ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

TAX PROVISIONS - HARMONIZATION OF LAWS - INDIRECT TAXES ON THE RAISING OF CAPITAL - DIRECTIVE 69/335/EEC - SCOPE - PROVISION ASSIMILATING TO CAPITAL COMPANIES OTHER GROUPINGS OPERATING FOR PROFIT - OBJECT - INTERPRETATION

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 69/335/EEC, ART . 3*(2 )*)

Summary

THE OBJECT OF ARTICLE 3*(2 ) OF DIRECTIVE 69/335 CONCERNING INDIRECT TAXES ON THE RAISING OF CAPITAL IS TO PREVENT THE CHOICE OF A PARTICULAR LEGAL FORM FROM LEADING TO A DIFFERENT FISCAL TREATMENT OF ACTIVITIES WHICH FROM THE ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW ARE EQUIVALENT . THE PROVISION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A GROUPING OF PERSONS WHICH DOES NOT HAVE LEGAL PERSONALITY AND WHOSE MEMBERS PROVIDE CAPITAL FOR A SEPARATE FUND WITH A VIEW TO MAKING PROFITS IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE A CAPITAL COMPANY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT . IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF THE SAME PROVISION, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A GROUPING IS TO BE REGARDED AS A CAPITAL COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHARGING CAPITAL DUTY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - OBLIGATION OF PRODUCERS OF POULTRY OFFAL TO DELIVER IT TO APPROVED RENDERING PLANTS - COMPATIBILITY WITH THE TREATY AND THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - CONDITIONS - PROHIBITION OF EXPORTS OF OFFAL - DISPROPORTIONATE MEASURE

( EEC TREATY, ARTS 30, 34 AND 36; REGULATION NO 827/68 OF THE COUNCIL, ART . 4, AND COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2777/75, ART . 11 )

Summary

IT IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLES 30 AND 34 OF THE TREATY OR THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS NOS 827/68 AND 2777/75 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS IN THE SECTORS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED FOR NATIONAL RULES LAID DOWN IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY HOLDERS OF A LICENCE TO OPERATE A RENDERING PLANT ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES MAY COLLECT AND PROCESS ALL PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN AND THAT PRODUCERS OF POULTRY OFFAL MUST DISPOSE OF IT, AS A WASTE PRODUCT OF ANIMAL ORIGIN, ONLY TO AUTHORIZED LICENCE-HOLDERS, BUT ONLY IN SO FAR AS THOSE RULES DO NOT PLACE IN THE WAY OF IMPORTS FROM AND EXPORTS TO OTHER MEMBER STATES BARRIERS OTHER THAN THOSE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY BY A CONCERN TO SECURE COMPLIANCE, IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, WITH HEALTH PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF PRODUCTS REGARDED AS HARMFUL TO HEALTH . A PROHIBITION OF EXPORTS OF OFFAL DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE PROVIDED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY THOSE PROVISIONS ARE OBSERVED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - ACTS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO SUCH PERSONS - REGULATION ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF PENALTIES FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING FISHING OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL - PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE COMMISSION' S APPROVAL - REGULATION NOT OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO AN ASSOCIATION OF FISHERMEN

( EEC TREATY, ART . 173, SECOND PARAGRAPH; COUNCIL REGULATION NO 3781/85 )

Summary

REGULATION NO 3781/85 LAYING DOWN THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF OPERATORS WHO DO NOT COMPLY WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO FISHING CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF ACCESSION OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL IS NOT OF DIRECT CONCERN TO AN ASSOCIATION OF FISHING-BOAT OWNERS SINCE IF THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES ESTABLISHED BY THAT REGULATION IS APPLIED TO THEM, ITS MEMBERS WILL BE AFFECTED ONLY BY A NATIONAL DECISION, NAMELY REFUSAL TO ENTER THEIR NAMES ON THE LIST OF VESSELS AUTHORISED TO ENGAGE IN PARTICULAR TYPES OF FISHING, WHICH WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IF SEVERAL CONDITIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH, AND PROVIDED THAT THE DECISION IS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . TAX PROVISIONS - HARMONIZATION OF LEGISLATION - TURNOVER TAXES - COMMON SYSTEM OF VALUE-ADDED TAX - VALUE-ADDED TAX LEVIED ON THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES - METHOD OF CALCULATION

( EEC TREATY, ART . 95; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/388 )

2 . TAX PROVISIONS - HARMONIZATION OF LEGISLATION - TURNOVER TAXES - COMMON SYSTEM OF VALUE-ADDED TAX - NATIONAL RULES FOR PENALIZING TAX AVOIDANCE - DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RULES REGARDING IMPORTATION AND THOSE REGARDING DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS - PERMISSIBLE - CONDITION - NO DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE PENALTIES

( EEC TREATY, ART . 95; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 77/388 )

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 95 OF THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IN THE CASE OF THE IMPORTATION FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OF GOODS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED EITHER TAX RELIEF ON EXPORTATION OR TAX EXEMPTION IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE, THE VALUE-ADDED TAX CHARGED ON IMPORTATION MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RESIDUAL AMOUNT OF VALUE-ADDED TAX PAID IN THE MEMBER STATE OF EXPORTATION WHICH IS STILL CONTAINED IN THE VALUE OF THE GOODS AT THE TIME OF IMPORTATION, IN SUCH A WAY THAT THAT RESIDUAL AMOUNT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE AMOUNT AND IS DEDUCTED FROM THE VALUE-ADDED TAX PAYABLE ON IMPORTATION .

2 . ALTHOUGH OFFENCES CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF VALUE-ADDED TAX ON IMPORTATION AND THOSE CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME TAX CHARGED ON DOMESTIC SALES OF GOODS ARE DISTINGUISHED BY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONCERN BOTH THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE AND THE GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT OF THE DIFFICULTY OF DISCOVERING IT AND WHICH MEAN THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM OF RULES FOR THE TWO CATEGORIES OF OFFENCES, A MANIFEST DISPROPORTION IN THE SEVERITY OF THE PENALTIES LAID DOWN FOR THE TWO CATEGORIES OF OFFENCES IS NOT JUSTIFIED . SUCH A DISPROPORTION EXISTS WHERE THE PENALTY PROVIDED FOR IN THE CASE OF IMPORTATION INVOLVES, AS A GENERAL RULE, A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT AND THE CONFISCATION OF THE GOODS PURSUANT TO THE RULES LAID DOWN TO COMBAT SMUGGLING WHEREAS COMPARABLE PENALTIES ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR, OR ARE NOT GENERALLY IMPOSED, IN THE CASE OF OFFENCES CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF VALUE-ADDED TAX ON DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS . A SITUATION OF THAT KIND, WHICH IS CAPABLE OF JEOPARDIZING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 95 OF THE EEC TREATY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL - LIBERALIZATION OF CAPITAL MOVEMENTS - TRANSACTIONS QUALIFYING FOR GENERAL PERMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE OF 11 MAY 1960 - PURCHASES BY RESIDENTS OF DOMESTIC SECURITIES ON A FOREIGN MARKET - EXCLUSION

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE OF 11 MAY 1960, AS AMENDED, ART . 2 ( 1 ), ANNEX I, LIST B )

Summary

ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE FIRST COUNCIL DIRECTIVE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 67 OF THE TREATY, AS AMENDED, MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT ITS SCOPE, AS DELIMITED BY LIST B OF ANNEX I TO THE DIRECTIVE, DOES NOT COVER TRANSACTIONS WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE DIRECTIVE, CONSTITUTE PURCHASES BY RESIDENTS OF DOMESTIC SECURITIES ON A FOREIGN MARKET .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . COMMUNITY LAW - PRINCIPLES - FORCE MAJEURE - CONCEPT

2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - BEEF AND VEAL - PURCHASE OF MEAT FROM INTERVENTION STOCKS FOR EXPORT - TRANSPORT SUBCONTRACTED TO AN INDEPENDENT CARRIER - THEFT OF THE GOODS - EXPORTER' S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATION TO EXPORT - CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE - ABSENCE

( COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1687/76, ART . 11 )

3 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - BEEF AND VEAL - PURCHASE OF MEAT FROM INTERVENTION STOCKS INTENDED FOR EXPORT - SYSTEM OF SECURITIES - FORFEITURE OF SECURITY BY REFERENCE TO THE QUANTITY NOT EXPORTED - PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY - INFRINGEMENT - ABSENCE

( COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1687/76, ART . 13 ( 5 ) )

Summary

1 . WHILST THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, IT NEVERTHELESS REQUIRES THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT IN QUESTION TO BE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERSON CLAIMING FORCE MAJEURE, WHICH ARE ABNORMAL AND UNFORESEEABLE AND OF WHICH THE CONSEQUENCES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF ALL DUE CARE .

