ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff ° Tariff headings ° Test for diagnostic determination of the cholesterol level of blood plasma which includes as its essential characteristic a card consisting of reagent-impregnated paper covered with permeable material and glued to a plastic backing ° Classification under subheading 4823 9090 of the combined nomenclature

Summary

The combined nomenclature in force in 1991 under Regulation No 2472/90 must be interpreted as meaning that a product for determining the cholesterol level of blood plasma put up in a set for retail sale comes within Chapter 48 concerning paper, paperboard and other analogous products, where the essential characteristic of the product is a test card consisting of reagent-impregnated paper glued to a plastic backing and of permeable material superimposed on the glued paper, and where only the reagent-impregnated paper is capable of detecting the cholesterol level of blood deposited on the test card. Since, owing to its dimensions and in view of Note 7 to Chapter 48, the product set cannot be classified under heading No 4811, and there being no other appropriate subheading, it falls under residual subheading No 4823 9090.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Export refunds ° Conditions for grant ° Differential refunds ° Proof by the exporter that the goods have been put into free circulation in the non-member country of destination ° Non-differential refunds ° Possibility for the Member States to require the same proof ° Condition ° Finding or suspicion of abuse

(Council Regulation No 876/68, Art. 6; Commission Regulation No 1041/67, Art. 4(1))

2. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Export refunds ° Fraudulent reimportation of the product into the Community ° Loss of right to refunds ° No force majeure ° Exporter who did not take part in the fraud and who acted in good faith ° No effect

(Council Regulation No 876/68, Art. 6; Commission Regulation No 1041/67, Art. 4(1))

Summary

1. Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1041/67 on detailed rules for the application of export refunds on products subject to a single price system and Article 6 of Regulation No 876/68 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on milk and milk products and criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds must be interpreted as meaning that payment of a differential refund is in principle conditional on proof that the product has been released into free circulation in the non-member country of destination and that, before granting a non-differentiated refund, Member States may also require such proof, in addition to proof that the product has left the territory of the Community, if there is suspicion or proof that abuses have been committed.

2. In view of the objective nature of the obligation to release goods qualifying for an export refund into free circulation in a non-member country, set out in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1041/67 and Article 6 of Regulation 876/68, only a case of force majeure could enable the exporter to retain his right to a refund if the product is fraudulently reimported into the Community.

Even if fraudulent reimportation into the Community may be a circumstance beyond the control of the exporter, it none the less represents an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be regarded as being unforeseeable in the contractual relations entered into on the occasion of an export qualifying for a refund; the conditions for there to be a case of force majeure, as construed in the sphere of the agricultural regulations, are therefore not met.

The exporter' s good faith and the fact that he did not take part in the fraud cannot be taken into account either because the exporter can ensure, by contractual measures, that purchasers do not fraudulently divert the goods from their destination. It is for the exporter to take the appropriate precautions either by including the requisite clauses in the contract in question or by effecting specific insurance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Measures having equivalent effect ° Prohibition ° Scope

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

2. Approximation of laws ° Crystal glass ° Directive 69/493 ° Obligation to use, for products falling within certain lower categories, their description only in the language of the country in which the goods are finally marketed ° Requirement within the limits of the discretion of the Community legislature and compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30; Council Directive 69/493, Annex I, column (c))

Summary

1. The prohibition of quantitative restrictions and of all measures having equivalent effect applies not only to national measures but also to measures adopted by the Community institutions.

2. By requiring, in the explanatory note in column (c) of Annex I to Directive 69/493 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass, for products in categories 3 and 4 (crystallin and crystal glass), that only the descriptions in the language or languages of the country in which the goods are marketed are to be used the Council has not exceeded the limits of its discretion in the framework of its powers of harmonization.

