ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-276/01





Proceedings

against

Joachim Steffensen





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schleswig)

«(Directive 89/397/EEC – Official control of foodstuffs – Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) – Analysis of samples – Right to a second opinion – Direct effect – Admissibility of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an infringement of the right to a second opinion)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 22 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 10 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Direct effect

2.. Approximation of laws – Official control of foodstuffs – Directive 89/397 – Right to a second opinion against a claim that products fail to meet the standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs – Direct effect – Right which must be granted to manufacturers where samples are taken from retail outlets

(Council Directive 89/397, Art. 7(1), second subpara.)

3.. Approximation of laws – Official control of foodstuffs – Directive 89/397 – Admissibility of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of infringement of the right to a second opinion – To be assessed by the national courts – To be assessed in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Respect for fundamental rights – Right to a fair hearing

(Council Directive 89/397, Art. 7(1), second subpara.)

1.

2.

3.
Case C-234/01





Arnoud Gerritse

v

Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin)

«(Income tax – Non-residents – Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) – Non-taxable threshold amount – Deduction of business expenses)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 13 March 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income taxes – Exclusion of non-residents from the right to deduct business expenses – Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC) and Art. 60 (now Art. 50 EC))

2.. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Income taxes – Rate of taxation fixed in relation to the income of non-residents and progressive in relation to the income of residents – Whether permissible – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC) and Art. 60 (now Art. 50 EC))

1.

2.
Case C-103/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 89/686/EEC – Scope – Derogations – Personal protective equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 10 December 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 22 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Personal protective equipment – Directive 89/686 – National legislation making equipment for firefighters, notwithstanding its compliance with the directive, subject to additional requirements – Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/686, Arts 1 and 4, and point 1 of Annex I)

2.. Community law – Concepts – Interpretation – Reference to national law – Not permissible

3.. Approximation of laws – Personal protective equipment – Directive 89/686 – Measures harmonising equipment intended for the protection of firefighters in the performance of their usual duties – Breach of the principle of proportionality – Breach of the principle of subsidiarity – None

(Council Directive 89/686)

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

10 July 2003

((Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities – Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – Local staff – Representation of the Commission in Austria – Applicability of national legislation concerning the representation of workers and defence of their interests))

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in Österreich, represented by D. Pätzold, Rechtsanwalt; the European Communities, Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Hainz; the Netherlands Government, represented by C. Wissels, acting as Agent; and the Swedish Government, represented by A. Kruse, at the hearing on 11 February 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 April 2003,
Case C-30/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement, in respect of Gibraltar, Directives 67/548/EEC and 87/18/EEC (concerning dangerous chemical substances); 93/12/EEC (concerning liquid fuels); 79/113/EEC, 84/533/EEC, 84/534/EEC, 84/535/EEC, 84/536/EEC, 84/537/EEC, 84/538/EEC, 86/594/EEC and 86/662/EEC (concerning noise emission); 94/62/EC (concerning packaging waste) and 97/35/EC (concerning the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms))»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 16 January 2003

Judgment of the Court, 23 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-361/01 P





Christina Kik

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 115 – Rules in force governing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) – Plea of illegality – Principle of non-discrimination)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 20 March 2003

Judgment of the Court, 9 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community trade mark – Languages of the Office – Obligation on the applicant for registration of a Community trade mark to indicate a second language as a possible language of procedure in opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings – Sending of written communications in the second language – Scope – Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination – None

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 115(4))

2.. European Communities – Language regime – Whether there is a general principle enshrining every citizen's right to have any act that may affect his interests drafted in his language – None

3.. Community trade mark – Languages of the Office – Obligation on the applicant for registration of a Community trade mark to indicate a second language as a possible language of procedure in opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings – Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination – None

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 115(3))

4.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark – Languages of the Office

(Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-56/01





Patricia Inizan

v

Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre)

«(Social security – Freedom to provide services – Costs of hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State – Conditions of reimbursement – Prior authorisation – Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Validity)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 21 January 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 23 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Benefits in kind provided in another Member State – Article 22(1)(c)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 – Consistency with Articles 49 EC and 50 EC

(Arts 49 EC and 50 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 22(1)(c)(i))

2.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Benefits in kind provided in another Member State – Second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 – Scope

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 22(2), second subpara.)

