summary

The letting of a building constructed from prefabricated components fixed to or in the ground in such a way that they cannot be easily dismantled or easily moved constitutes a letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, even if the building is to be removed at the end of the lease and re-used on another site.

Whether the lessor makes available to the lessee both the building and the land on which it is erected or merely the building which he has erected on the lessee's land is irrelevant in determining whether a letting constitutes a letting of immovable property for the purposes of that provision, as such a letting may concern solely a building.

see paras 35, 40-41, operative part 1-2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Rates of excise duties on mineral oils — Directive 92/82 — National legislation allowing the use of less heavily taxed gas as oil motor fuel — Not permissible — (Council Directive 92/82, Art. 5(1))

2. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Directive 92/81 — Rates of excise duties on mineral oils — Directive 92/82 — National legislation on the use of gas oil — Failure to implement fiscal control such as to ensure that gas oil used as motor fuel is taxed at the minimum rate of excise duty — Failure to fulfil obligations — (Council Directives 92/81, Arts 8(2) and (3), and 92/82, Art. 5(1))

Summary

1. National legislation which, by introducing for that purpose a surcharge and/or a fuel levy chargeable subject to prior notification and which are not excise duties, allows the use of less heavily taxed gas oil as motor fuel cannot be regarded as complying with Article 5(1) of Directive 92/82 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils, which requires that gas oil used as motor fuel be taxed at the minimum rate of excise duty provided for in that article.

see paras 94-95

2. Although Article 5(1) of Directive 92/82 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils imposes on Member States the obligation to ensure that mineral oils used as motor fuel are taxed at the minimum rate of excise duty set down by that provision, Article 8(2) and (3) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils sets out certain sectors in which the use of mineral oils as motor fuel may be subject to exemptions or a reduced rate of excise duty, provided that they are subject to fiscal control.

A Member State which maintains in force legislation on the use of gas oil that puts in place a mechanism of fiscal control which does not allow the objective pursued by those provisions to be attained, since that mechanism cannot effectively prevent mineral oils intended for other purposes and therefore less heavily taxed from being used as motor fuel or guarantee that gas oil used as motor fuel is in fact taxed at the minimum rate of excise duty laid down by those provisions, fails to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.

see paras 97, 108-109, operative part
Case C-12/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Free movement of goods – Directive 73/241/EEC – Cocoa and chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter – Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the Member State of production under the sales name chocolate – Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member State of marketing)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 6 December 2001 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment