ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° EAGGF ° Clearance of accounts ° Amounts to be paid to the Fund by a Member State by way of the co-responsibility levy in the cereals sector ° Commission' s power to supervise the correct application of agricultural rules ° Recourse to comparison of the accounts presented with statistical data ° Whether permissible ° Reasonable doubt ° Burden of proof on the Member State ° Substitution of statistical data for the accounts presented ° Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 729/70, Arts 5 and 9)

Summary

Where, in the context of the procedure for clearing EAGGF accounts, in respect of which there is nothing in either the preamble to or the provisions of Regulation No 729/70 to indicate that the procedure should differ according to whether it relates to expenditure to be financed or revenue to be collected by the Fund, the Commission intends to reject the figures communicated by a Member State on the ground that the Community rules on expenditure and on revenue, such as the co-responsibility levy in the cereals sector, applicable in the various sectors of the common agricultural policy, have not been correctly applied by the national authorities, the Commission is not required to demonstrate exhaustively that there are irregularities in the data submitted to it; it is sufficient for it to adduce evidence of serious and reasonable doubt on its part regarding the figures submitted by the national authorities. The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the Member State which is best placed to collect and verify the data required for the clearance of the accounts, hence it is for that State to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its figures are accurate and, if appropriate, that the Commission' s calculations are incorrect.

Where the Commission finds a discrepancy between the accounts and the statistical data presented by a Member State, which, having regard to their nature and their objectives, are inevitably approximate and can reflect the actual state of affairs only with a limited degree of precision, it cannot purely and simply reject those accounts and effect clearance on the basis of the statistical data. Such data are valid only as an indirect means of verification, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 729/70, on the basis of which the Commission is entitled to rely on reasonable doubt which obliges the Member State to adduce evidence of its compliance with the Community rules and of the existence of a reliable supervisory system of such a kind as to dispel such doubt.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social policy ° Men and women workers ° Access to employment and working conditions ° Equal treatment ° Directive 76/207 ° Discriminatory dismissal ° Choice of sanctions left to the Member States ° Award of compensation ° Need for adequate compensation ° Ceiling fixed and payment of any interest excluded ° Not permissible

(Council Directive 76/207, Arts 5(1) and 6)

2. Social policy ° Men and women workers ° Access to employment and working conditions ° Equal treatment ° Directive 76/207 ° Article 6 ° Effect on relationships between the State and individuals ° State as employer

(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 6)

Summary

1. Although Directive 76/207, the purpose of which is to put into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards the various aspects of employment, in particular working conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, leaves Member States, when providing a remedy for breach of the prohibition against discrimination, free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving the objective of the directive, it nevertheless entails that if financial compensation is to be awarded where there has been discriminatory dismissal in breach of Article 5(1), such compensation must be adequate, in that it must enable the loss and damage actually sustained as a result of the discriminatory dismissal to be made good in full in accordance with the applicable national rules.

Accordingly, the interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 76/207 must be that reparation of the loss and damage sustained by a person injured as a result of discriminatory dismissal may not be limited to an upper limit fixed a priori or by excluding an award of interest to compensate for the loss sustained by the recipient of the compensation as a result of the effluxion of time until the capital sum awarded is actually paid.

2. A person who has been injured as a result of discriminatory dismissal may rely on the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 76/207 as against an authority of the State acting in its capacity as an employer in order to set aside a national provision which imposes limits on the amount of compensation recoverable by way of reparation.

The right of a State to choose among several possible means of achieving the objectives of a directive does not exclude the possibility for individuals of enforcing before national courts rights whose content can be determined sufficiently precisely on the basis of the provisions of the directive alone.
Judgment of the Court of 10 December 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court. - Case C-19/91.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-05937

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1. Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil - Justification - None

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court finding a failure - Period for compliance

(EEC Treaty, Art. 171)

Summary

1. As the Court has consistently held, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing within its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to discharge its obligations under Community law.

2. The immediate and uniform application of Community law requires that the process of complying with a judgment declaring that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be initiated at once and must be completed as soon as possible (see the judgment in Case 169/87 Commission v France [1988] ECR 4093).

Parties

In Case C-19/91,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Roberto Hayder, a representative of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, Résidence Champagne, 4 Rue des Girondins,

defendant,

Application for a declaration that, by failing to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 24 May 1988 in Case 307/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 2677 on the transposition into Belgium law of Council Directive 87/714/EEC of 4 October 1982 laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (Official Journal 1982 L 301, p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty and in particular Article 171,

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, Sir Gordon Slynn, R. Joliet and P.J.G Kapteyn (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, M. Díez de Velasco and J.L. Murray, Judges,

(The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced.)

hereby:

Operative part

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 May 1988, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff ° Tariff headings ° Salted meat of bovine animals ° Classification under heading 0210 of the Combined Nomenclature ° Conditions ° Total salt content of 1.2% by weight, obtained by impregnating the meat with salt deeply and evenly in all its parts for the purposes of long-term preservation

