ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Examination of the merits by the Court — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion — (Art. 141 EA)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Maternity leave – Determining the pay received during maternity leave – Criteria – Obligation to include a pay rise awarded between the beginning of the period covered by the reference pay and the end of the maternity leave – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Arts 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Arts 136 EC to 143 EC))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Directive 92/85 – Pay received during maternity leave – Obligation on the Member States to determine how any pay rise is to be included

(Council Directive 92/85)

Summary

1. Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 to 143 EC) must be interpreted as requiring that, in so far as the pay received by the worker during her maternity leave is determined at least in part on the basis of the pay she earned before her maternity leave began, any pay rise awarded between the beginning of the period covered by the reference pay and the end of the maternity leave must be included in the elements of pay taken into account in calculating the amount of such pay. This requirement is not limited to cases where the pay rise is back-dated to the period covered by the reference pay.

(see para. 50, operative part 1)

2. Absent any Community legislation in this sphere, it is for the competent national authorities to determine how, in compliance with all the provisions of Community law, and in particular Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, any pay rise awarded before or during maternity leave must be included in the elements of pay used to calculate the pay due to a worker during maternity leave.

(see para. 56, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Direct effect – National charges incompatible with Community law – Reimbursement – Procedures – Application of national law – Conditions – Observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Limitation period of 90 days – Permissible

Summary

Given the lack of Community rules on the refund of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, second, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

In respect of the principle of effectiveness, it is compatible with Community law to lay down reasonable limitation periods in the interests of legal certainty, which protects both the taxpayer and the administration concerned. In that regard, a time-limit of 90 days for bringing national proceedings, which is reckoned from the end of the period allowed for voluntary payment of the charges, appears reasonable inasmuch as it represents a sufficient length of time to enable the taxpayer to take the decision to bring an action for annulment in full awareness of all the facts and for that purpose to gather all the matters of fact or law required.

Accordingly, with regard to a claim for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community law, the principle of effectiveness of Community law does not militate against the fixing of a limitation period of 90 days reckoned from the end of the period prescribed for voluntary payment of those charges.

(see paras 17-18, 21-22, 26, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Purpose

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of the failure – Burden of proof on the Commission – Presumptions – Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 85/337, Arts 2(1) and 4(2))

Summary

1. In proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned the opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under Community law and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the objections formulated by the Commission.

(see para. 53)

2. In proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations brought under Article 226 EC, it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the allegation that the obligation has not been fulfilled. It is the Commission’s responsibility to provide the Court with all the evidence necessary to enable it to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled and, in so doing, the Commission may not rely on any presumption.

Thus, in the case of an infringement of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Commission cannot rely on the presumption that a project located in a national park is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

(see paras 80, 88)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Disposal of waste oils – Directive 75/439 – Member States obliged to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration – Limits – Technical, economic or organisational constraints – Meaning

(Council Directive 75/439, Art. 3(1))

Summary

It is clear from Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Directive 87/101, that the reference to ‘technical, economic and organisational constraints’ in that article forms part of a provision giving general expression to the obligation imposed on Member States and that the Community legislature did not intend thereby to provide limited exceptions to a rule having general application, but to define the scope and content of a positive obligation to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

It follows that the definition of such constraints cannot be left to the exclusive discretion of the Member States. Apart from being contrary to the principle of the uniform interpretation and application of Community law, interpretation by the Member States alone would make the compatibility of processing by regeneration with technical, economic and organisational constraints a condition the fulfilment of which would depend entirely on a policy assessment on the part of the Member State concerned.

Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439, which relates to the ‘technical, economic and organisational constraints’ must be understood as an expression of the principle of proportionality; accordingly, Member States are under an obligation to take measures appropriate and proportionate to the objective of giving priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration, which is to say that the limit to that positive obligation is the existence of those constraints. If the technical, economic and organisational circumstances obtaining in a Member State were considered automatically to constitute constraints making it impossible to adopt the measures provided for in that provision, it would be deprived of all practical effect, since the obligation imposed on Member States would be limited by maintenance of the status quo, with the result that there would be no genuine obligation to take the measures necessary for the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

(see paras 20-23)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Basis of assessment – Supply of goods and services – Subsidies directly linked to the price – Meaning – Aid granted in the dried fodder sector – Exclusion – National scheme failing to levy value added tax on that aid – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 11(A)(1)(a))

Summary

Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, is intended to subject the full value of goods or services to VAT by providing that the basis of assessment comprises subsidies directly linked to the price of the transaction in question, paid to taxable persons. A Member State which does not levy the tax on aid paid under Regulation No 603/95 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder does not fail to fulfil its obligations under that provision.

‘Subsidies linked directly to the price’ include only subsidies which constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.