3.. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National rules on reimbursement of medical costs incurred in another Member State – Treatment provided in a hospital – Requirement of prior authorisation from the insurance fund in the Member State in which the person concerned is insured – Grant subject to a requirement that the treatment must be necessary – Whether permissible

(Arts 49 EC and 50 EC)

1.

2.

3.
Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P and C-180/01 P





International Power plc, formerly National Power plc., and Others

v

National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO)





«(Appeal – ECSC Treaty – Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and unreasonable royalties – Powers of the Commission)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 8 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 2 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. ECSC – Provisions relating to discrimination as regards prices and other conditions of purchase – Commission's powers

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(b) and 63(1))

2.. ECSC – Provisions relating to agreements and abuses of dominant positions – Commission's powers

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(d) and 66(7))

3.. ECSC – Provisions relating to discrimination as regards prices and other conditions of purchase – Provisions relating to agreements and abuses of dominant positions – No rules laying down a limitation period for the exercise by the Commission of its powers – Observance of the requirements of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Decision on a complaint concerning an infringement committed several years prior to its lodging which has been the subject in the past of another complaint which the Commission refused to examine – Infringement of those requirements – Exclusion – Conditions

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 63(1) and 66(7))

4.. Appeals – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded on other legal grounds – Dismissal

5.. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Absence or inadequacy of reasons stated – Manifest error of assessment – Annulling judgment not drawing the necessary distinction between the two grounds of challenge – Judgment vitiated by an error in law

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-296/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 90/220/EEC – Genetically modified organisms)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 22 May 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 20 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the 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.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for clear and precise transposition – Transposition of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of general principles of law ensuring the full application of the directive

(Art. 249, para. 3, EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Need for full transposition – Provision concerning only the relations between the Member States and the Commission – Provision not necessarily entailing specific transposing measures – Possibility for the Commission to demonstrate the need to adopt specific transposing measures

4.. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Requirements as to form – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 38(1))

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-58/01





Océ Van der Grinten NV

v

Commissioners of Inland Revenue





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax)

«(Directive 90/435/EEC – Corporation tax – Parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Concept of withholding tax)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 23 January 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 25 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Directive 90/435 – Exemption, in the Member State of the subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed to the parent company – Concept of withholding tax – Charge envisaged by a double taxation convention

(Council Directive 90/435, Art. 5(1))

2.. Approximation of laws – Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Directive 90/435 – Exemption, in the Member State of the subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed to the parent company – Exception for domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation of dividends – Charge envisaged by a double taxation convention

(Council Directive 90/435, Arts 5(1) and 7(2))

3.. Approximation of laws – Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Directive 90/435 – Domestic or agreement-based provisions designed to eliminate or lessen economic double taxation of dividends – Compliance with the obligations to state reasons and to consult the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee

(Arts 94 EC and 253 EC; Council Directive 90/435, Art. 7(2))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-256/01





Debra Allonby

v

Accrington & Rossendale College and Others





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division))

«(Principle of equal pay for men and women – Direct effect – Meaning of worker – Self-employed female lecturer undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers who are employees, but under contract with a third company – Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an occupational pension scheme)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 2 April 2003

Judgment of the Court, 13 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Article 141(1) EC – Scope – Workers of different sexes undertaking the same work or work of equal value – Differences identified in conditions of remuneration not attributable to a single source – Excluded

(Art. 141(1) EC)

2.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Article 141(1) EC – Scope – Workers of different sexes undertaking the same work or work of equal value – Differences identified in conditions of remuneration not attributable to a single source – Remuneration including the right to become a member of an occupational pension scheme – Excluded

(Art. 141(1) EC)

3.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Article 141(1) EC – State legislation making membership of a pension scheme subject to the existence of a contract of employment – Occupational pension scheme with a much lower percentage of female than male members – Meaning of worker – Not permissible in the absence of objective justification

(Art. 141(1) EC)

4.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Article 141(1) EC – Scope – Unacceptability of State legislation – Enforceability against employers

