ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Export refunds - Variable refund - Conditions for granting - Product exported but destroyed, as a result of force majeure, before being imported into the country of destination - No entitlement to a refund unless a rate of refund valid for all non-member countries has been fixed

(Commission Regulation No 2730/79, Arts 10(4), 20 and 21)

Summary

Articles 10(4), 20 and 21 of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products must be interpreted as meaning that a trader is not entitled to an export refund where the product concerned has perished in transit as a result of force majeure, after leaving the geographical territory of the Community, and where the same rate of refund has been fixed for all non-member countries, with the exception of one single country, for which no refund has been fixed. The fact that a rate of refund has not been fixed for one country must be treated as tantamount to a variation according to destination, with the consequence that payment of the refund may be made only if the product has been imported into a non-member country for which the refund is prescribed. While Article 21(1) of Regulation No 2730/79 does in this regard authorize payment of part of the refund once the product has left the geographical territory of the Community, that provision, according to Article 21(2), applies only where a refund has been fixed in respect of all non-member countries.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment of measures - Measures against which actions may be brought - Refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 173, fourth para.)

2 Actions for annulment of measures - Refusal by the Commission to address to a Member State a directive or a decision concerning observance of the rules on competition by public undertakings - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 90(1) and (3) and 173, fourth para.)

Summary

3 It is not open to individuals to bring an action against a refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings under Article 169 against a Member State.

4 Individuals may, in some circumstances, be entitled to bring an action for annulment, under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, against a decision of the Commission taken on the basis of Article 90(3) of the Treaty. Moreover, the possibility cannot be ruled out that exceptional situations might exist where an individual or, possibly, an association constituted for the defence of the collective interests of a class of individuals has standing to bring proceedings against a refusal by the Commission to adopt a decision pursuant to its supervisory functions under Article 90(1) and (3). However, taking into account the fact that, in the field covered by those provisions, the Commission enjoys a wide discretion both in relation to the action which it considers necessary and in relation to the means appropriate for that purpose, it is not open to an individual to seek the annulment of the Commission's refusal to address to a Member State a decision declaring that a piece of general legislation adopted by it is contrary to the Treaty and indicating the measures to be adopted in order to comply with its obligations under Community law. Such inadmissibility also follows from the fact that an individual cannot be allowed to compel a Member State indirectly, by way of such an action, to adopt legislation of general application.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Apparatus comprising a scanning device, a digital memory and a printing unit - Classification under sub-heading 9009 12 00 of the combined nomenclature on the basis of general rule 3(c) for the interpretation of that nomenclature

Summary

The Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that apparatuses which can both send faxes and make copies, and comprise a scanning device (scanner), a digital storage device (memory) and a printing device (laser printer), are to be classified under sub-heading 9009 12 00 of the combined nomenclature.

Such multi-function machines, which might be classified either under heading 8517 or under heading 9009, must be classified, in accordance with general rule 3(c) for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration since, first, general rule 3(a), according to which the most specific description is to be preferred, is excluded because the relevant tariff headings fall within different chapters and, second, general rule 3(b) does not apply because those apparatuses display no feature enabling their essential character to be determined.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part - Plea inoperative

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of items of evidence adduced in the proper manner - Inadmissibility - Dismissal

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

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

(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215)

Summary

5 In accordance with Article 168a of the Treaty and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

6 On an appeal, a plea directed against reasoning in a judgment of the Court of First Instance which was not necessary to the result of the case, where the operative part of that judgment is adequately supported on other legal grounds, must be dismissed.

7 It is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the items of evidence adduced before it. That appraisal does not, therefore, save where the sense of the evidence has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

8 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

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax - Deduction of tax payable on goods and services supplied for the purpose of investment work intended to be used in connection with taxable transactions - Impossibility for the taxable person to use the goods and services in question for the purposes intended - Irrelevant in regard to the right to deduct - Possibility of adjusting the deduction originally made under the conditions set out in Article 20(3) of the Sixth Directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 17(2) and 20(3))

Summary

Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be construed as allowing a taxable person acting as such to deduct the value added tax payable by him on goods or services supplied to him for the purpose of investment work intended to be used in connection with taxable transactions. The right to deduct remains acquired where, by reason of circumstances beyond his control, the taxable person has never made use of those goods or services for the purpose of carrying out taxable transactions. A supply of investment goods during the adjustment period, where such occurs, may give rise to an adjustment of the deduction under the conditions set out in Article 20(3) of the directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Complaint alleging infringement of Articles 85 and 86 and of Article 90 of the Treaty - Rejection of the complaint relating to Articles 85 and 86 before completion of the examination - Whether permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 90)

Summary

When the Commission receives a complaint alleging infringement of Articles 85 and 86 and of Article 90 of the Treaty, it may reject the complaint relating to Articles 85 and 86 definitively, on the ground that those articles are not applicable and there is no Community interest in pursuing the investigation, before it has completed its examination of the complaint relating to Article 90.

