ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-315/01





Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT)

v

Österreichische Autobahnen und Schnellstraßen AG (ÖSAG)





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria))

«(Public procurement – Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts – Power of the body responsible for review procedures to consider infringements of its own motion – Directive 93/36/EEC – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Selection criteria – Award criteria)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 10 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 19 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures in respect of the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Power of the body responsible for review procedures to consider of its own motion any unlawfulness of a decision awarding a contract – Whether permissible – Power to dismiss an application by reason of the unlawfulness raised of its own motion – Excluded

(Council Directive 89/665)

2.. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Award of contracts – Award criteria – Account taken of a list of principal deliveries effected previously – Not permissible

(Council Directive 93/36, Arts 23(1) and 26(1))

3.. Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directive 93/36 – Award of contracts – Award criteria – Requirement that the product which is the subject of the tenders should be available for inspection by the contracting authority within a radius of a specific number of kilometres – Not permissible

(Council Directive 93/36, Arts 23(1) and 26(1))

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

18 September 2003

((Freedom of establishment – Taxation – Taxes on company profits – Limitation of the deductibility in one Member State of costs connected with holdings of a parent company in its subsidiaries established in other Member States – Coherence of the tax system))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Bosal Holding BV, represented by F.C. de Hosson, of the Netherlands Government, represented by H.G. Sevenster, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by J.E. Collins, R. Singh and M. Hoskins, Barrister, and of the Commission, represented by R. Lyal and H. van Vliet, at the hearing on 11 July 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 September 2002,
Case C-201/01





Maria Walcher

v

Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

«(Protection of workers – Insolvency of the employer – Scope of Directive 80/987/EEC – National case-law on shareholder loans in lieu of capital contributions – Total loss of entitlement)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 3 October 2002

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 11 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-167/01





Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam

v

Inspire Art Ltd





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Amsterdam)

«(Articles 43 EC, 46 EC and 48 EC – Company formed in one Member State and carrying on its activities in another Member State – Application of the company law of the Member State of establishment intended to protect the interests of others)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 30 January 2003

Judgment of the Court, 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Member States – Obligations – Obligation to penalise infringements of Community law – Scope

(Art. 10 EC)

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Companies – Directive 89/666 – Disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State – Mandatory and optional disclosure requirements – National legislation introducing disclosure requirements not provided for by the directive – Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/666, Art. 2)

3.. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State in which it has its registered office but in which it conducts no business – Establishment of a branch in another Member State subjected to conditions relating to minimum capital and directors' liability – Not permissible – Possibility of adoption by Member States of measures to combat fraud – Limits

(Arts 43 EC and 48 EC)

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

16 October 2003

((Air transport – Access to the groundhandling market in Community airports – Directive 96/67/EC – Article 16 – Collection of a fee for access to airport installations – Conditions))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH, represented by G. Schohe; of Deutsche Lufthansa AG, represented by B. Haager, H. Neumann and M. Kleuk, Abteilungsleiter, and of the Commission, represented by M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr, at the hearing on 5 December 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 28 January 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

13 November 2003

((Agriculture – Health rules for the production and placing on the market of heat-treated milk – Free movement of goods – National law imposing a use-by date for high-temperature pasteurised milk))

In Case C-294/01,

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Granarolo SpA, represented by G. Forte and C. Marinuzzi, avvocatessa, of the Italian Government, represented by M. Fiorilli, of the German Government, represented by W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, and of the Commission, represented by C. Cattabriga, at the hearing on 26 September 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 March 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

6 November 2003

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – Wild fauna and flora))

In Case C-434/01,

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 July 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

11 December 2003

((Interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) – Directives 88/361/EEC and 90/364/EEC – Inheritance tax – Requirement of cross-border economic activity – Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of Member State of residence))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the heirs of Mr Barbier, represented by P. Kavelaars; the Netherlands Government, represented by C. Wissels, acting as Agent; and the Commission, represented by R. Lyal and H.M.H. Speyart, at the hearing on 24 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 December 2002,
Case C-278/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Spain





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing such failure – Non-compliance – Article 228 EC – Financial penalties – Penalty payment – Quality of bathing water – Directive 76/160/EEC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 12 June 2003

Judgment of the Court (Full Court), 25 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing such failure – Period allowed for compliance