2 . THE FAILURE OF A PURCHASER OF BEEF HELD IN INTERVENTION STORAGE AND INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION TO FULFIL HIS OBLIGATIONS TO EXPORT IT, AS A RESULT OF FRAUD OR NEGLIGENCE OR A COMBINATION OF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF AN INDEPENDENT CARRIER TO WHOM THE TRANSPORT OF THE GOODS WAS SUBCONTRACTED, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 11 OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1687/76 LAYING DOWN COMMON DETAILED RULES FOR VERIFYING THE USE AND/OR DESTINATION OF PRODUCTS FROM INTERVENTION .

3 . WHERE THE FULFILMENT OF AN OBLIGATION TO EXPORT A QUANTITY OF BEEF PURCHASED FROM AN INTERVENTION AGENCY IS GUARANTEED BY THE SECURITY REFERRED TO IN REGULATION NO 1687/76, THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IS PROPERLY APPLIED IN THE CASE OF A FAILURE TO OBSERVE THIS PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION IF THE INTERVENTION AGENCY DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY TO BE DECLARED FORFEIT BY REFERENCE TO THE TONNAGE WHICH WAS NOT EXPORTED . EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE, THAT PRINCIPLE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE INTERVENTION AGENCY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THE MORAL BLAME ATTACHING TO THE EXPORTER, THE LOSS SUFFERED BY COMMUNITY FUNDS OR THE PROFIT WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE ON A RESALE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover tax - Common system of value-added tax - Tax on the supply of goods within the territory of a Member State - Application to unlawful traffic in narcotic drugs - Not permissible - Criminal sanctions for offences - Powers of the Member States - Policy of selective prosecution with regard to supplies of hemp-based drugs - Circumstance not justifying the imposition of tax

( Council Directive 77/388, Art . 2 )

Summary

The unlawful supply of narcotic drugs on the domestic market of a Member State, which, like the unlawful importation of such drugs into the Community, can give rise only to penalties under the criminal law, is alien to the provisions of the Sixth Directive on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes . Consequently, Article 2 of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that no liability to turnover tax arises upon the unlawful supply of narcotic drugs effected for consideration within the territory of a Member State in so far as the products in question are not confined within economic channels strictly controlled by the competent authorities for use for medical and scientific purposes .

That finding is without prejudice to the powers of Member States to impose appropriate penalties in respect of contraventions of their drugs laws, with all the attendant consequences, in particular of a pecuniary nature .

The unlawful supply of hemp-based drugs is also not liable to value-added tax even where, pursuant to a selective prosecution policy, the authorities of a Member State do not systematically bring criminal proceedings against small-scale retail dealing in such drugs .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Wine - Quality wines produced in specified regions - Production rules - Wine produced from varieties not belonging to the species Vitis vinifera and undergoing cultivation suitability trials - Classification as quality wine produced in specified regions - Excluded

( Council Regulations Nos 338/79, Arts 4 ( 1 ) and 6 ( 1 ) ( a ) and 347/79, Art . 13 ( 4 ) )

Summary

The derogation from the general provisions concerning the planting and classification of vine varieties provided for in Article 13 ( 4 ) of Regulation No 347/79 is not applicable to the production of quality wines produced in specified regions, since the latter are subject to the precise special conditions laid down in Regulation No 338/79, which deals specifically with such wines . Consequently, the combined provisions of the said Article 13 ( 4 ), and the first subparagraph of Article 6 ( 1 ) ( a ) and the first subparagraph of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation No 338/79 must be interpreted as meaning that wine produced from vine varieties not belonging to the species Vitis vinifera which are undergoing cultivaton suitability trials, scientific research or selection or crossing experiments cannot be described as quality wine produced in a specified region .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Concept - Agreements whose purpose is to put an end to litigation