(Art. 141(1) EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Joined Cases C-34/01 to C-38/01





Enirisorse SpA

v

Ministero delle Finanze





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy))

«(Public undertakings – Transfer to public undertakings of a proportion of port charges paid to the State – Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – State aid – Charge having equivalent effect – Internal taxation – Free movement of goods)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 7 November 2002

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Definition – Measures intended to compensate for the cost of public-service duties carried out by an undertaking – Excluded – Conditions – Clearly defined public-service obligations – Establishment in an objective and transparent manner of the parameters for calculating the compensation – Compensation limited to cost – Unlawfulness of the measure allocating part of the charge to a public undertaking – Unlawfulness affecting only that part of the charge paid to the undertaking

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

2.. State aid – Planned aid – Prohibition of implementation before the Commission's final decision – Direct effect – Extent – Unnotified measure allocating to an undertaking part of a charge – Responsibility of the national courts to prevent the levying of the charge and the allocation of the revenue therefrom

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(3) (now Art. 88(3) EC))

3.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) – Scope – Charge not constituting an impediment prohibited by Articles 12 or 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 25 EC or Article 90 EC) – Charge automatically falling within the ambit of Article 30 of the Treaty – Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 12, 30 and 95 (now, after amendment, Arts 25, 28 and 90 EC))

4.. Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Port charges allocated to a public undertaking regardless of the service rendered by the latter – No discrimination against imported goods – Permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 12, 30 and 95 (now, after amendment, Arts 25, 28 and 90 EC))

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-329/01





The Queen, on the application of British Sugar plc

v

Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court))

«(Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 – Proof of export – Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 – Correction of an export licence – Obvious inaccuracy – Principle of proportionality)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 10 September 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 19 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) – Export licence stating a quantity of sugar lower than that actually exported or having expired – Proof of export – None – Licence extract endorsed by customs authorities – No effect

(Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 2(2)(a))

2.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Import and export licences – Correction by the competent authorities of statement made in the licence or an extract therefrom – No inaccuracy in those documents – Not permissible

(Commission Regulation No 3719/88, Art. 24(2))

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Import and export licences – Correction by the competent authorities – Breach of the principle of proportionality – None – Interference with protected interests – None

(Commission Regulation No 3719/88, Art. 24(2))

4. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) – Alteration of the charge to be paid – Discretion of the national court or the competent authorities – No evidence of wrongful conduct – None

(Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 3)

5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) – Export carried out after the expiry of the export licence – Obligation to pay the charge due in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market

(Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 3)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Not possible to rely on the GATT rules in order to contest the lawfulness of a Community act — Exceptions — Community measure intended to implement a GATT rule or expressly and specifically referring thereto — Judicial review — Precluded before expiry of any reasonable period granted to the Community for compliance with the WTO rules — (EC Treaty, Art. 178 (now Art. 235 EC) and Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

Summary

Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty is subject to a number of conditions relating to the illegality of the conduct alleged against the Community institutions, actual damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of. Given their nature and structure, the WTO agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions. It is only where the Community has intended to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or where the Community measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the WTO agreements, that it is for the Court to review the legality of the Community measure in question in the light of the WTO rules.

In any event, as regards the period prior to the expiry of the 15-month period granted to the Community for the purpose of complying with its obligations under the WTO rules, the Community Courts cannot carry out that review, particularly not in the context of an action for damages under Article 178 of the Treaty, without rendering ineffective the grant of a reasonable period for compliance with the recommendations or rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body, as provided for in the dispute settlement system put in place by the WTO agreements.

see paras 54-56, 65
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by the Member States — Need for full transposition — Provision requiring monitoring reports to be drawn up and forwarded to the Commission — Provision not necessarily requiring specific implementing measures — (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 12(1))

Summary

Each of the Member States to which a directive is addressed is obliged to adopt, within the framework of its national legal system, all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective it pursues.

In order to concern only the relations between Member States and the Commission Article 12(1) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, which requires the Member States to draw up every three years a report on the implementation of national provisions taken under that directive and forward it to the Commission so that it can check that the directive has been complied with by the Member States, need not necessarily require the adoption of specific implementing measures in national law.

see paras 19-20