The compatibility of national legislation with the Treaty rules on competition cannot be regarded as decisive in the context of an examination of the applicability of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to the conduct of undertakings which are complying with that legislation. Although an assessment of the conduct of the undertakings requires a prior evaluation of the relevant national legislation, the sole purpose of that evaluation is to determine what effect that legislation may have on such conduct.

Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty apply only to anti-competitive conduct engaged in by undertakings on their own initiative. If anti-competitive conduct is required of undertakings by national legislation or if the latter creates a legal framework which itself eliminates any possibility of competitive activity on their part, Articles 85 and 86 do not apply. In such a situation, the restriction of competition is not attributable, as those provisions implicitly require, to the autonomous conduct of the undertakings.

Articles 85 and 86 may apply, however, if it is found that the national legislation does not preclude undertakings from engaging in autonomous conduct which prevents, restricts or distorts competition.

When the Commission is considering the applicability of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to the conduct of undertakings, a prior evaluation of national legislation affecting such conduct should therefore be directed solely to ascertaining whether that legislation prevents undertakings from engaging in autonomous conduct which prevents, restricts or distorts competition.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Environment - Water pollution - Directive 76/464 - Obligation to establish specific programmes with a view to reducing pollution caused by certain dangerous substances

(Council Directive 76/464, Art. 7(1))

2 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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

3 In order to attain the objective pursued by Directive 76/464 of reducing pollution caused by substances within List II annexed thereto, the Member States are required by Article 7(1) of that directive, first of all, to establish programmes laying down quality objectives in accordance with Article 7(3). Since those programmes must be specific, general purification programmes which do not relate specifically to the substances mentioned in List II or indicate the quality objectives on the basis of which the pollution caused by those substances is to be reduced cannot constitute programmes within the meaning of the aforementioned Article 7(1).

4 In proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be taken into account.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Scope - Jurisdiction to order provisional or protective measures - Included - Substance of the dispute subject to arbitration - Jurisdiction founded solely on Article 24

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Arts 5, point 1, and 24)

2 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Jurisdiction to order provisional or protective measures - Grant of measures - Conditions - Measure ordering an interim payment - `Provisional measure' within the meaning of Article 24 - Conditions

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 24)

Summary

3 On a proper construction of Article 5, point 1, 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, and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, the court which has jurisdiction by virtue of that provision also has jurisdiction to order provisional or protective measures, without that jurisdiction being subject to any further conditions. However, where the parties have validly excluded the jurisdiction of the courts in a dispute arising under a contract and have referred that dispute to arbitration, it is only under Article 24 of the Convention that a court may be empowered to order such measures, since it cannot do so as the court having jurisdiction on the substance of the dispute. In that connection, where the subject-matter of an application for provisional measures relates to a question falling within the scope ratione materiae of the Convention, that Convention is applicable and Article 24 thereof may confer jurisdiction on the court hearing that application even where proceedings have already been, or may be, commenced on the substance of the case and even where those proceedings are to be conducted before arbitrators.

4 The granting of provisional or protective measures on the basis of Article 24 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 is conditional on, inter alia, the existence of a real connecting link between the subject-matter of the measures sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the Contracting State of the court before which those measures are sought. A measure ordering interim payment of a contractual consideration does not constitute a provisional measure within the meaning of that article unless, first, repayment to the defendant of the sum awarded is guaranteed if the plaintiff is unsuccessful as regards the substance of his claim and, second, the measure sought relates only to specific assets of the defendant located or to be located within the confines of the territorial jurisdiction of the court to which application is made.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

14 March 1996

((Failure to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/67/EEC – Assessment of risks to man and the environment posed by dangerous substances))

In Case C-238/95,

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 1 February 1996,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Environment - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409 - Implementation by the Member States - Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species - Condition - Absence of any other satisfactory solution - Possibility of breeding or reproducing in captivity - Not permissible

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))

2 Environment - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409 - Implementation by the Member States - Derogations from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species - Condition - Absence of any other satisfactory solution - Capture of protected species with a view to preventing problems of consanguinity - Permissible - Limits

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))

Summary

3 Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, under which Member States may, on condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, derogate from the prohibition of killing or capturing protected species, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not, on a decreasing basis and for a limited period, authorize the capture of certain protected species in order to enable bird fanciers to stock their aviaries, where breeding and reproduction of those species in captivity are possible but are not yet practicable on a large scale by reason of the fact that many fanciers would be compelled to alter their installations and change their habits. It is only if it is established that, were it not for the capture of birds in the wild, breeding and reproduction of protected species in captivity could not prosper that this alternative could not be regarded as constituting a satisfactory solution within the meaning of that provision.