( EEC Treaty, Art . 85 ( 1 ) )

2.Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Effect on trade between Member States - Reciprocal licensing agreements relating to industrial and commercial property rights protected in several Member States

( EEC Treaty, Art . 85 ( 1 ) )

3.Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Adverse effect on competition - Criteria of assessment - No-challenge clause in patent licensing agreement

( EEC Treaty, Art . 85 ( 1 ) )

Summary

1 . In its prohibition of certain "agreements" between undertakings, Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty makes no distinction between agreements whose purpose is to put an end to litigation and those concluded with other aims in mind .

2 . A reciprocal licensing agreement relating to industrial property rights protected in several Member States of the Community is capable of affecting trade between Member States, even if the parties to the agreement are established in the same Member State .

3 . A no-challenge clause in a patent licensing agreement may, depending on the legal and economic context, restrict competition within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty . Such a clause does not, however, restrict competition when the agreement in which it is contained granted a free licence and the licensee does not, therefore, suffer the competitive disadvantage involved or when the licence was granted subject to payment of royalties but relates to a technically outdated process which the undertaking accepting the no-challenge agreement did not use .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Subject-matter of the dispute - Determined during the pre-litigation procedure - Fixed definitively in the application to the Court - Subsequent enlargement - Inadmissible

( EEC Treaty, Art . 169 )

2 . Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Pre-litigation procedure - Reasoned opinion - Time-limit communicated to the Member State - Undertaking to remedy the failure - Not met within the time-limit - Onus of proof lies on the Commission

( EEC Treaty, Art . 169 )

Summary

1 . The subject-matter of an application under Article 169 of the Treaty is limited to that defined during the pre-litigation procedure provided for by that article . Consequently, the formal notice of complaint and the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission, on the one hand, and the application, on the other, must be based on the same arguments and submissions . In so far as the application concerns complaints not raised during the pre-litigation procedure, it is inadmissible, as is a complaint set before the Court without first having been set out in the application .

2 . Under the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty an application for a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations may only be made to the Court if the Member State concerned has not complied with the reasoned opinion within the period laid down by the Commission . If in its reply the Member State to which the reasoned opinion is addressed has undertaken to remedy the alleged failure, it is for the Commission to show that, despite that undertaking, the failure persisted after the expiry of that period . In the absence of such proof the application is unfounded .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax - Levying of other national taxes which can be characterized as turnover taxes on transactions subject to value-added tax - Not permissible

( Council Directive 77/388, Art . 33 )

2 . Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax - Taxes which can be characterized as turnover taxes - Fixed-rate tax levied on the making available of an article to the public - Criteria for classification

( Council Directive 77/388, Art . 33 )

3 . Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Article 95 of the Treaty - Scope - Taxes on the use of imported products - Inclusion - Conditions

( EEC Treaty, Art . 95 )

4 . Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Graduated system of taxation - Progressive tax on automatic games machines - Whether permissible - Conditions

( EEC Treaty, Art . 95 )

5 . Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Article 30 of the Treaty - Scope - Measures covered by Article 95 - Exclusion

( EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 95 )

Operative part

( 1 ) Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax ( VAT ): uniform basis of assessment - must be interpreted as meaning that as from the introduction of the common system of VAT the Member States are no longer entitled to impose on the supply of goods, the provision of services or imports liable to VAT, taxes, duties or charges which can be characterized as turnover taxes .

( 2 ) A charge which, although providing for different amounts according to the characteristics of the taxed article and possibly its location, is assessed exclusively on the basis of the placing thereof at the disposal of the public, without in fact taking account of the revenue which could be generated thereby, may not be regarded as a charge which can be characterized as a turnover tax .

( 3 ) Article 95 of the EEC Treaty also applies to internal taxation which is imposed on the use of imported products where those products are essentially intended for such use and have been imported solely for that purpose .

( 4 ) A system of taxation graduated according to the various categories of automatic games machines, which is intended to achieve legitimate social objectives and which procures no fiscal advantage for domestic products to the detriment of similar or competing imported products, is not incompatible with Article 95 of the EEC Treaty .