(Art. 228 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing such failure – Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment – Financial penalties – Periodic penalty payment – Determination of the amount – Criteria

(Art. 228(2) EC)

3.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Judgment of the Court establishing such failure – Breach of the obligation to comply with the judgment – Financial penalties – Periodic penalty payment – Determination of the amount – Failure to comply with Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water

(Art. 228(2) EC)

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

22 January 2004

((Agriculture – EAGGF – Cancellation of financial assistance – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Articles 23 and 24 – Supervisory powers of the Commission and Member State respectively))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Consorzio Produttori Pompelmo Italiano Soc. coop. arl (COPPI), represented by A. Guarino, of the Italian Government, represented by G. De Bellis, and of the Commission, represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent, at the hearing on 17 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 November 2002,
Joined Cases C-502/01 and C-31/02

Silke Gaumain-Cerri

v

Kaufmännische Krankenkasse – Pflegekasse

and

Maria Barth

v

Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hannover and the Sozialgericht Aachen)

(Social security – Freedom of movement for workers – EC Treaty – Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Benefits designed to cover the risk of becoming reliant on care – Payment by the care insurance system of old age insurance contributions of the carer assisting the person reliant on care)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Social security for migrant workers – Community rules – Matters covered – Benefits under a national social security scheme covering the risk of reliance on care – Payment of old age insurance contributions of the carer assisting the reliant person – Inclusion as a sickness benefit

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1)(a))

2. Social security for migrant workers – Equal treatment – National care insurance scheme refusing a national of a Member State other than the competent State payment of old age insurance contributions – Scheme entailing discrimination against a citizen of the Union prohibited by Community law

(Art. 17 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71)

1. A benefit such as the payment, by the body providing care insurance, of old age insurance contributions of a third party providing care in the home of a person reliant on care constitutes a sickness benefit for the benefit of a person reliant on care covered by Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97.

(see paras 20-21, 23, operative part 1)

2. Article 17 EC and Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, preclude care insurance benefits comprising payment of old age insurance contributions of a national of a Member State in the position of the third party caring for the insured person being refused by the competent institution on the sole ground that that third party or person covered by that insurance resides in a Member State other than the competent State.

In fact, the status of Union citizenship enables nationals of the Member States who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same treatment in law, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for. In that context, in view of the purpose of the activity carried on by third parties assisting persons reliant on care, the condition as to residency on which the refusal of that care insurance benefit is based appears to afford different treatment to comparable situations, rather than to constitute a factor objectively establishing a difference in their situations and thus justifying such different treatment, and therefore constitutes discrimination prohibited by Community law.

(see paras 34-36, operative part 2)
Keywords



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion — (Art. 226 EC)

2. Member States — Obligations arising from Community law — Failure to fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible — (Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions on exports — Measures having equivalent effect — National rules prohibiting a national of another Member State from taking to that other State a vehicle purchased in the first Member State bearing temporary number plates issued, for the purpose of exporting the vehicle to that other Member State, by the competent authorities of the latter State — Incompatible with Article 29 EC — Criteria — Justification — To be assessed by the national court — Penalties provided for in the rules inapplicable if necessary — (Arts 29 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

Article 29 EC precludes the rules of a Member State which prohibit a national of another Member State, on pain of criminal penalties such as imprisonment or a fine, from taking to that other State a vehicle purchased in the first Member State bearing temporary number plates issued, for the purpose of the export of the vehicle to that other Member State, by the competent authorities of the latter State, if those rules are of such a kind as to restrict export patterns, create a difference in treatment between a State's domestic trade and its external trade and give rise to an advantage for national trade at the expense of another Member State, provided that those rules cannot be justified under Article 30 EC. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so in the main proceedings.