Summary

Heading 0210 of the Common Customs Tariff (Combined Nomenclature) must be interpreted as meaning that meat of bovine animals may be classified under that heading as salted meat only if it has been deeply and evenly impregnated with salt in all its parts for the purposes of long-term preservation so that it has a minimum total salt content of 1.2% by weight. Meat of bovine animals to which for the purposes of preservation a quantity of salt has been added such that the total salt content measured (approximately 0.5%) amounts to more than three times the natural salt content (0.15%) may not be classified as salted under heading 0210.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations ° Judgment of the Court declaring that the Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations ° Period for implementation

(EEC Treaty, Art. 171)

Summary

The immediate and uniform implementation of Community law requires that the process of complying with the judgment be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Products processed from fruit and vegetables ° Protective measures on the import of Morello cherries ° Purchase from an intermediary not established in the country of origin ° Price paid to the intermediary and resale price above the minimum import price ° Levying of a countervailing charge ° Not permissible

(Commission Regulation No 1626/85, as amended by Regulation No 1712/85)

Summary

Regulation No 1626/85 on protective measures applicable to imports of certain Morello cherries, as amended in the German, Greek, English, French, Italian and Dutch versions by Regulation No 1712/85, must be interpreted as meaning that the countervailing charge for which it provides in the event of the minimum import price not being respected cannot be levied if the importer has bought the goods from an intermediary who is not established in the country of origin of the goods, where it is certain that both the price paid by the importer to the intermediary and that importer' s subsequent resale price exceed the minimum price. In such a case, the purpose of Regulation No 1626/85, which is to protect the Community market from the sale of imported products at abnormally low prices, is achieved.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments ° Rules of jurisdiction ° Autonomous interpretation

2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments ° Special jurisdiction ° Court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation ° Contract of employment ° Place of performance of the obligation characterizing the contract ° Autonomous concept ° Place of performance by the employee of the work stipulated ° Work performed in more than one Contracting State ° Place where or from which the employee principally discharges his obligations

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1))

Summary

1. The terms used in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted autonomously. Only such an interpretation is capable of ensuring uniform application of the Convention, the objectives of which include unification of the rules on jurisdiction of the Contracting States, so as to avoid as far as possible the multiplication of the bases of jurisdiction in relation to one and the same legal relationship and to reinforce the legal protection available to persons established in the Community by, at the same time, allowing the plaintiff easily to identify the court before which he may bring an action and the defendant reasonably to foresee the court before which he may be sued.

2. In view of the specific nature of contracts of employment, the place of performance of the obligation in question, for the purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, must, in the case of such contracts, be determined by reference not to the applicable national law in accordance with the conflict rules of the court seised but, rather, to uniform criteria laid down by the Court of Justice on the basis of the scheme and the objectives of the Convention. The place of performance is the place where the employee actually carries out the work covered by the contract with his employer.

Where the employee performs his work in more than one Contracting State, the place of performance of the contractual obligation, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined as the place where or from which the employee discharges principally his obligations towards his employer.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Competition ° Agreements, decisions and concerted practices ° Prohibition ° Block exemption ° Exclusive purchasing agreements ° Regulation No 1984/83 ° Service-station agreement concluded before the accession of Spain and Portugal for an indefinite period or for more than 10 years ° Benefit of exemption ° Conditions

(EEC Treaty, Art. 85(3); Commission Regulation No 1984/83, Arts 12(1)(c) and 15(3) and (4))

Summary

A service-station agreement concluded prior to the date of the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic for an indefinite duration or for more than 10 years may benefit from the block exemption provided for by Regulation No 1984/83 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, in accordance with Article 15(3) and (4) of that regulation, provided that it fulfils the conditions prescribed by the regulation other than that laid down in Article 12(1)(c) relating to the duration of the agreement.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Member States ° Obligations ° Failure to fulfil ° Failure to fulfil specific obligations under a directive and failure to fulfil the general obligation imposed by Article 5 of the Treaty

(EEC Treaty, Arts 5 and 169)

Summary

Where a Member State has failed to fulfil its specific obligations under a directive, no purpose is served by considering the question whether it has thereby also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Milk and milk products ° Additional levy on milk ° Determination of reference quantities exempt from the levy ° Period to be used in order to determine the fat content of the milk to be considered representative ° Choice of a period outside the options afforded by the Community rules ° Precluded

(Commission Regulation No 1546/88, Art. 12(1))

2. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Discrimination between producers or consumers ° Additional levy on milk ° Determination of reference quantities exempt from the levy ° Difference in treatment as between producers based on the inability to rely on the fat content of milk delivered outside the reference periods laid down by the Community legislation ° No discrimination

(Commission Regulation No 1546/88, Art. 12(1))

Summary

1. Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy on milk, as amended by Regulation No 1033/89, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is entitled to use only the periods of application of the additional levy scheme expressly laid down by that provision for the purposes of determining the fat content of milk to be considered representative which is taken into account when determining the reference quantities exempt from the levy.

