ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - WORKERS - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE - EXCEPTION - LIMITS - APPLICATION SOLELY TO MEASURES RESTRICTING ADMISSION - EQUALITY OF TREATMENT AS REGARDS REMUNERATION AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF WORK AND EMPLOYMENT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ))

2 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - WORKERS - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - SEPARATION ALLOWANCE - REMUNERATION - SUPPLEMENT - CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK - MEANING

( REGULATION NO 1612/68 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 4 ))

3 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT - WORKERS - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - CRITERIA - COVERT DISCRIMINATION - SEPARATION ALLOWANCE - GRANT - CRITERIA - RESIDENCE - RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - OBJECTIVE DIFFERENTIATION - LAWFULNESS

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 48; REGULATION NO 1612/68, ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 4 ))

Summary

1 . THE INTERESTS WHICH THE EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ) OF THE TREATY ALLOWS MEMBER STATES TO PROTECT ARE SATISFIED BY THE OPPORTUNITY OF RESTRICTING ADMISSION OF FOREIGN NATIONALS TO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE; THIS PROVISION CANNOT JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES WITH REGARD TO REMUNERATION OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AGAINST WORKERS ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE .

THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYING ADMINISTRATION IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THIS RESPECT .

2 . ARTICLE 7 ( 1 ) AND ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, INTENDED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCONVENIENCES SUFFERED BY A WORKER WHO IS SEPARATED FROM HIS HOME, REPRESENTS SUPPLEMENTARY REMUNERATION AND FALLS WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF 'CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORK' WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO DEFINE WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY VIRTUE OF AN OPTION OR OF AN OBLIGATION, EITHER STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL .

3 . THE RULES REGARDING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FORBID NOT ONLY OVERT DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF NATIONALITY BUT ALSO ALL COVERT FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH, BY THE APPLICATION OF OTHER CRITERIA OF DIFFERENTIATION, LEAD IN FACT TO THE SAME RESULT .

THE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, AS A CRITERION FOR THE GRANT OF A SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, OF THE FACT THAT A WORKER HAS HIS RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE MAY, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSTITUTE A FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION .

THIS IS NOT THE CASE IF THE SCHEME RELATING TO SUCH AN ALLOWANCE TAKES ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES IN THE SITUATIONS OF WORKERS ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEIR RESIDENCE AT THE TIME WHEN THEY TAKE UP THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE CONCERNED OR ABROAD .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET - CEREALS - EXPORT TO THIRD COUNTRIES - REFUNDS - GRANT - MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - JURISDICTION

2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET - CEREALS - EXPORT TO THIRD COUNTRIES - DOCUMENTS - VALUE OF THE GOODS - FALSE STATEMENTS - REFUNDS - REDUCTION - NATIONAL AUTHORITIES - OBLIGATIONS - JURISDICTION

( REGULATION NO 19 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 20 )

Summary

1 . IN FIXING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF REFUNDS FOR THE EXPORT OF CEREALS TO THIRD COUNTRIES AND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH REFUNDS, THE MEMBER STATES WERE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE MAXIMUM LIMITS LAID DOWN BY THE COMMUNITY AND THE RULES NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL SYSTEM PROVIDED FOR BY REGULATION NO 19/62, BUT IT WAS OPEN TO THEM TO ADOPT CRITERIA MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR BY THE COMMUNITY RULES .

ACCORDINGLY, THE MEMBER STATES WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE ACCOUNT ONLY OF THOSE PRODUCTS WHICH AT THE LEAST FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE .

2 . IN CASES WHERE THE GOODS IN FACT EXPORTED DID NOT CORRESPOND TO THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE EXPORT DOCUMENTS :

( A ) ARTICLE 20 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 19/62 REQUIRED THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO REDUCE THE REFUND GRANTED SO THAT IT SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LIMITS FOR THE PRODUCTS IN FACT EXPORTED;

( B ) SUBJECT TO THIS OBLIGATION, IT WAS FOR THOSE AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO THEIR NATIONAL LAW UPON THE NECESSARY FURTHER CONSEQUENCES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - RIGHTS - SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPERTY - TRADE MARK RIGHT - PROTECTION - INFRINGEMENT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 36 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY - TRADE MARK RIGHT - PRODUCT LEGALLY BEARING A TRADE MARK IN ONE MEMBER STATE - MARKETING IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - PROHIBITION - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 36 )

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 36 ONLY ADMITS DEROGATIONS FROM THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DEROGATIONS ARE JUSTIFIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT MATTER OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY .

THUS THE APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF TRADE MARKS PROTECTS THE LEGITIMATE HOLDER OF THE TRADE MARK AGAINST INFRINGEMENT ON THE PART OF PERSONS WHO LACK ANY LEGAL TITLE .

2 . THE EXERCISE OF A TRADE MARK RIGHT TENDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTITIONING OFF OF THE MARKETS AND THUS TO AFFECT THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, ALL THE MORE SO SINCE - UNLIKE OTHER RIGHTS OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS IN POINT OF TIME .

ACCORDINGLY, ONE CANNOT ALLOW THE HOLDER OF A TRADE MARK TO RELY UPON THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF A TRADE MARK RIGHT - WHICH MAY BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE TERRITORIAL LIMITATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION - WITH A VIEW TO PROHIBITING THE MARKETING IN A MEMBER STATE OF GOODS LEGALLY PRODUCED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE UNDER AN IDENTICAL TRADE MARK HAVING THE SAME ORIGIN .

THIS IS ALSO THE CASE WHERE A THIRD PARTY DULY ACQUIRED THE PRODUCT IN THE FIRST STATE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . COMPETITION - CARTELS - PROHIBITION - INFRINGEMENT - FINE - FIXING THE FINE - AMOUNT - UNITS OF ACCOUNT - CONVERSION INTO NATIONAL CURRENCY - FIXING THE FINE IN THIS NATIONAL CURRENCY

( REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL , ARTICLE 15 , ARTICLE 18 )

2 . COMPETITION - CARTELS - PROHIBITION - INFRINGEMENT - FINE - AMOUNT - FIXING THE AMOUNT IN ANOTHER NATIONAL CURRENCY - PAYMENT IN ANOTHER NATIONAL CURRENCY OF THE COMMUNITY - ADMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

( REGULATION NO 17 OF THE COUNCIL , ARTICLE 15 )

3 . PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT - INTERPRETATION - EFFECTS

( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ARTICLE 102 )

Summary

1 . TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH ARTICLE 15 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 17 , FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING THESE LIMITS , TAKES THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT , IN ORDER TO CONVERT THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT INTO NATIONAL CURRENCY , HAVE TO ADOPT THE METHOD FOUND IN ARTICLE 18 OF THE SAID REGULATION AND IN THE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THIS ARTICLE REFERS . NEVERTHELESS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 15 OF REGULATION NO 17 WHICH JUSTIFIES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT ARE BOUND TO EXPRESS THE AMOUNT OF A FINE IN UNIT OF ACCOUNT OR WITH REFERENCE TO A SUM EXPRESSED IN UNIT OF ACCOUNT . SINCE THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT IS NOT A CURRENCY IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE , THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT ARE OF NECESSITY BOUND TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE IN NATIONAL CURRENCY .

2 . ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION CAN REQUIRE UNDERTAKINGS UPON WHICH A FINE HAS BEEN IMPOSED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 15 OF REGULATION NO 17 TO PAY THEIR DEBTS IN THE NATIONAL CURRENCY INDICATED IN THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION OR IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT , NO LEGAL PROVISION PREVENTS THE COMMISSION FROM ACCEPTING PAYMENTS IN ANOTHER NATIONAL CURRENCY OF THE COMMUNITY . NEVERTHELESS IT MUST SEE TO IT THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE IN ANOTHER CURRENCY CORRESPONDS TO THAT OF THE SUM FIXED IN NATIONAL CURRENCY IN THE DECISION OR IN THE JUDGMENT . THEREFORE THE CONVERSION OF THE TWO NATIONAL CURRENCIES IN QUESTION MUST BE EFFECTED AT THE EXCHANGE RATE ON THE FREE FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET APPLICABLE ON THE DAY OF PAYMENT .