While such a requirement constitutes a barrier to intra-Community trade in so far as products coming from other Member States have to be given different labelling causing additional packaging costs, it is justified by considerations relating to consumer protection since, for the two categories of glass in question, which are lower categories than full lead crystal and lead crystal, the difference in the quality of the glass used is not easily discernible to the average consumer and it is therefore necessary for him to be given the clearest information possible as to what he is buying so that he does not confuse a product in categories 3 and 4 with a product in the higher categories and consequently that he does not pay too much. That requirement cannot be regarded as disproportionate to the goal pursued in so far as it does not appear that adequate protection for the consumer could have been achieved by different, less constrictive measures.

Moreover, in view of the justification for it, compliance with the linguistic requirement in question must necessarily be assessed with regard to the final consumer, irrespective of the place where the goods are first marketed; consequently the words "country in which the goods are marketed" refers to the Member State in which the goods are finally marketed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments ° Interpretation by the Court ° Interpretation sought in regard to legal proceedings to be determined by the application of national legislation merely modelled on the Convention and not requiring the national court to apply the interpretation given by the Court ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Convention of 27 September 1968; Protocol of 3 June 1971)

Summary

The function of the Court, as envisaged by the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is that of a court whose judgments are binding on the national court. That function would be altered if the replies given by the Court to the courts of the Contracting States were permitted to be purely advisory and without binding effect.

However, that would be the case if the Court were to declare that it had jurisdiction to provide interpretation of the Convention requested of it by a national court before which proceedings are pending and to which not the Convention but national legislation is applicable, where that legislation takes the Convention as a model, by reproducing certain of its provisions but without incorporating them as such into the domestic legal order, and expressly providing for the possibility of adopting modifications in order to produce divergence in relation to Convention provisions as interpreted by the Courts, and where that legislation merely requires national courts in applying the Convention provisions to have regard to the Court' s interpretation of the corresponding provisions of the Convention without giving binding effect to that interpretation.

For that reason the Court does not have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a question arising in such a context.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Wine ° Description and presentation of wines ° "Qualitaetsweine mit Praedikat" (quality wines bearing quality indications) ° Repetition on the label of the terms "Kabinett", "Spaetlese" or "Auslese" as parts of a brand name ° Whether permissible ° "Qualitaetsweine b.A." (German quality wines produced in specified regions) ° Repetition on the label of the term "Weissherbst" as part of a brand name ° Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 2392/89, Art. 40; Commission Regulation No 3201/90, Art. 3(2), 3(3)(a), first subpara. and 3(3), second subpara.)

Summary

Article 3(2) of Regulation No 3201/90 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 2392/89 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts must be interpreted as not precluding the labelling of "Qualitaetsweine mit Praedikat" (quality wines bearing quality indications) from repeating the terms "Kabinett", "Spaetlese" or "Auslese" ° in addition to their prescribed use (in lettering of the same type and height as the name of the specified region or of a geographical unit smaller than the specified region) ° in different lettering with higher letters, particularly in a conspicuous manner as part of a brand name.

Similarly, Article 3(3)(a), first indent, in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that regulation must be interpreted as not precluding the repetition on the label, in the case of "Qualitaetsweine b.A." (German quality wines produced in specified regions), of the term "Weissherbst" ° in addition to its use in the same lettering as that used for indicating the specified region ° in larger letters, particularly in a conspicuous manner as part of a brand name.

In its specific provisions concerning the use of brand names on labelling, particularly in Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 cited above, Community legislation does not impose any restriction concerning the lettering of the characters and the size of a brand name in relation to the indication on the label of the name of the specified region or of a geographical unit smaller than the specified region. Accordingly, a brand name which, moreover, is not as such capable of misleading consumers in any way is not to be regarded as likely to confuse or mislead those to whom it is addressed on the ground that it is presented in a conspicuous manner, even if it contains a word that has been designated by the rules in question as information which may be used in the appellation of a quality wine produced in a specified region.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Acts of the institutions ° Procedure for drawing up ° Due consultation of the Parliament ° Essential formal requirement ° Scope

2. Acts of the institutions ° Procedure for drawing up ° Due consultation of the Parliament ° Requirement of reconsultation in the event of substantial amendment to the initial proposal

3. Acts of the institutions ° Regulations ° Procedure for drawing up ° Due consultation of the Parliament ° Consultation necessary for the basic rules but not for the implementing provisions ° Amendment of implementing provisions without consulting the Parliament ° Lawfulness

