ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances - Directive 91/157 - Member States required to adopt special programmes in pursuit of certain objectives - Scope of their obligation

(Council Directive 91/157, Art. 6)

Summary

$$Article 6 of Directive 91/157 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances requires Member States, in pursuit of the objectives of that Directive, to draw up programmes and then to review and update them regularly.

It follows from the wording of Article 6 and the general scheme of the Directive that the various problems posed by specific waste such as batteries and accumulators are to be resolved according to a precise timetable. The fact that a Member State is expecting certain results relating to the objectives of the Directive before the expiry of the period prescribed therein for the implementation of those programmes does not excuse it from drawing up the programmes required. That obligation is not discharged by incomplete practical measures or fragmentary legislation.

Nor is it possible to regard as programmes within the meaning of Article 6 positive measures which have been adopted in relation to the objectives set out therein, but which constitute no more than a series of legislative provisions or ad hoc measures which do not possess the characteristics of an organised and coordinated system of objectives.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights - Meaning - Situation where only `recognised dockers' are acknowledged as having the right to perform certain dock duties - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Arts 6 and 48 (now, after amendment, Arts 12 EC and 39 EC) and Arts 85, 86 and 90 (now Arts 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC))

Summary

$$Article 90(1) of the Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC), read in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12, first paragraph, EC) and Articles 85 and 86 thereof (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not confer on individuals the right to oppose the application of legislation of a Member State which requires them to have recourse, for the performance of dock work, exclusively to dockers recognised under that legislation and to pay those dockers remuneration far in excess of the wages of their own employees or the wages which they pay to other workers.

Article 90(1) of the Treaty, read in conjunction with any other provision of the Treaty, is applicable only to undertakings. Even taken collectively, the recognised dockers in a port area cannot be regarded as constituting an undertaking for the purposes of Community competition law, in so far as the employment relationship which they have with the undertakings for which they perform dock work is characterised by the fact that they perform the work in question for and under the direction of each of those undertakings, so that they must be regarded as `workers' within the meaning of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Extraction of the relevant points of Community law - Jurisdiction of the national courts - Application of provisions as interpreted

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC))

2 Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public supply contracts - Directive 93/36 - Scope - Contracts awarded by a contracting authority to a distinct and independent body - Covered - Where the successful tenderer is itself a contracting authority - Irrelevant

(Council Directives 92/50, Art. 6, and 93/36)

Summary

1 Where, under the procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC), questions are formulated imprecisely, the Court may extract - from all the information provided by the national court and from the documents concerning the main proceedings - the points of Community law requiring interpretation, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute. In order to provide the national court with a satisfactory answer, the Court may deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law which the national court has not mentioned in its question. On the other hand, by virtue of the division of functions provided for under the above provision, it is for the national court to apply the rules of Community law, as interpreted by the Court, to a specific case. No such application is possible without a comprehensive appraisal of the facts of the case.

2 Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts is applicable in cases where a contracting authority, such as a local authority, plans to conclude in writing, with an entity which is formally distinct from it and independent of it in regard to decision-making - which is not the position where the local authority exercises over a legally distinct person a form of control similar to that exercised over its own departments and, at the same time, the person carries out the essential part of its activities together with the controlling local authority or authorities - a contract for pecuniary interest for the supply of products, whether or not that entity is itself a contracting authority.

The only permitted exceptions to the application of Directive 93/36 are those which are exhaustively and expressly mentioned therein. That Directive does not contain any provision comparable with Article 6 of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, which excludes from its scope public contracts awarded, under certain conditions, to contracting authorities.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Product processed before entering the country of import - Conditions of payment - Processing `in the non-member country into which all the products resulting from such processing were imported' - Definition of non-member country

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 17(2), second subpara., second indent)

Summary

$$The second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Commission Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, which provides that a product which was processed before being imported is still to be regarded as having been imported in the unaltered state if the processing took place in the non-member country into which all the products resulting from such processing were imported, must be interpreted as meaning that the countries parties to the Charter of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf are not regarded, where products are processed before being cleared through customs on the territory of one of those countries and then exported to others, as a single non-member country into which all the products resulting from that processing have been imported.

The wording of that provision is clear and unambiguous in referring, in the singular, to `the non-member country into which all the products ... were imported' to designate the place where the products may first be processed without the right to the refund being lost.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood within the meaning of heading 4418 of the combined nomenclature - Inclusion by the Commission, under that heading, of rectangular wood blocks used in the construction of window frames - Modification of the tariff heading - Invalidity of point 2 of the Annex to Regulation No 1509/97

(Council Regulation No 2658/87, Art. 9; Commission Regulation No 1509/97, Annex, point 2)

Summary

$$When, in point 2 of the Annex to Regulation No 1509/97, the Commission classified rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide x 72 mm high, used in the construction of window frames, consisting of layers of wood glued together with the grain running parallel and with slightly rounded edges under subheading 4418 90 10 of the combined nomenclature, it altered the subject-matter of heading 4418 of the combined nomenclature. It therefore went beyond the powers to clarify the tariff heading conferred on it under Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, with the consequence that Regulation No 1509/97 is, to that extent, invalid.