3 . AN INTERPRETING JUDGMENT IS BINDING NOT ONLY ON THE APPLICANTS BUT ALSO ON ANY OTHER PARTY , IN SO FAR AS THAT PARTY IS AFFECTED BY THE PASSAGE IN THE JUDGMENT WHICH THE COURT IS ASKED TO INTERPRET OR BY A PASSAGE WHICH IS EXACTLY SIMILAR THERETO .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS - PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS - COMMUNICATION IN WRITING OF OBJECTIONS - SCOPE

( REGULATION NO 99/63, ARTICLES 2 AND 4 )

2 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS - PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS - RIGHT OF THOSE CONCERNED TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS

3 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS - PROHIBITION - EXEMPTION - CONDITIONS - INFORMING THOSE CONCERNED

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ); REGULATION NO 17, ARTICLE 8 )

Summary

1 . THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON THE COMMISSION BY ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 99/63 TO INFORM AN UNDERTAKING, IN WRITING OR BY GIVING NOTICE IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL, OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST IT AND TO DEAL, IN ITS DECISIONS, ONLY WITH THESE OBJECTIONS, IS ESSENTIALLY CONCERNED WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS WHICH LEAD IT TO APPLY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ).

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ANTICIPATE THE CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED TO SUBJECT THE EXEMPTION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ).

2 . IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, BOTH FROM THE NATURE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS, AND FROM ARTICLES 5, 6 AND 7 OF REGULATION NO 99/63, THAT THIS REGULATION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CASES SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH IN ARTICLES 2 AND 4, APPLIES THE GENERAL RULE THAT PERSONS WHOSE INTERESTS ARE PERCEPTIBLY AFFECTED BY A DECISION TAKEN BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR POINT OF VIEW KNOWN .

3 . SINCE ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) CONSTITUTES, FOR THE BENEFIT OF UNDERTAKINGS, AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ), THE COMMISSION MUST BE IN A POSITION AT ANY MOMENT TO CHECK WHETHER THE CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING THE EXEMPTION ARE STILL PRESENT .

ACCORDINGLY, IN RELATION TO THE DETAILED RULES TO WHICH IT MAY SUBJECT THE EXEMPTION, THE COMMISSION ENJOYS A LARGE MEASURE OF DISCRETION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HAVING TO ACT WITHIN THE LIMITS IMPOSED UPON ITS COMPETENCE BY ARTICLE 85 .

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETIONARY POWER IS LINKED TO A PRELIMINARY CANVASSING OF OBJECTIONS WHICH MAY BE RAISED BY THE UNDERTAKINGS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT - RESTRICTIONS - ABOLITION - TRANSITIONAL PERIOD - EXPIRY - RULE ON EQUAL TREATMENT WITH NATIONALS - DIRECT EFFECT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLES 7, 8 ( 7 ) AND 52 )

2 . FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT - DEROGATION - SCOPE - LIMITATION - OFFICIAL AUTHORITY - EXERCISE - DIRECT AND SPECIFIC CONNEXION - AVOCATS - TYPICAL ACTIVITIES NOT CONCERNED WITH

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 55 )

Summary

1 . THE RULE ON EQUAL TREATMENT WITH NATIONALS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY .

AS A REFERENCE TO A SET OF LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS EFFECTIVELY APPLIED BY THE COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT TO ITS OWN NATIONALS, THIS RULE IS, BY ITS ESSENCE, CAPABLE OF BEING DIRECTLY INVOKED BY NATIONALS OF ALL THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .

IN LAYING DOWN THAT FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE ATTAINED AT THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, ARTICLE 52 THUS PROVIDES AN OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN A PRECISE RESULT, THE FULFILMENT OF WHICH HAD TO BE MADE EASIER BY, BUT NOT MADE DEPENDENT ON, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAMME OF PROGRESSIVE MEASURES .

SINCE THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD ARTICLE 52 OF THE TREATY IS A DIRECTLY APPLICABLE PROVISION DESPITE THE ABSENCE, IN A PARTICULAR SPHERE, OF THE DIRECTIVES PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLES 54 ( 2 ) AND 57 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY .

2 . HAVING REGARD TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT AND THE RULE ON EQUAL TREATMENT WITH NATIONALS IN THE SYSTEM OF THE TREATY, THE EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55 CANNOT BE GIVEN A SCOPE WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE OBJECTIVE FOR WHICH THIS EXEMPTION CLAUSE WAS INSERTED .

THE EXCEPTION TO FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT PROVIDED FOR BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55 MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THOSE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 52 WHICH IN THEMSELVES INVOLVE A DIRECT AND SPECIFIC CONNEXION WITH THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL AUTHORITY; IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE THIS DESCRIPTION, IN THE CONTEXT OF A PROFESSION SUCH AS THAT OF AVOCAT, TO ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CONSULTATION AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE OR THE REPRESENTATION AND DEFENCE OF PARTIES IN COURT EVEN IF THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE ACTIVITIES IS COMPULSORY OR THERE IS A LEGAL MONOPOLY IN RESPECT OF IT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - PENSION - APPLICATION FOR - DECISION OF THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION - DIRECT NOTIFICATION TO THE CLAIMANT - CONDITIONS - LANGUAGE - DUTIES OF NATIONAL COURTS

( REGULATION NO 4 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 56 ( 2 ))

Summary

THE WORD 'DIRECTLY' IN ARTICLE 56 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 4 OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE NOTIFICATION REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISION MUST BE EFFECTED WITHOUT AN INTERMEDIARY AND THAT DESPATCH BY THE POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES MEETS THIS CONDITION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - CLAIMS, DECLARATIONS OR APPEALS - ADMISSIBILITY - SUBMISSION WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD TO THE CORRESPONDING AGENCY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - LIAISON DEPARTMENT - VALIDITY OF SUBMISSION OF AN APPEAL

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 47 )

2 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - CLAIMS, DECLARATIONS OR APPEALS - ADMISSIBILITY - SUBMISSION WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD TO THE CORRESPONDING AGENCY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - CONDITIONS - RESIDENCE OF THE PARTY CONCERNED OR OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE IN THAT STATE

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 47 )

Summary

1 . IN USING THE ADJECTIVE " CORRESPONDING " , ARTICLE 47 REQUIRES THAT THE CLAIMS, DECLARATIONS OR APPEALS IN QUESTION BE SUBMITTED TO AN AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR OTHER AGENCY FORMING PART OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM OF THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION WITHOUT THE NEED TO OBSERVE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE COMPETENCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES .

IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIAISON DEPARTMENT SUCH AS IS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 4 TO BE CONSIDERED ANOTHER CORRESPONDING AGENCY, EVEN WHERE ONE IS DEALING WITH THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPEAL .

2 . ARTICLE 47 ONLY REFERS TO THE CASE WHERE THE WORKER LIVES IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT WHOSE LAW HAS TO BE APPLIED . THE WORKER WHO FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS CLAIM, DECLARATION OR APPEAL IS REPRESENTED BY A REPRESENTATIVE, ESTABLISHED IN THE MEMBER STATE WHOSE LAW MUST BE APPLIED, CANNOT RELY ON THIS PROVISION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT - INTERNAL TAXATION - DEFINITION - DISTINCTION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ); ARTICLE 95 )

2 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PROHIBITION - DIRECT EFFECT

( EEC TREATY; ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ))

3 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT - DUE - UTILIZATION - PURPOSE INCOMPATIBLE WITH TREATY - CONSEQUENCES

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ))

Summary

1 . ( A ) THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) IS AIMED AT ANY TAX DEMANDED AT THE TIME OR BY REASON OF IMPORTATION AND WHICH, BEING IMPOSED SPECIFICALLY ON AN IMPORTED PRODUCT TO THE EXCLUSION OF A SIMILAR DOMESTIC PRODUCT, RESULTS IN THE SAME RESTRICTIVE CONSEQUENCES ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AS A CUSTOMS DUTY BY ALTERING THE COST PRICE OF THAT PRODUCT .

THIS PROHIBITION ATTACHES SOLELY TO THE EFFECT OF SUCH A FISCAL CHARGE AND NOT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS IMPOSED; THE FACT THAT THE DUTY IS LEVIED BY AN INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION GOVERNED BY PUBLIC LAW RATHER THAN BY THE STATE ITSELF HAS NO EFFECT ON ITS DEFINITION .