Summary

1. Due consultation of the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty constitutes an essential formal requirement disregard of which means that the measure concerned is void. In the context of the consultation procedure, however, nothing in Community law requires the Council to abstain from any consideration of a Commission proposal or from any search for a general approach or even for a common position within the Council before the Parliament' s opinion is delivered provided that it does not adopt its final position before being apprised of the opinion. Furthermore, such a prohibition is not called for by any institutional or procedural objective. On the contrary, for the Council to discuss the Commission' s proposal before the Parliament has delivered its opinion, and even before the proposal has been officially referred to the Parliament, reflects the legitimate concern to make good use of the period during which it is awaiting the Parliament' s opinion in order to prepare its own position and thus to avoid unnecessary delay. It is only if the Council definitively adopts its position before receiving the Parliament' s opinion that there is a failure to comply with the obligation to consult.

2. The duty to consult the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty includes a requirement that the Parliament be reconsulted on each occasion on which the text finally adopted, viewed as a whole, departs substantially from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted.

3. Where the Council adopts regulations, for example in relation to the common agricultural policy or on the basis of Article 235 of the EEC Treaty or Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Parliament, that procedure applies only to the adoption of the essential elements of the matter to be dealt with and the provisions implementing those regulations may be adopted by the Council according to a different procedure. For that reason a regulation adopted after consulting the Parliament may stipulate that certain of its provisions, in so far as they are implementing provisions, may be amended without such consultation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments ° Enforcement ° Appeals ° Appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal on a point of law ° Decisions against which appeals can be brought ° Decision on a stay of proceedings by a court seised of an appeal against authorization of enforcement ° Excluded ° Jurisdiction of the court seised of an appeal on a point of law to decide on such a stay of proceedings ° None

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Arts 37(2) and 38, first para.)

Summary

Article 37(2) and the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, are to be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a court of a Contracting State, seised of an appeal against authorization to enforce an enforceable judgment of a court in another Contracting State, refuses a stay or lifts a stay previously ordered does not constitute a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the said Article 37(2) and therefore cannot be contested by an appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal limited to the examination of points of law only. Moreover, the court seised of such an appeal on a point of law under Article 37(2) of the Convention does not have jurisdiction to impose or reimpose such a stay.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations ° Scope of proceedings ° Determined in the course of the pre-litigation procedure ° Amendment after the action was brought ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

The scope of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty is delimited by the pre-litigation procedure provided for by that article. The possibility for the State concerned to be able to submit its observations constitutes a fundamental guarantee under the Treaty and an essential requirement for the proper conduct of the procedure for establishing a Member State' s breach of obligations. Consequently, an Article 169 action may not be founded on grounds other than those set out in the reasoned opinion.

Accordingly, where the Commission has alleged, in the pre-litigation procedure and in its application, that a Member State has failed to implement a directive and the national legislation in force in the field covered by the directive is then communicated to it, it cannot claim, in the proceedings before the Court, that the transposition of the directive by that State was incomplete and therefore defective. Assessing the merits of that claim would require a detailed examination of the national legislation, which the Court cannot carry out since the relevant Member State was not given the opportunity in the pre-litigation procedure to address the issue of inadequate legislation to which no reference was made.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social policy ° Men and women ° Equal pay ° Pay ° Definition ° Benefit paid during maternity leave ° Included

(EEC Treaty, Art. 119; Council Directive 75/117)

2. Social policy ° Men and women ° Equal pay ° Maternity leave ° Requirement to maintain full pay ° None ° Criteria for determining the level of benefit paid ° None, subject to observance of the purpose of maternity leave ° Requirement, when correlating previous salary and benefit, to take account of backdated pay rises

(EEC Treaty, Art. 119; Council Directive 75/117)

Summary

1. The definition of "pay" for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117 relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women includes all consideration which workers receive directly or indirectly from their employers in respect of their employment. Consideration classed as pay includes inter alia consideration paid by the employer by virtue of legislative provisions and under a contract of employment whose purpose is to ensure that workers receive income even where, in certain cases specified by the legislature, they are not performing any work provided for in their contracts of employment.