( 5 ) Article 30 of the EEC Treaty does not apply to the taxation of products originating in other Member States the compatibility of which with the Treaty falls under Article 95 thereof .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - LIMITS - IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE QUESTION

( EEC TREATY, ART . 177 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS - FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT - DIRECTIVES 68/363/EEC AND 68/364/EEC - RETAIL TRADE - NOT APPLICABLE OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT

( EEC TREATY, ART . 52; COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 68/363/EEC AND 68/364/EEC )

Summary

1 . ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY TO APPLY A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW TO A PARTICULAR CASE AND THUS TO JUDGE A PROVISION OF NATIONAL LAW BY REFERENCE TO SUCH A RULE IT MAY, IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE JUDICIAL COOPERATION PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ARTICLE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TO IT, PROVIDE A NATIONAL COURT WITH AN INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAY BE USEFUL TO IT IN ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF THAT PROVISION .

WHERE THE QUESTION ASKED MAY BE UNDERSTOOD AS REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW BUT DOES NOT STATE WHICH PROVISION OR PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW ARE IN ISSUE, THE COURT MUST EXTRACT FROM ALL THE FACTORS PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL COURT, AND IN PARTICULAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS CONTAINED IN THE REFERENCE, THE ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY LAW REQUIRING AN INTERPRETATION, HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE .

2 . ARTICLE 52 OF THE EEC TREATY AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVES 68/363/EEC AND 68/364/EEC IMPLEMENTING ARTICLE 52 IN THE FIELD OF ACTIVITIES OF SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS IN RETAIL TRADE DO NOT APPLY TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE PURELY INTERNAL TO A MEMBER STATE, SUCH AS THAT OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE WHO HAS NEVER RESIDED OR WORKED IN ANY OTHER MEMBER STATE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - OILS AND FATS - OLIVE OIL - SALE OF STOCKS HELD BY A NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCY - EXCEEDING OF THE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GOODS AWARDED - ADDITIONAL STORAGE COSTS CHARGED TO THE PURCHASER - FORCE MAJEURE - WHETHER ACCEPTABLE

( COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2960/77, ART . 13 ( 1 ), AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 2041/83, AND ART . 15 )

Summary

ARTICLE 15 OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2960/77 OF 23 DECEMBER 1977 ON DETAILED RULES FOR THE SALE OF OLIVE OIL HELD BY INTERVENTION AGENCIES MUST, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IT CONTAINS AN IMPLIED PENALTY ELEMENT, BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT WHERE THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GOODS AWARDED HAS BEEN EXCEEDED, THE PURCHASER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL STORAGE COSTS IF THE DELAY IS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING FORCE MAJEURE, THAT IS TO SAY, ABNORMAL AND UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE PURCHASER' S CONTROL THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF ALL DUE CARE .

THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASER COMMENCED THE LOADING OF THE GOODS AWARDED ONLY A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 2960/77, AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 2041/83, CANNOT HAVE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE PURCHASER UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THAT REGULATION IF HE COULD REASONABLY HAVE EXPECTED, IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT THAT PERIOD WOULD BE SUFFICIENT; IN THIS REGARD HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF EVENTS WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE FORCE MAJEURE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

AGRICULTURE - COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY - COTTON - AID FOR PRODUCER GROUPS - INVESTMENT AID - INVESTMENTS INCLUDED IN A NATIONAL PROGRAMME APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION - RIGHT TO AID - RECOGNIZED GROUP REFUSED AID ON THE BASIS OF ITS LEGAL FORM - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 40 ( 3 ), SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH; COUNCIL REGULATION NO 389/82, ARTS 2 AND 5 )

Summary

ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 389/82 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT MEMBER STATES ARE OBLIGED TO GRANT AID TO PRODUCER GROUPS RECOGNIZED UNDER ARTICLE 2 IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS INCLUDED IN NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND RATIONALIZATION OF PRODUCTION AND MARKETING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION .

A MEMBER STATE CANNOT, WITHOUT INFRINGING THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARTICLES 2 AND 5 AND THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY, REFUSE TO GRANT SUCH AID TO A RECOGNIZED GROUP ON THE GROUND THAT THE GROUP IS NOT INCORPORATED IN A PARTICULAR LEGAL FORM .