( B ) A DUTY FALLING WITHIN A GENERAL SYSTEM OF INTERNAL TAXATION APPLYING SYSTEMATICALLY TO DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS ACCORDING TO THE SAME CRITERIA IS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION IN MATTERS OF INTERNAL TAXATION LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 95; IT MAY NEVERTHELESS CONSTITUTE A CHARGE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY ON IMPORTS WHEN SUCH DUTY IS INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY TO SUPPORT ACTIVITIES WHICH SPECIFICALLY BENEFIT THE TAXED DOMESTIC PRODUCT .

2 . AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1970, THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) HAS, BY ITS VERY NATURE, PRODUCED DIRECT EFFECTS IN THE LEGAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THOSE SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION .

3 . A DUE IMPOSED BY A MEMBER STATE HAS NOT THE CHARACTER OF A CHARGE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY BY REASON SOLELY OF THE FACT THAT IT IS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A SYSTEM OF AID WHICH IS RECOGNIZED AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . OFFICIALS - ACTION FOR ANNULMENT - NON-CONTENTIOUS COMPLAINT PROCEDURE - DIRECT APPLICATION TO THE COURT - APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS NOT SUSPENDED - ADMISSIBILITY

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 91 ( 4 ))

2 . OFFICIALS - ACTION FOR ANNULMENT - COMPLAINT - SUBJECT MATTER - NECESSARY PARTICULARS

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLES 90 AND 91 )

3 . OFFICIALS - TEMPORARY POSTING - EXPRESS DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY - NEED FOR

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ))

4 . OFFICIALS - TEMPORARY POSTING - APPOINTMENT - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE ADMINISTRATION

( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ))

5 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - INTERNAL COMPETITION - PROMOTION OR TRANSFER WITHIN THE INSTITUTION - POSSIBILITIES - PRIOR CONSIDERATION NOT COMPULSORY ( STAFF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 29 )

Summary

1 . AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT TO WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS JOINED IS ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT THE NEED TO AWAIT A RULING ON THE NON-CONTENTIOUS COMPLAINT PROCEDURE EVEN IF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SUSPENDED .

2 . WHILST THE REQUEST OR THE COMPLAINT UNDER ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS MUST SET OUT IN A MANNER SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE AUTHORITY INVOLVED TO DECIDE WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPLAINT AND ALL THE GROUNDS UNDERLYING IT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THEY SHOULD ALREADY AT THIS PRE-LITIGATION STAGE SET OUT THE GROUNDS OF POSSIBLE ILLEGALITY .

3 . THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS REQUIRES AN EXPRESS DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT GIVES RISE TO SPECIFIC BENEFITS .

4 . SINCE THE TEMPORARY POSTING OF AN OFFICIAL ARISES FROM AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE, THE PARTY INVOLVED CANNOT, BY REASON ONLY OF THE FACT THAT HE IS PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE POST IN QUESTION, CLAIM A RIGHT TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THIS TEMPORARY POSTING .

5 . THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE AND THE IMPARTIALITY OF RECRUITMENT MAY RENDER DESIRABLE AN INTERNAL COMPETITION NOTWITHSTANDING THE POSSIBILITY OF FILLING A VACANT POST BY WAY OF PROMOTION OR TRANSFER WITHIN THE INSTITUTION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - APPLICATION BY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - DECISION IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION - APPLICANT DIRECTLY CONCERNED - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - APPLICATION BY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - DECISION IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION - APPLICANT INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

3 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - CEREALS - EXPORT REFUND - ADVANCE FIXING - AMOUNT - ADJUSTMENT IN RELATION TO THRESHOLD PRICE IN FORCE AT TIME OF EXPORT - VESTED RIGHTS - INCREASE IN THRESHOLD PRICE DIVORCED FROM THE OBJECTIVE OF ARTICLE 16 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 - EXCLUSION

Summary

1 . A MEASURE, BY DENYING TO A CLASS OF TRADERS THE BENEFIT OF AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF REFUNDS FOR SPECIFIC EXPORTS WHICH WAS, ON THE CONTRARY, GRANTED TO THOSE WHOSE APPLICATIONS FOR ADVANCE FIXING WERE MADE AT A LATER DATE, DIRECTLY CONCERNS THE SAID TRADERS .