It follows that the benefit paid by an employer under legislation or collective agreements to a woman on maternity leave falls within the definition of "pay".

2. The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty and set out in detail in Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women neither requires that women should continue to receive full pay during maternity leave, nor lays down specific criteria for determining the amount of benefit payable to them during that period, provided that the amount is not set so low as to jeopardize the purpose of maternity leave, which is the protection of women before and after giving birth. In order to assess the adequacy of that amount, the national court must take account, not only of the length of maternity leave, but also of the other forms of social protection afforded by national law in the case of justified absence from work.

However, to the extent that they are calculated on the basis of pay received by a woman before the commencement of maternity leave, the amount of those benefits must include pay rises awarded between the beginning of the period covered by reference pay and the end of maternity leave, as from the date on which they take effect. To deny such an increase to a woman on maternity leave would discriminate against her purely in her capacity as a worker since, had she not been pregnant, she would have received the pay rise.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

12 March 1996

((Company law – Directive 77/91/EEC – Alteration of capital of a bank constituted in the form of a public limited liability company – Direct effect of Articles 25(1) and 29(3) of the directive – Abuse of rights))

In Case C-441/93,

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 Panagis Pafitis and Others, represented by Sofia Koukouli-Spiliotopoulou, Ioannis Stamoulis and Feidias Doukaris, Investment and Shipping Enterprises Est and Others, represented by Feidias Doukaris, Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados AE and Others, represented by Marios Bachas, Konstantinos Mavrias and Krateros Ioannou, of the Athens Bar, Trapeza tis Ellados AE and Others, represented by Ilias Soufleros and Vasileios Kontolaimos, the Greek Government, represented by Panagiotis Mylonopoulos, Special Legal Assistant in the Department for Community Matters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Dimitrios Leontokianakos, Legal Assistant in the Independent Office for European Community Affairs of the Ministry of the National Economy, acting as Agents, and the Commission, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, at the hearing on 6 June 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 9 November 1995,
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Member States ° Obligations ° Implementation of directives ° Failure to fulfil obligations not denied

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social policy ° Approximation of laws ° Transfers of undertakings ° Safeguarding of workers' rights ° Directive 77/187 ° Scope ° Taking over, with a view to completing, with the consent of the awarder of the main building contract, building works started by another undertaking, of personnel and materials assigned to those works ° Excluded

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 1(1))

Summary

Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, must be interpreted as not covering the transfer by an undertaking to another undertaking of one of its building works with the view to its completion, by merely making available to the new contractor certain workers and materials for completing the work in question.

The term "transfers of undertakings" as used in that article assumes that what is transferred is a stable economic entity whose activity is not limited to performing one specific works contract. That is not the case where an undertaking transfers to another undertaking one of its building works with a view to its completion. Such a transfer could come within the terms of the directive only if it included the transfer of a body of assets enabling the activities, or certain activities, of the transferor undertaking to be carried on in a stable way.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Freedom of establishment ° Fiscal legislation ° Right to deduct from taxable income profits allocated to form a pension reserve ° Right refused, by reason of residence abroad, to a national of another Member State who has made use of the freedom of establishment ° Justification ° Taxation of the future old-age annuity in another Member State pursuant to a bilateral tax convention ° Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 52)

Summary

A rule laid down by a Member State which allows its residents to deduct from their taxable income business profits which they allocate to form a pension reserve but denies that benefit to Community nationals liable to pay tax who, although resident in another Member State, receive all or almost all of their income in the first State, cannot be justified by the fact that the periodic pension payments subsequently drawn out of the pension reserve by the non-resident taxpayer are not taxed in the first State but in the State of residence ° with which the first State has concluded a double-taxation convention ° even if, under the tax system in force in the first State, a strict correspondence between the deductibility of the amounts added to the pension reserve and the liability to tax of the amounts drawn out of it cannot be achieved by generalizing the benefit. Such discrimination is therefore contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty.