ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Variable refund

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Regulation on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests

(Council Regulation No 2988/95, Art. 3(1), second para.)

Summary

1. In proceedings for the withdrawal and recovery of differentiated export refunds which have been definitively paid on the basis of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, a finding that those refunds have been wrongly paid must be substantiated by evidence of abuse on the part of the exporter, furnished in accordance with the rules of national law.

That evidence involves, first, a combination of objective circumstances from which it is apparent that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the Community rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved, and, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the Community rules by creating artificially the conditions laid down for obtaining it. The existence of that subjective element can be established, inter alia, by evidence of collusion between the exporter receiving the refunds and the importer of the goods in a non-member country other than the country of importation.

It is for the national court to verify whether the factors constituting such an abuse are present in the case before it in accordance with the rules of evidence of national law, provided that the effectiveness of Community law is not undermined.

(see paras 33-34, 38, operative part 1)

2. For the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, an irregularity is continuous or repeated where it committed by a Community operator who derives economic advantages from a body of similar transactions which infringe the same provision of Community law. The fact that the irregularity relates to a relatively small proportion of all the transactions carried out in a given period and that the transactions in which the irregularity has been detected always concern different consignments is immaterial in that respect.

(see paras 41-42, 44, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect

(Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Association EU-Tunisia, Art. 64(1))

2. International agreements – Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Association EU-Tunisia – Tunisian workers employed in a Member State

(Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Association EU-Tunisia, Art. 64(1))

Summary

1. A provision in an agreement concluded by the Communities with a non-member country must be regarded as having direct effect where, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision lays down a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or its effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure.

This is the case with Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Association EU-Tunisia has.

(see paras 25-28)

2. Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Association EU-Tunisia must be interpreted as meaning that that provision may have effects on the right of a Tunisian national to remain in the territory of a Member State in the case where that person has been duly permitted by that Member State to work there for a period extending beyond the period of validity of his permission to remain. It is clear from the actual wording of Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement and of the Joint Declaration relating to that provision, adopted by the Contracting Parties and amended to the Final Act of the Agreement, that the aim of that provision per se is not to regulate the position of Tunisian nationals as regards the right to remain in the Member States.

Accordingly, the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, not being designed to secure any kind of freedom of movement for workers, does not in principle prohibit a Member State from taking measures concerning the right to remain of a Tunisian national whom it has previously authorised to enter its territory and to engage in gainful employment there and the fact that the adoption of such a measure will oblige the person concerned to terminate his employment relationship in the host Member State before the contractual term agreed with his employer comes to an end will not, as a general rule, affect that conclusion.

However, if the host Member State has previously granted the migrant worker specific rights in relation to employment which are more extensive than the rights of residence conferred on him by that State, it cannot then reopen the question of that worker’s situation on grounds unrelated to the protection of a legitimate national interest such as public policy, public security or public health. Indeed, it would be quite unacceptable for the Member States to deal with the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement by using provisions of national law to limit its effectiveness.

(see paras 35-37, 39-40, 43, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Approximation of laws

–

Copyright and related rights

–

Protected rental and lending right for works

–

Directive 92/100

–

Remuneration of authors in the event of public lending (Council Directive 92/100, Arts 1 and 5) (see para. 32 and operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 6) – Derogation from the exclusive public lending right – Scope

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by exempting all categories of public lending establishments, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, from the obligation to remunerate authors for the lending carried out by them, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;

2. Orders Irelands to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)

2. Approximation of laws – Copyright and related rights – Public lending right of protected works – Directive 92/100 (Council Directive 92/100, Arts 1 and 5) (see para. 21 and operative part)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 6) – Derogation from the exclusive right in respect of public lending – Scope.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by exempting from the public lending right all categories of lending establishment accessible to the public within the meaning of Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive ;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes

(Council Regulation No 1254/1999, Art. 12(2)(b); Commission Regulation No 3887/92, Art. 2(1)(c))

Summary

To achieve the objective of halting the trend towards intensification of beef and veal production, the grant of a special premium is subject to complying with a stocking density, laid down in Article 12 of Regulation No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, which expresses the relationship between the number of animals carried on the holding and the forage area of the holding used to feed them, thereby ensuring that that area is sufficient to meet the feeding requirements of those animals.