2 . A MEASURE APPLYING TO A FIXED NUMBER OF TRADERS IDENTIFIED BY REASON OF THE INDIVIDUAL COURSE OF ACTION WHICH THEY PURSUED OR ARE REGARDED AS HAVING PURSUED DURING A PARTICULAR PERIOD, EVEN IF IT IS ONE OF A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS HAVING A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION, INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNS THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT APPLIES IN THAT IT EFFECTS THEIR LEGAL POSITION BECAUSE OF A FACTUAL SITUATION WHICH DIFFERENTIATES THEM FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS AND DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

3 . EVEN IF THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO RELY UPON VESTED RIGHTS OR A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN THE CONTINUATION OF INCREASES IN THE AMOUNT OF THE REFUND LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 16 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 AS IT APPLIED AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST FOR ADVANCE FIXING, HE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH A RIGHT OR SUCH A PROSPECT AS REGARDS THAT PART OF THE REFUND WHICH CORRESPONDS TO INCREASES IN THE THRESHOLD PRICE WHICH ARE ENTIRELY DIVORCED FROM THE OBJECTIVE OF ARTICLE 16, AND WHICH WERE UNFORESEEABLE AT THE TIME WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS FIXED IN ADVANCE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 30 )

2 . QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS - PLANTS - PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTION OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS - MEASURE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PROHIBITION

( COMMISSION DIRECTIVE NO 70/50/EEC, ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ))

3 . QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - EXCEPTIONS - PROTECTION OF HEALTH OF PLANTS - PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTION - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITION - ABSENCE OF ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 36 )

4 . QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - EXCEPTIONS - PROTECTION OF HEALTH OF PLANTS - MEASURES TO CONTROL HARMFUL ORGANISMS - POWERS OF MEMBER STATES - ADDITIONAL DOMESTIC MEASURES - PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTIONS OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 69/466/EEC, ARTICLE 11 )

Summary

1 . A MEASURE HAS AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION IF IT IS CAPABLE OF ACTING AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT, REAL OR POTENTIAL HINDRANCE TO IMPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .

2 . PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTIONS AT THE FRONTIER, WHICH PLANT PRODUCTS COMING FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ARE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO, CONSTITUTE MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND ARE PROHIBITED SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY .

3 . IN THE LIGHT OF THE CURRENT COMMUNITY RULES, A PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTION CARRIED OUT BY A MEMBER STATE ON THE IMPORTATION OF PLANT PRODUCTS CONSTITUTES, IN PRINCIPLE, ONE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 36, BUT MAY CONSTITUTE ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION IF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO AN EQUIVALENT EXAMINATION .

4 . THE ADDITIONAL OR STRICTER PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 11 OF THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 69/466/EEC OF 8 DECEMBER 1969 IN ORDER TO CONTROL SAN JOSE SCALE AND PREVENT IT FROM SPREADING ENTITLE THE MEMBER STATES TO MAKE PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTIONS OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS IF EFFECTIVE MEASURES ARE TAKEN IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINATED DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND IF THERE EXISTS A RISK OF THE HARMFUL ORGANISM'S SPREADING IF NO INSPECTION IS HELD ON IMPORTATION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS - DECISIVE CRITERION

2 . COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - DESCRIPTION OF GOODS - ICE-CREAM - CONCEPT - SUBHEADINGS 18.06 B AND 21.07 C - APPLICATION

Summary

1 . THE DECISIVE CRITERION FOR THE CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS MUST GENERALLY BE LOOKED FOR IN THEIR OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES .

2 . FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF SUBHEADINGS 18.06 B AND 21.07 C OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF, THE CONCEPT OF 'ICE-CREAM' REFERS TO PRODUCTS HAVING AS THEIR ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT THEY MELT AT A TEMPERATURE OF APPROXIMATELY 0* CENTIGRADE .

THAT CONCEPT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO PRODUCTS WITH A FAT CONTENT EXCEEDING 15 PER CENT .