ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Public undertakings and undertakings granted special or exclusive rights by a Member State - Monopoly in the supply of temporary labour to port users - Monopoly leading to abuse of a dominant position - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 86 and 90(1))

Summary

Although merely creating a dominant position by granting exclusive rights within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Treaty is not in itself incompatible with Article 86, a Member State is in breach of the prohibitions contained in those two provisions if the undertaking in question, merely by exercising the exclusive rights granted to it, is led to abuse its dominant position or when such rights are liable to create a situation in which that undertaking is led to commit such abuses.

That is the case where a national law does not merely grant a dock-work company the exclusive right to supply temporary labour to terminal concessionaires and to other undertakings authorised to operate in the port but also enables it to compete with them on the market in dock services. That is because merely exercising its monopoly will enable it to distort in its favour the equal conditions of competition between the various operators on the market in dock-work services and it is led to abuse its monopoly by imposing on its competitors in the dock-work market unduly high costs for the supply of labour or by supplying them with labour less suited to the work to be done.
The limitation of the effects in time of the Barber judgment (Case C-262/88) does not apply to entitlement to join an occupational pension scheme or to entitlement to draw a retirement pension on the part of a worker excluded from joining such a scheme in breach of Article 119 of the Treaty. The limitation of the effects in time of that judgment concerns only those kinds of discrimination which, owing to the transitional derogations for which Community law provided and which were capable of being applied to occupational pensions, employers and pension schemes could reasonably have considered to be permissible. It does not concern either discrimination in regard to membership of occupational pension schemes held to be unlawful under Article 119 of the Treaty in the Bilka judgment (Case 170/84), which itself lays down no temporal limitation on its effects, or discrimination in the grant of benefits under such a scheme, entitlement to benefits being indissolubly linked to the right to join such a scheme.

The same is true where the discrimination suffered by part-time workers stems from discrimination concerning access to a special scheme which confers entitlement to additional benefits. Thus, periods of service completed by part-time workers who have suffered indirect discrimination based on sex must be taken into account as from 8 April 1976, the date of the judgment in Defrenne (Case 43/75), in which Article 119 was first held to have direct effect, for the purposes of calculating the additional benefits to which they are entitled.
Keywords



Keywords

1 Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

2 Procedure - Costs - Award of costs to the discontinuing party justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Community law - Abusive exercise of a right arising from a provision of Community law - National rule prohibiting the abuse of rights - Application by national courts

2 Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Companies - Directive 77/91 - Alteration of the capital of a public limited liability company - National rules providing for an increase by administrative decision of the capital of a public limited liability company in financial difficulties - Frustration of the exercise of rights arising from the directive by recourse to a national rule prohibiting the abuse of rights

(Council Directive 77/91, Arts 25(1) and 29(1))

Summary

1 Community law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends. Consequently, Community law does not preclude the application by national courts of a provision of national law in order to assess whether a right arising from a provision of Community law is being exercised abusively. However, the application of such a national rule must not prejudice the full effect and uniform application of Community law in the Member States. In particular, it is not open to national courts, when assessing the exercise of a right arising from a provision of Community law, to alter the scope of that provision or to compromise the objectives pursued by it.

2 A shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive 77/91 on company law cannot be deemed to be abusing the right conferred on him by that provision merely because the increase in capital by administrative decision which he contests resolved the financial difficulties threatening the existence of the company concerned and clearly enured to his economic benefit, or because he did not exercise his preferential right under Article 29(1) of that directive to acquire new shares issued on the increase of capital at issue.

First, the decision-making power of the general meeting provided for in Article 25(1) applies even where the company is experiencing serious financial difficulties. Second, by exercising his preferential right, the shareholder would have shown his willingness to assist in the implementation of the decision to increase the capital without the approval of the general meeting, whereas he is in fact contesting that very decision on the basis of Article 25(1) of the Second Directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Inadequate or contradictory grounds - Admissibility

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Distortion of evidence - Admissibility

4 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Damage - Causal link - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215)

Summary

1 Under the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice in combination with Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice an appeal must specify the alleged flaws in the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and the legal arguments which specifically support that application.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that court.

2 The question whether the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal.

3 Whilst it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the items of evidence produced to it, a plea alleging distortion of that evidence is admissible in an appeal.