In that respect, Article 12(2)(b) of the said Regulation No 1254/1999 and Article 2(1)(c) of Regulation No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes must be interpreted as meaning that a parcel of land declared as a forage area may be regarded as ‘available’ where, first, it is intended to be used exclusively for the feeding of the animals held on it throughout the calendar year and, secondly, it was in fact possible to use it to feed them for a minimum period of seven months during that year, from the date fixed by the national legislation, which must be between 1 January and 31 March, even though that parcel of land was not occupied continuously by those animals, in particular because it was temporarily under water.

(see paras 28-29, 38, operative part)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Freedom to provide services

–

Restrictions (Art. 49 EC) (see paras 20-34, operative part

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 49 EC – Freedom to provide services – Obligation laid down by national legislation to have the seat of the undertaking or an establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations

–

Examination of merits by the Court

–

Situation to be taken into consideration

–

Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see point 11

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) – Failure to take necessary measures to close down or upgrade unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites.

Operative part

Operative part

1. By failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.

2. The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Formal notice (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 32)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Determination during the procedure prior to the action (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 34-35)

3. Approximation of laws – Quality required of shellfish waters – Directive 79/923 (Council Directive 79/923, Arts 3 and 4) (see paras 46-48, 61-66)

Subject of the case

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incomplete transposition of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47) – Failure to designate certain shellfish waters, to establish pollution-reduction programmes and to set control parameters.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing:

– in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters, to designate all shellfish waters requiring designation;

– in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 79/923, to set all the required values in respect of shellfish waters designated or requiring designation pursuant to Article 4; and

– in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 79/923, to take all necessary measures to establish pollution reduction programmes for waters requiring designation pursuant to Article 4,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

A Member State which requires automatic fire detection systems with point detectors which were lawfully manufactured or marketed in another Member State but which do not have the EC marking:

– to comply with a national rule containing technical requirements to be met by certain components of those systems;

– to be subject to approval by a certification body, that obstacle being made worse by the disproportionate costs which that approval incurs; and

– to undergo tests and checks in connection with that type approval which, essentially, duplicate the controls which have already been carried out under other procedures in another Member State

fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

Even if it is applicable without distinction to all products, a requirement of conformity to a national standard hinders intra-Community trade and constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 28 EC inasmuch as it may have the effect of forcing economic operators of other Member States to adapt their apparatus and equipment to the requirements of standards or technical regulations of the Member State of importation and to bear the additional costs associated with such adaptation, or of deterring them from marketing the products concerned in that Member State.

Furthermore, the requirement of prior approval attesting to a product’s fitness for a given use restricts access to the market of the importing Member State and must therefore be regarded as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC. That requirement is disproportionate where, in the absence of a bilateral agreement with the certification body of the Member State of origin of a product, the certification body does not take into account the controls carried out in that other Member State. The testing and checking costs which that approval procedure incurs must be regarded as disproportionate in so far as such a procedure does not preclude the imposition of tests and checks which have already been carried out in the Member State of origin of the product concerned.

Whilst, in the absence of harmonising rules, the Member States are free to decide on their intended level of protection of health and life of humans, the fact remains that an exception to the principle of the free movement of goods may be justified under Article 30 EC only if the national authorities show that it is necessary in order to attain one or more objectives mentioned in that article and that it is in conformity with the principle of proportionality. In that regard, the reasons which may be invoked by a Member State by way of justification must be accompanied by appropriate evidence or by an analysis of the appropriateness and proportionality of the restrictive measure adopted by that State, and precise evidence enabling its arguments to be substantiated.

(see paras 29-30, 32, 35-36, 41-42, 45, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

Summary

Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community does not preclude the exclusion, by the national legislation of a Member State, of a national of another Member State who resides in that State and is in minor employment (less than 15 hours per week) in the former State from receiving a social advantage such as a child-raising allowance on the ground that he does not have his permanent or ordinary residence in the former State.

Social policy is, in the current state of Community law, a matter for the Member States, which have a wide discretion in exercising their powers in that respect. However, that wide discretion cannot have the effect of undermining the rights granted to individuals by the provisions of the Treaty in which their fundamental freedoms are enshrined.