The conditions for the aid at issue to be subject to VAT are not met in respect of the sale by a processing undertaking, after drying, of fodder purchased from producers of green fodder, since, in such a case, the aid is not paid specifically to a processing undertaking to enable it to supply dried fodder to a purchaser at a price which is lower than on the world market. Nor are those conditions met as regards the special-order contracts concluded by such an undertaking with a producer of green fodder, as the aid which the processing undertaking receives is not paid for its benefit in such a case and that undertaking merely functions as an intermediary between the body which distributes the aid and the fodder producer.

(see paras 26-27, 31-32, 36, 38, 42, 45)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Refusal to register or nullity – Lack of distinctive character – Assessment of the distinctive character of a trade mark constituted by a common surname – Assessment according to the same criteria as those applicable to other categories of trade marks – Effects limited to such a trade mark – No impact

(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 3(1)(b), and (6)(1)(a))

Summary

In the context of Article 3(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, the assessment of the existence or otherwise of the distinctive character of a trade mark constituted by a surname, even a common one, must be carried out specifically, in accordance with the criteria applicable to any sign covered by Article 2 of that directive, in relation, first, to the products or services in respect of which registration is applied for and, second, to the perception of the relevant consumers. The fact that the effects of registration of the trade mark are limited by virtue of Article 6(1)(a) of that directive has no impact on that assessment.

(see para. 34, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment – Waste disposal – Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 – First subparagraph of Article 4 – Obligation on Member States to ensure disposal of waste – Scope – Need for the measures to be adopted – Discretion – Limits

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 4, first subpara.)

Summary

Whilst the first subparagraph of Article 4 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, does not specify the actual content of the measures which must be taken in order to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, it is none the less true that it is binding on the Member States as to the objective to be achieved, whilst leaving to them a margin of discretion in assessing the need for such measures.

From the fact that a situation is not in conformity with the objectives laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4 of Directive 74/442, as amended, then, the direct inference may not in principle be drawn that the Member State concerned has necessarily failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision. However, if that situation persists and leads in particular to a significant deterioration in the environment over a protracted period without any action being taken by the competent authorities, it may be an indication that the Member States have exceeded the discretion conferred on them by that provision.

(see paras 21-22)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision contained in a letter from the Director-General for Agriculture of the Commission informing a Member State of a reduction in the financial advances extended under the EAGGF – Included

(Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 750/1999, Art. 39(3))

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAGGF – Flat-rate reduction to financial advances extended – Decision contained in a letter from the Director-General for Agriculture of the Commission – No delegation by the Commission – Decision vitiated by lack of powers

(Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Arts 13 and 14; Commission Regulation No 1750/1999, Art. 39(3))

Summary

1. In order to ascertain whether measures are acts within the meaning of Article 230 EC, it is necessary to look to their substance, as the form in which they are cast is, in principle, immaterial in this respect. Only a measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and are capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under that article.

That applies to the decision contained in the letter of the Director-General for Agriculture of the Commission informing a Member State of a reduction in advances extended, in accordance with Article 39(3) of Regulation No 1750/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), as most recently amended by Regulation No 1763/2001, since that decision constitutes the only measure which clearly determines the content and scope of the disputed financial correction, while the decisions regarding the advances to be paid to the Member States refer only to the overall amount of monthly advances to be paid to them and do not contain any reference to the amount of the financial corrections to be made with respect to the parties to whom they are addressed.

(see paras 35, 41-42)

2. The decision contained in the letter of the Director-General for Agriculture of the Commission informing a Member State of a reduction in advances extended, in accordance with Article 39(3) of Regulation No 1750/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), as most recently amended by Regulation No 1763/2001, is vitiated by a lack of powers, since its signatory did not himself have the power to adopt that decision and the Commission did not invoke any act of delegation or sub-delegation taken on the basis of Article 13 or Article 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure which might have applied to that Director.

(see paras 44, 47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Determination of validity – Not possible to rely on WTO agreements to challenge the legality of a Community measure – Exceptions – Community measure intended to ensure their implementation or referring to them expressly and specifically – Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Community obligations – Right to rely on the WTO agreements – None

(Art. 234 EC)

Summary

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.

By undertaking after the adoption of the decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to comply with the rules of that organisation and, in particular, with Articles I(1) and XIII of GATT 1994, the Community did not intend to assume a particular obligation in the context of the WTO, capable of justifying an exception to the impossibility of relying on WTO rules before the Community Courts and enabling the latter to exercise judicial review of the relevant Community provisions in the light of those rules.

First, even where there is a decision of the DSB holding that the measures adopted by a member are incompatible with the WTO rules, the WTO dispute settlement system nevertheless accords considerable importance to negotiation between the parties. In those circumstances, to require courts to refrain from applying rules of domestic law which are inconsistent with the WTO agreements would have the consequence of depriving the legislative or executive organs of the contracting parties of the possibility afforded in particular by Article 22 of the Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes of reaching a negotiated settlement, even on a temporary basis.

Secondly, to accept that the Community Courts have the direct responsibility for ensuring that Community law complies with the WTO rules would deprive the Community’s legislative or executive bodies of the discretion which the equivalent bodies of the Community’s commercial partners enjoy.

Therefore, an economic operator cannot plead before a court of a Member State that Community legislation is incompatible with certain WTO rules, even if the DSB has stated that that legislation is incompatible with those rules.

(see paras 39-42, 48, 53-54, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Taxes partly earmarked for financing an aid measure – Included – Condition – Binding hypothecation between the tax and the aid

(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Art. 93 (now Art. 88 EC))

Summary

Taxes do not fall within the scope of the Treaty provisions on State aid unless they constitute the means of financing an aid measure and are thus an integral part of that measure.

For a tax, or part of a tax, to be regarded as forming an integral part of an aid measure, it must be hypothecated to the aid measure under the relevant national rules. In the event of such hypothecation, the revenue from the tax has a direct impact on the intensity of the aid and, consequently, also on the assessment of whether the aid is compatible with the common market.

(see paras 14-15)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Treaty provisions — Scope — Legislation relating to the conditions in which an activity is carried on — Included

(Art. 39 EC)

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Restrictions — Employees resident in the national territory and employed in another Member State — Prohibition on using a vehicle made available by the employer and registered in the Member State in which that employer is established — Not permitted — Authorisation to use such a vehicle subject to the condition that the employment is the principal employment of the employee and to payment of a tax — Not permitted

(Art. 39 EC)

Summary

1. Legislation which relates to the conditions in which an economic activity is pursued may constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers.

Provisions which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement constitute an obstacle to that freedom, even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned, in so far as they affect access of workers to the labour market. The manner in which an activity is pursued is liable also to affect access to that activity.

(see paras 35-37)

2. A Member State

– which does not allow employees resident in its territory and employed in another Member State in work which is not their principal employment to use for business or private purposes a company vehicle registered in that other Member State where their employer’s undertaking is established, and

– which allows employees resident in its territory and employed in another Member State to use for business purposes or business and private purposes a company vehicle registered in that other Member State in which their employer has its registered office or principal establishment, the vehicle neither being intended to be essentially used on the national territory on a permanent basis nor being actually so used, only on condition that the employment with that employer is their main employment and that a tax is paid for that purpose,

fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC.

(see para. 85, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State monopolies of a commercial character –– Article 31 EC –– Purpose –– Obligation to arrange sales monopolies so as to exclude any discrimination against medicinal preparations from other Member States

(Art. 31 EC)

2. State monopolies of a commercial character –– Article 31 EC –– National monopoly on the retail sale of medicinal preparations –– Monopoly characterised by criteria and methods for selecting products which fail to guarantee the exclusion of any discrimination –– Not permissible –– Justification pursuant to Article 86(2) EC –– None

(Arts 31 EC and 86(2) EC)

Summary

1. Although Article 31(1) EC does not require total abolition of State monopolies of a commercial character, it requires them to be adjusted in such a way as to ensure that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States. Thus, that provision precludes sales monopolies arranged in such a way as to put at a disadvantage, in law or in fact, trade in goods from other Member States as compared with trade in domestic goods. In particular, a State sales monopoly must be arranged in such a way as to exclude any discrimination against goods from other Member States regarding its system of selection, the organisation of its retail sales network and its marketing and advertising measures.

(see paras 34, 36, 39-41)

2. Article 31(1) EC must be interpreted as precluding a retail sales monopoly of medicinal preparations arranged in such a way that it makes no provision for a purchasing plan or for a system of ‘calls for tenders’ within the framework of which producers whose products are not selected would be entitled to be apprised of the reasons for the selection decision and to contest such decisions before an independent supervisory authority. Such a monopoly is not arranged in such a way as to exclude any discrimination but is liable to place trade in medicinal preparations from other Member States at a disadvantage as compared with trade in national medicinal preparations.

Such a sales system could not be justifiable under Article 86(2) EC. While that provision may be relied upon to justify the grant by a Member State, to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, of exclusive rights which are contrary to Article 31(1) EC, to the extent to which performance of the particular tasks assigned to it can be achieved only through the grant of such rights and provided that the development of trade is not affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community, it cannot however justify a sales monopoly in the absence of a selection system that excludes any discrimination against medicinal preparations from other Member States.

(see paras 42-45, 47-49, operative part)