4 It is first and foremost for the party seeking to establish the Community's liability to adduce conclusive proof as to the existence or extent of the damage he alleges and to establish the causal link between that damage and the conduct complained of on the part of the Community institutions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Environment - Waste - Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, and Regulation No 259/93 - Waste for recovery - Principles of self-sufficiency and proximity - Inapplicable - Application by means of Article 130t of the Treaty - Not permissible in the case of unjustified barriers to exports

(EC Treaty, Arts 36, 130s and 130t; Council Regulation No 259/93; Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156)

2 Competition - Public undertakings and undertakings on which Member States confer special or exclusive rights - National legislation requiring delivery of certain waste for recovery to a national undertaking with a monopoly in the incineration of dangerous waste - Obligation having the effect of increasing the dominant position of the national undertaking - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 86 and 90)

Summary

3 Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, and Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community cannot be interpreted as meaning that the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity are applicable to shipments of waste for recovery. That follows from the provisions of the directive and the regulation and from the preparatory texts. Furthermore, the difference in treatment between waste for recovery and waste for disposal reflects the intention of the Community legislature to encourage recovery of waste in the Community as whole, in particular by eliciting the best technologies, which means that waste of that type should be able to move freely between Member States for processing, thus excluding the application of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity.

Article 130t of the Treaty, which authorises Member States to adopt protective measures which are more stringent than those adopted pursuant to Article 130s, in so far as they are compatible with the Treaty, does not permit them to extend the application of those principles to waste for recovery when it is clear that those principles create a barrier to exports which is not justified either by an imperative measure relating to protection of the environment or by one of the derogations provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty.

4 Article 90 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 86, precludes rules such as the Netherlands' Long-term Plan for the Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993, whereby a Member State requires undertakings to deliver their waste for recovery, such as oil filters, to a national undertaking on which it has conferred the exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste unless the processing of their waste in another Member State is of a higher quality than that performed by that undertaking if, without any objective justification and without being necessary for the performance of a task in the general interest, those rules have the effect of favouring the national undertaking and increasing its dominant position.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Special non-contributory benefits - System of coordination provided for under Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 - Scope - Non-contributory and non-means tested disability benefit - Benefit mentioned in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 - Included

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 4(2a) and 10a and Annex IIa, Section L(f), and Council Regulation No 1247/92)

Summary

On a proper construction of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as subsequently amended by Regulation No 1247/92, read in conjunction with Annex IIa, a non-contributory and non-means tested disability benefit which is mentioned in Annex IIa, such as attendance allowance in the United Kingdom, falls within the scope of that provision and is therefore a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result that the position of a person who satisfied the conditions for the award of that benefit after 1 June 1992 when Regulation No 1247/92 entered into force is governed exclusively by the system of coordination established by the said Article 10a.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Judgment granting annulment - Effects - Obligation to adopt implementing measures - Scope - Account to be taken of both the grounds and operative part of the judgment - Adoption of a fresh act on the basis of the previous preparatory acts - Whether permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 176)

Summary

According to Article 176 of the Treaty, an institution whose act has been declared void must, in order to comply with the judgment and to implement it fully, have regard not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to the grounds which led to the judgment and constitute its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part. It is those grounds which, on the one hand, identify the precise provision held to be illegal and, on the other, indicate the specific reasons which underlie the finding of illegality contained in the operative part and which the institution concerned must take into account when replacing the annulled measure.

The procedure for replacing such a measure may thus be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, since annulment of a Community measure does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts leading up to its adoption.

In that case, where the compatibility of State aid with the common market is being examined, the Commission may, without infringing the right to be heard, found its fresh decision exclusively on the information which it had at the time of the adoption of the annulled measure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - National legislation reserving certain trade descriptions to preparations with foie gras as a base possessing certain qualities - No mutual recognition clause for products from other Member States - Not permissible - Justification - Consumer protection - Prevention of offences with respect to false descriptions - No justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 30)

Summary

A Member State which adopts legislation relating to preparations with foie gras as a base, reserving certain trade descriptions to products possessing particular qualities and without including a mutual recognition clause for products coming from other Member States and complying with the rules enacted by those States, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty.

Such legislation prohibiting a product from a Member State which complies with the rules laid down by that State but which does not fully satisfy the requirements imposed by that legislation from being marketed under a given trade description must be regarded as capable of hindering, at least potentially, inter-State trade.

That legislation cannot be justified by the imperative requirements of consumer protection and the prevention of offences with respect to false descriptions. First, while it is legitimate to ensure that consumers are effectively protected by enabling them to know the real nature of products, that objective may be attained by means, other than the reservation of certain trade descriptions to products possessing particular qualities, which would be less restrictive of the marketing of products, such as affixing suitable labels concerning the nature and characteristics of the product for sale.