If the rules at issue in the main proceedings are held to be contrary to Article 29 EC, the penalties for which they make provision are inapplicable.

see paras 48-49, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy — Men and women — Access to employment and working conditions in the exercise of activities in a self-employed capacity — Equal treatment — Opportunity for public-sector employees who have reached a certain age to work part time — Exclusion from part-time work of employees who have not worked full time for at least three of the preceding five years — Exclusion almost exclusively affecting women — Indirect discrimination — Not permitted in the absence of objective justification — (Council Directive 76/207, Arts 2(1) and 5(1))

Summary

Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law by virtue of which part-time work for older employees may be authorised for public servants only if they have worked full-time for a total of at least three of the five years preceding such part-time work, when significantly more women than men work part-time and are consequently excluded by that provision from the scheme of part-time work for older employees, unless such provision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

In this regard, it is for the national court to determine whether that is so, ascertaining in light of all the relevant factors and taking into account the possibility of achieving by other means the aims pursued by the provisions in question, whether such aims appear to be unrelated to any discrimination based on sex and whether that provision, as a means to the achievement of certain aims, is capable of advancing those aims. Mere generalisations concerning the capacity of a specific measure to encourage recruitment are not enough to show that the aim of the disputed provisions is unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex or to provide evidence on the basis of which it could reasonably be considered that the means chosen are or could be suitable for achieving that aim.

Moreover, a provision of national law which poses the risk that workers may be discouraged from accepting part-time work for the reason that they will subsequently be unable to join the scheme of part-time work for older employees cannot a priori be considered to be an apt or suitable means of attaining the objective of unblocking the employment market.

Lastly, although budgetary considerations may underlie a Member State ' s choice of social policy and influence the nature or scope of the social protection measures which it wishes to adopt, they do not in themselves constitute an aim pursued by that policy and cannot therefore justify discrimination against one of the sexes.

see paras 58, 64-66, 74, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Fixed levy on certain income arising from investments – Condition of residence or establishment of the debtor in the Member State concerned – Not permissible – Justification – Absence

(Arts 49 EC and 56 EC)

Summary

A Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 59 EC where it excludes altogether the application of the rate of the fixed levy to income arising from certain investments where the debtor is not resident or established in that Member State.

Apart from having the effect of discouraging taxpayers who are resident in a Member State from entering into contracts generating such income with companies which are established in another Member State, such legislation also has a restrictive effect as regards those companies as it prevents them from raising capital in the Member State concerned.

The need to ensure payment of taxes and effective fiscal supervision does not justify such a restriction on the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital. While the prevention of tax avoidance and the need for effective fiscal supervision may be relied upon to justify restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, a general presumption of tax avoidance or fraud is not, however, sufficient to justify a fiscal measure which compromises the objectives of the Treaty.

Furthermore, the restrictive measure in question does not comply with the principal of proportionality, in that it is not appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective it pursues and it goes beyond what is necessary to attain it.

(see paras 23-24, 27-28, 34, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Meaning of civil and commercial matters — Action brought by a guarantor against the principal debtor by way of legal subrogation in the context of a contract of guarantee — Included — (Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 1, first para.)

2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Meaning — Action brought by a guarantor, by way of subrogation, against the principal debtor in the context of a contract of guarantee concluded with a third party — Excluded where the principal debtor has not authorised the conclusion of the contract — (Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1))

Summary

1. An action brought by way of legal subrogation against an importer who owed customs duties by the guarantor who paid those duties to the customs authorities in performance of a contract of guarantee under which it had undertaken to the customs authorities to guarantee payment of the duties in question by the forwarding agent, which had originally been instructed by the principal debtor to pay the debt, does not amount to the exercise of powers falling outside the scope of the rules applicable to relationships between private individuals, and must therefore be regarded as coming within the concept of " civil and commercial matters" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 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, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.

see paras 19, 21

2. Article 5(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, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as follows: " matters relating to a contract" do not cover the obligation which a guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of that contract.

see para. 26, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Interpretation – Multilingual texts – Discrepancies between the different language versions

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Time-limit for the forwarding by the purchaser to the competent authority of a summary of the statements drawn up for each producer

(Commission Regulation No 536/93, Art. 3(2))

Summary

1. Where there is a divergence between the various language versions of a Community law text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

(see para. 25)

2. Since neither the general scheme nor the purpose of Regulation No 536/93, laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, precludes the deadline laid down in Article 3(2) of that regulation, as amended by Regulation No 1001/98, for the forwarding by the milk purchaser to the competent authority of a summary of the statements drawn up for each producer from being understood as a deadline for dispatch of the relevant information, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that milk purchasers comply with the time-limit laid down where they send the requisite information to the competent authority before 15 May of the relevant year.

(see paras 29, 34, operative part)