In so far as that provision designates the period to be regarded as the reference period and authorizes the choice of another period, which it also designates, in exceptional cases which it lists exhaustively, it lays down precise rules precluding any other possibility.

2. The difference in treatment between, on the one hand, producers the fat content of whose milk declined abnormally during the two periods of application of the additional levy scheme laid down by Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1546/88 for determining the fat content to be considered representative and, on the other, producers who may rely on a representative fat content within one or other of those periods, is objectively justified by the need to lay down, in the interests of both legal certainty and the effectiveness of the additional levy scheme, a limitation on the number of periods which may be taken into account as reference periods. Consequently, that difference in treatment cannot be described as discriminatory.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Oils and fats ° Subsidy for oil seeds ° Advance-fixing ° System of lodging security ° Failure to observe the time-limit for identifying the seed forming the subject-matter of the application for a subsidy ° Forfeiture of security ° Principle of proportionality ° Breach ° None

(Council Regulation No 1594/83, Art. 5; Commission Regulation No 2681/83, Art. 23(2))

Summary

The objective pursued by Article 5 of Regulation No 1594/83 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 2681/83 which provide, where the amount of the subsidy for processing oil seeds is fixed in advance, for the security lodged to be forfeited if identification of the seed at an oil mill or a feed mill is not requested within the time-limit set in the Community subsidy certificate, is to combat speculative operations by processing undertakings. Those provisions are appropriate in order to achieve that objective, since, if world market prices fall, the subsidy is higher than if it is fixed in advance, which, if there were no penalty at all, might induce the traders concerned to allow the time-limit to expire and thereby forego the advance-fixing so as to obtain a higher subsidy.

Moreover, those provisions do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued since where, for speculative purposes, a trader has not undertaken identification of the seed within the statutory time-limit, he cannot reasonably expect the penalty to be limited to a reduction in the subsidy actually granted, if, contrary to his expectations, the world market price rose at the time when the seed was identified. Where failure to identify the seed within the time -limit is not the result of a speculative operation, the provisions in question avoid the administrative problems and difficulties in assessing evidence which arise in a system that relies on analysing the conduct of those concerned and have the twofold advantage of being simple and effective. Moreover, forfeiture of the security, which occurs only in the absence of circumstances constituting force majeure, is sufficiently differentiated, since it is proportional to the quantity of oil seed that has not been identified. It follows that the abovementioned provisions are not in breach of the principle of proportionality.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Measures adopted by the institutions - Directives - Direct effect - Conditions

(EEC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.)

2. Approximation of laws - Waste - Directive 75/442 - Not possible for individuals to rely upon Article 4 before a national court

(Council Directive 75/442, Art.4)

Summary

1. Wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon by an individual against the State where the State fails to implement the directive in national law by the end of the period prescribed or where it fails to implement the directive correctly.

In this connection a Community provision is unconditional where it is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the taking of any measure either by the institutions of the Community or by the Member States and it is sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the court where the obligation which it imposes is set out in unequivocal terms.

2. Article 4 of Directive 75/442 on waste, which requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, does not confer on individuals rights which the national courts must safeguard.

That provision, in setting out the objectives which the Member States must observe in their performance of the more specific obligations imposed on them by other provisions of the directive, merely indicates a programme to be followed. It defines the framework for the action to be taken by the Member States regarding the treatment of waste and does not require, in itself, the adoption of specific measures or a particular method of waste disposal. It is therefore neither unconditional nor sufficiently precise and thus is not capable of conferring rights on which individuals may rely as against the State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Scope - Proceedings for the recognition and enforcement in a Contracting State of judgments given in non-contracting States - Excluded - Need for a decision on a preliminary issue - Irrelevant

(Convention of 27 September 1968)

Summary

The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and, in particular, Articles 21, 22 and 23 thereof do not apply to proceedings, or to issues arising in proceedings, in Contracting States for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in civil and commercial matters in non-contracting States.

First, it follows from Articles 26 and 31 of the Convention, which are to be read in conjunction with Article 25, that the procedures provided for in Title III of the Convention, which concerns recognition and enforcement, apply only to judgments given by the courts of Contracting States. Secondly, the rules on jurisdiction contained in Title II of the Convention do not establish the forum in which proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in non-contracting States are to take place, having regard to the fact that Article 16(5), which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments the courts of the Contracting State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced are to have exclusive jurisdiction, is also to be read in conjunction with the definition of "judgment" contained in Article 25. No distinction can be drawn in that regard between an order for enforcement simpliciter and a judgment of a court of a Contracting State ruling on an issue arising in proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment given in a non-contracting State, since if the subject-matter of such a dispute is such that it falls outside the scope of the Convention, the existence of a preliminary issue on which the court has to give a ruling in order to decide the dispute cannot justify the application of the Convention, whatever the nature of that issue may be.