Second, that legislation is not proportionate to the need to prevent offences with respect to false descriptions. The mere fact that a product does not wholly conform to the requirements laid down in national legislation on the composition of certain foodstuffs with a particular denomination does not mean that its marketing can be prohibited. While the competent national authorities are entitled to monitor preparations in order to establish whether the raw materials used and the production methods are in accordance with the information on the labels and in order to bring proceedings against those responsible for selling foodstuffs which bear descriptions identical to those provided for by national legislation, but which are so different in content as to give rise to suspicion of deceit, that possibility applies only to situations in which the foodstuff coming from a Member State and complying with the rules enacted by that State departs markedly from the requirements imposed by the legislation of the State concerned.
Case C-301/96





Federal Republic of Germany

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Decision 96/666/EC – Compensation for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany – Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Regional economic development)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 28 May 2002

Judgment of the Court, 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid for areas affected by the division of Germany – Scope of the derogation – Strict interpretation – Economic disadvantages caused by the isolation created by the frontier established between the two zones

(Art. 92(1) and (2)(c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) and (2)(c) EC))

2.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision consistent with previous decisions – Permissibility of summary statement of reasons

(Art. 190 of the EC Treaty (now Art. 253 EC))

3.. State aid – Prohibited – Derogations – Aid which may be regarded as compatible with the common market – Aid to remedy serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Strict interpretation – Disturbance affecting the whole of the economy of the Member State concerned

(Art. 92 (3)(a), (b) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art 87(3)(a), (b) and (c) EC))

4.. State aid – Planned aid – Power of assessment of the Commission – Review by the Court – Limits

(Art. 92(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Art. 87(3) EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

2 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Directive requiring a programme to be drawn up for the attainment of certain objectives - Incomplete practical measures and fragmentary legislation - Obligation not discharged

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.; Council Directive 91/157, Art. 6)

Summary

1 A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.

2 As regards the transposition of a directive into domestic law, incomplete practical measures and fragmentary legislation cannot discharge the obligation of a Member State to draw up a comprehensive programme with a view to attaining certain objectives, as required by Article 6 of Directive 91/157 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Benefits - National rules against overlapping - Incapable of being relied on against recipients of benefits of the same nature paid in accordance with Regulation No 1408/71 - Reduction of a pension supplement by reference to benefits payable to the person concerned under a scheme of another Member State - Not permissible

(Council Regulations No 1408/71, Arts 12(2), 12, 46(3) and 46b, and No 1248/92)

Summary

A national rule must be regarded as a provision for reduction of benefit within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 2001/83, and within the meaning of Articles 12(2), 46(3) and 46b of that version of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, if the calculation which it requires to be made has the effect of reducing the amount of pension which the person concerned may claim because he receives a benefit from another Member State. Consequently, a national rule which provides that the supplement to a retirement pension is to be reduced by the amount of a retirement pension which the person concerned may claim under a scheme of another Member State constitutes a provision for reduction of benefit within the meaning of those provisions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Need to ensure that directives are effective - Obligations of national courts

(EC Treaty, Arts 5 and 189, third para.)

2 Social policy - Men and women - Access to employment and working conditions - Equal treatment - Directive 76/207 - Refusal of the employer to provide references after the end of the employment relationship - Principle of effective judicial control - Extent

(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 6)

Summary

1 The Member States' obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by the directive and their duty under Article 5 of the Treaty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation are binding on all the authorities of Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts. In applying national law, in particular legislative provisions which were specially introduced in order to implement a directive, the national court is required to interpret its national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty.

2 Article 6 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 requires Member States to introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to ensure judicial protection for workers whose employer, after the employment relationship has ended, refuses to provide references as a reaction to legal proceedings brought to enforce compliance with the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of that directive.

The principle of effective judicial control laid down in Article 6, a principle which underlies the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and which is also enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, would be deprived of an essential part of its effectiveness if the protection which it provides did not cover measures which an employer might take as a reaction to legal proceedings brought by an employee with the aim of enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment. Fear of such measures, where no legal remedy is available against them, might deter workers who considered themselves the victims of discrimination from pursuing their claims by judicial process, and would consequently be liable seriously to jeopardise implementation of the aim pursued by the Directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Tax on the transfer of securities - Meaning - Stock Exchange transactions - Irrelevant

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 12(1)(a))

Summary

Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as allowing a tax to be charged in the event of a transfer of shares irrespective, first, of whether the company issuing the shares is listed on a Stock Exchange and, secondly, of whether the shares are transferred on the Stock Exchange or directly from the transferor to the transferee.