Although certain products made of glue-laminated timber are covered by the designation builders' ... carpentry mentioned in heading 4418 of the combined nomenclature, it cannot however be inferred from that designation that all products made of glue-laminated timber must be classified under that heading as builders' carpentry. In order for such products to be classified under that heading they must have the objective characteristics and properties defined by the wording of that heading.

( See paras 13, 27-28, 34 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil obligations - Retention of a national provision incompatible with Community law - Justification on the basis of administrative practices ensuring that the Treaty is applied - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

2. Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - National legislation making cleansing undertakings established in other Member States subject to an obligation to register in the register of undertakings - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC))

Summary

1. The incompatibility of national legislation with Community provisions, even provisions which are directly applicable, can be finally remedied only by means of national provisions of a binding nature which have the same legal force as those which must be amended. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty.

( see para. 17 )

2. A Member State which, pursuant to national legislation, makes the provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services by undertakings established in other Member States subject to registration in the register of undertakings, without excluding from its scope those service providers established in other Member States who, under the legislation of their Member State of establishment, already satisfy equivalent formal requirements, is in breach of its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).

( see paras 13,14 and 18 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))

Summary

$$Member States cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in their own legal orders to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive, nor may they plead late implementation of the directive as justification for failure to fulfil, or late fulfilment of, other obligations imposed by the directive.

( see paras 19, 22 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Decision on State aid adopted after annulment of an initial decision on the ground of failure to initiate the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) - Decision reaching the same conclusions as the annulled decision - Decision not confirmatory in nature

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) (now Art. 88(2) EC) and Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

2. State aid - Planned aid - Prohibition on implementation prior to a final decision by the Commission - Scope - Planned aid considered by the Member State to be compatible with the Treaty - Obligation of prior notification and temporary suspension of implementation of the aid

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

Summary

1. The annulment of a Commission decision on State aid on the ground of a procedural defect, namely the failure to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for by Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC), does not render res judicata the designation by that decision of the measure as State aid, introduced without prior notification and therefore unlawful. The Commission is not bound by the judgment annulling that decision except in so far as it is required to allow interested parties to take part in the detailed examination procedure. For the rest, the Commission retains its discretionary powers of assessment in regard to the substance of the measure in question.

In those circumstances, a subsequent decision adopted, in regard to the same measure, after initiation of the inter partes procedure provided for by Article 93(2) of the Treaty does not confirm a definitive finding contained in an earlier measure, with the result that an action brought against that subsequent decision is admissible.

( see paras 19-21 )

2. The final sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) is the means of safeguarding the machinery for review laid down by that article to prevent implementation of aid contrary to the Treaty. For that reason, even if a Member State takes the view that an aid measure is compatible with the common market, that fact cannot entitle it to defy the clear provisions of Article 93 of the Treaty. It follows that the purpose served by the provision introduced by Article 93(3) is not a mere obligation to notify but an obligation of prior notification which, as such, necessarily implies the suspensory effect required by the final sentence of Article 93(3). That provision does not therefore have the effect of disjoining the obligations laid down therein, that is to say, the obligation to notify any new aid and the obligation to suspend temporarily the implementation of that aid.

( see paras 31-32 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 90/435 - Exemption, in the Member State of the subsidiary, from withholding tax on the profits distributed to the parent company - Derogation in favour of Portugal - Scope

(Council Directive 90/435, Art. 5(1) and (4))

Summary

$$Article 5(4) of Directive 90/435 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, in so far as it limits to 15% and 10% the amount of the withholding tax on profits distributed by subsidiaries established in Portugal to their parent companies in other Member States, must be interpreted as meaning that that derogation relates not only to corporation tax but also to any taxation, of whatever nature or however described, which takes the form of a withholding tax on dividends distributed by such subsidiaries.

The objective of the Directive, which is to encourage cooperation between companies in several Member States, would be undermined if the Member States were permitted deliberately to deprive companies in other Member States of the benefit of the Directive by subjecting them to taxes having the same effect as a tax on income, even if the name given to the latter places them in another category, such as that of a tax on assets.