4 Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is authorized, with a view to obviating, in bird breeding for recreational purposes, the problems of consanguinity which would result from too many endogenous crossings, to permit the capture of protected species, which may constitute judicious use within the meaning of that provision, on condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, it being understood that the number of specimens which may be captured must be fixed at the level of what proves to be objectively necessary to provide a solution for those problems, subject always to observance of the maximum limit referred to in that provision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Anti-dumping duty - Duty imposed on free-at-Community-frontier price - Increase where payment is deferred by more than 30 days - Methods of application - Calculation of free-at-Community-frontier price - Price corresponding to the customs value of the imported goods - Interest payable under a financing agreement - Exclusion - Conditions

(Council Regulations No 1224/80, Art. 3(1), and No 738/92, Art. 1(3); Commission Regulation No 1495/80, Art. 3(2))

Summary

The increase provided for in Article 1(3) of Regulation No 738/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey must be applied whenever it is agreed that imported goods are to be paid for more than 30 days after their arrival in the customs territory of the Community, even where the difference between the price for deferred payment and that for immediate payment is greater, in percentage terms, than the increase to be applied.

That increase is intended to offset, automatically and at a standard rate, the commercial advantage which can result from deferred payment terms for goods, in order to prevent a form of credit dumping.

Such an increase must be applied to the price actually paid or payable for the goods when they are sold for export to the customs territory of the Community, excluding charges for interest as consideration for the deferred payment terms granted, provided that those terms are the subject of a `financing arrangement' within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1495/80, and that the level of charges reflects prevailing interest rates.

The free-at-Community-frontier price, to which the anti-dumping duty is applied, corresponds to the customs value of the imported goods, as defined by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes, namely the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community.

Under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1495/80 implementing certain provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Regulation No 1224/80, charges for interest due under a financing arrangement entered into by the buyer and relating to the purchase of imported goods are not to be included in the customs value determined in that way, provided that those charges are distinguished from the price actually paid or payable for the goods, that the financing arrangement has been made in writing and that the buyer can demonstrate not only that such goods are actually sold at the price declared as the price actually paid or payable, but also that the claimed rate of interest does not exceed the level for such transactions prevailing in the country where, and at the time when, the finance was provided.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Regulations - Basic regulations and implementing regulations - Scope of power of implementation - Limits - Implementing rules introducing, in relation to inward processing, a condition for recourse to equivalent compensation not laid down in the basic regulation - Lawful

(Council Regulations Nos 1999/85, Art. 2(4), and 3677/86, Art. 9)

2 Free movement of goods - Trade with non-member countries - Inward processing arrangements - Equivalent compensation - Conditions - Classification of goods under the same tariff subheading - Breach of the principles of proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty - None

(Council Regulation No 3677/86, Art. 9)

Summary

3 In adopting provisions for the implementation of a basic regulation, the Community authority empowered to do so is required not to exceed the powers conferred upon it by that regulation for the implementation of the rules which it contains.

The fact that Article 9 of Regulation No 3677/86, adopted under the Regulatory Committee procedure for implementation of the basic regulation, Regulation No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements, introduced, for recourse to equivalent compensation to be available under those arrangements, the condition that the equivalent goods must fall under the same Common Customs Tariff subheading as the import goods, whereas the basic regulation merely requires that the former should be of the same quality and display the same characteristics as the latter, does not mean that those powers were exceeded.

First, Article 2(4) of the basic regulation provides that the implementing measures to be adopted under the habilitation procedure may be designed to prohibit or limit recourse to the equivalent compensation system, which derogates from the inward processing arrangements. Second, the requirement of classification under the same subheading gives effect to the criterion, which as well as being clear and precise and capable of contributing to the attainment of the objective of precluding abuse of inward processing arrangements expressly referred to by the basic regulation, cannot be regarded as conflicting with the general objective of those arrangements, namely to promote exports by Community undertakings.

4 The condition for recourse to equivalent compensation under the inward processing relief arrangements introduced by Article 9 of Regulation No 3677/86 to the effect that the equivalent goods must fall under the same Common Customs Tariff subheading as the import goods is not manifestly disproportionate in relation to the objective of combating fraud which it pursued and therefore does not constitute a breach of the principle of proportionality. Nor does it breach the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty since, although relying on a criterion deriving from other rules, which are by their nature liable to be periodically amended, it places economic operators in a position such that they are able at any time to determine clearly and precisely whether or not equivalent compensation is available.