In the context of national legislation pursuing aims of family policy, granting the child-raising allowance to persons who have a sufficiently close connection with national society, without reserving that allowance exclusively to persons who reside in national territory, the fact that a non-resident worker does not have a sufficiently substantial occupation in the Member State concerned is capable of constituting a legitimate justification for a refusal to grant the social advantage at issue.

(see paras 21, 26-28, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Interpretation – Methods

2. Approximation of laws – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering – Directive 91/308

(Art. 6(2) EU; Council Directive 91/308, Arts 2a(5) and 6(1) and (3), second subpara.)

Summary

1. If the wording of secondary Community law is open to more than one interpretation, preference should be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the EC Treaty rather than to the interpretation which leads to its being incompatible with the Treaty. Member States must not only interpret their national law in a manner consistent with Community law but also make sure they do not rely on an interpretation of wording of secondary legislation which would be in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order or with the other general principles of Community law.

(see para. 28)

2. The obligations of information and cooperation with the authorities responsible for combating money laundering, laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 91/308 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and imposed on lawyers by Article 2a(5) of that directive, account being taken of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) thereof, do not infringe the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6(2) EU.

It is clear from Article 2a(5) of Directive 91/308 that the obligations of information and cooperation apply to lawyers only in so far as they advise their client in the preparation or execution of certain transactions – essentially those of a financial nature or concerning real estate, as referred to in Article 2a(5)(a) of that directive – or when they act on behalf of and for their client in any financial or real estate transaction. As a rule, the nature of such activities is such that they take place in a context with no link to judicial proceedings and, consequently, those activities fall outside the scope of the right to a fair trial.

Moreover, as soon as the lawyer acting in connection with a transaction as referred to in Article 2a(5) of Directive 91/308 is called upon for assistance in defending the client or in representing him before the courts, or for advice as to the manner of instituting or avoiding judicial proceedings, that lawyer is exempt, by virtue of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of the directive, from the obligations laid down in Article 6(1), regardless of whether the information has been received or obtained before, during or after the proceedings. An exemption of that kind safeguards the right of the client to a fair trial.

Given that the requirements implied by the right to a fair trial presuppose, by definition, a link with judicial proceedings, and in view of the fact that the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Directive 91/308 exempts lawyers, where their activities are characterised by such a link, from the obligations of information and cooperation laid down in Article 6(1) of the directive, those requirements are respected.

(see paras 33-35, 37, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Arts 43 EC, 56 EC to 58 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation

(Art. 43 EC)

Summary

1. Inheritance tax legislation which lays down as a condition for the exemption from inheritance tax available for family undertakings the employment of a set number of workers in a region of the Member State concerned primarily affects freedom of establishment and falls within the scope of Article 43 EC. If it were to be accepted that such a national measure has restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, such effects would have to be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and do not justify an independent examination of that measure in the light of Articles 56 EC to 58 EC.

(see paras 12, 16, 18)

2. In the absence of valid justification, Article 43 EC precludes inheritance tax legislation of a Member State which excludes from the exemption from that tax available for family undertakings those undertakings which employ in the three years preceding the date of death of the deceased at least five workers in another Member State, whereas it grants such an exemption where the workers are employed in a region of the first Member State.

Such legislation is in principle contrary to Article 43 EC in that it provides for a difference in treatment between taxpayers on the basis of the place where the company owned by those taxpayers employs a certain number of workers for a certain period of time. It thus introduces indirect discrimination between taxpayers on the basis of the place of employment of a certain number of workers in a certain period, since that condition can undoubtedly be more easily fulfilled by a company already established in the Member State concerned.

Such legislation cannot be justified by considerations connected with the survival of small and medium-sized undertakings and the maintenance of employment in them, since in relation to the objective of preventing inheritance tax from jeopardising the continuation of family undertakings, and therefore the jobs which they bring, undertakings having their seat in another Member State are in a situation comparable to that of undertakings established in the first Member State.

Nor can the legislation in question be justified by the need to maintain the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, since the tax authorities could request the taxpayers concerned to provide themselves the evidence which the authorities consider necessary to be fully satisfied that those benefits are granted only where the jobs in question fulfil the criteria set out under national law.

(see paras 19, 21-22, 27-29, operative part)