( see paras 24, 27 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Supply of services for consideration - Definition - Provision of roads infrastructure on payment of a toll - Whether included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 2, para. 1)

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Taxable persons - Bodies governed by public law - Activities in the exercise of public authority not taxable - Definition

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5))

Summary

1. The provision of roads infrastructure on payment of a toll constitutes a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. Use of the road depends on payment of a toll, the amount of which varies inter alia according to the category of vehicle used and the distance covered. There is, therefore, a direct and necessary link between the service provided and the financial consideration received.

( see paras 30-31 )

2. In order for the exemption from value added tax for bodies governed by public law, provided for by the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, to apply as regards activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, two conditions must be fulfilled: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority. As regards the latter condition, activities pursued as public authorities are those engaged in by bodies governed by public law under the special legal regime applicable to them and do not include activities pursued by them under the same legal conditions as those that apply to private traders.

( see paras 34-35 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Actions brought by officials - Appeal by an institution which did not intervene at first instance - Inadmissible

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

Summary

$$As stated in the third paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and Euratom Statutes, in the case of disputes between the Community and its servants the right to bring an appeal before the Court of Justice is not conferred on Member States and institutions which did not intervene before the Court of First Instance.

An appeal brought by an institution which did not intervene at first instance must be dismissed as inadmissible where the proceedings are confined to a dispute between the Community and an official whose subject-matter is not the annulment of a measure which is legislative or of general application. The fact that the official pleaded, by way of an objection, before the Court of First Instance in an action for the annulment of an individual decision concerning him that a Council regulation is unlawful does not prevent the case from being a dispute between the Community and its servants, since his application, if granted, can lead only to the annulment of the individual decision concerning him and not that of the regulation.

( see paras 21-25 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Legislation applicable - Workers employed by an undertaking in one Member State posted to carry out work within the territory of another Member State - Activities of the company performed exclusively in the second State, with the exception of purely internal management activities - Subjection of the workers to the legislation of the State in which they actually work

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 13(2)(a) and 14(1)(a))

Summary

$$Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, which, under certain conditions, allows an undertaking to arrange that workers posted by it temporarily to work in a Member State other than that in which the undertaking is established will continue to be covered by the social security system of the Member State in which the undertaking is established, must be interpreted as not applying to workers of a construction company established in one Member State who are posted to carry out construction work in the territory of another Member State in which, apart from purely internal management activities, that undertaking performs all its activities. In accordance with Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, those workers are subject to the social security legislation of the Member State in whose territory they actually work.

( see para. 23 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Network cards designed to be installed in automatic data-processing machines - Cards not performing a specific function within the meaning of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature - Classification, between 1990 and 1995, under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

$$Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by the annexes to Regulations Nos 2886/89, 2472/90, 2587/91, 2505/92, 2551/93 and 3115/94, which provides inter alia that heading No 8471 (automatic data-processing machines and units thereof) does not cover machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data-processing machine and performing a specific function, does not preclude the classification of network cards designed to be installed in automatic data-processing machines under that heading. Network cards are comparable with any other medium whereby an automatic information processing machine accepts or delivers data in the sense that they have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine. Accordingly network cards cannot in any event be regarded as performing a specific function.

Between July 1990 and May 1995 the cards in question were therefore to be classified under heading No 8471 as units of machines of the type referred to, as those cards satisfy the conditions relating to units set out in that Note, since they can be connected to the central unit and are specifically designed as parts of an automatic data-processing system.

( see paras 16-17, 20, 24 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition Community rules Application by the national courts Assessment of an agreement or practice which has already been the subject of a Commission decision Conditions

(EC Treaty, Arts 85(1) and 86 (now Arts 81(1) EC and 82 EC) and Art. 173, fifth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fifth para., EC))

Summary

$$Where a national court is ruling on an agreement or practice the compatibility of which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the Treaty (now Articles 81(1) EC and 82 EC) is already the subject of a Commission decision, in order not to infringe the principle of legal certainty it cannot take a decision running counter to that of the Commission, even if the latter's decision conflicts with a decision given by a national court of first instance.

It is irrelevant in that respect that, in the context of an action for annulment brought against the Commission's decision by its addressee on the basis of the fifth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC), the President of the Court of First Instance suspended operation of the Commission's decision.

If such an action for annulment has been brought within the period prescribed, it is for the national court to decide whether to stay proceedings pending the final judgment in that action for annulment by the Community Courts or in order to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. When the outcome of the dispute before the national court depends on the validity of the Commission decision, it follows from the obligation of sincere cooperation that the national court should stay its proceedings pending final judgment in the action for annulment by the Community Courts, unless it considers that, in the circumstances of the case, a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the Commission decision is warranted. It is incumbent on the national court to examine whether it is necessary to order interim measures in order to safeguard the interests of the parties pending final judgment.

( see paras 51-53, 55-60 and operative part )