ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-126/01





Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

v

GEMO SA





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Lyon (France))

«(State aid – System of financing a public carcass disposal service by a meat purchase tax – Interpretation of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 30 April 2002

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

Summary of the Judgment

1.. State aid – Definition – Payment of costs of disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste inherent in the economic activities of farmers and slaughterhouses – Included

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

2.. State aid – Definition – Selective nature of the measure

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

3.. State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Assessment criteria

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

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

6 November 2003

((Right of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Collection of bets on sporting events in one Member State and transmission by internet to another Member State – Prohibition enforced by criminal penalties – Legislation in a Member State which reserves the right to collect bets to certain bodies))

In Case C-243/01,

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 Mr Gambelli and others, represented by D. Agnello; of Mr Garrisi, represented by R.A. Jacchia and A. Terranova; of the Italian Government, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato; of the Belgian Government, represented by P. Vlaemminck; of the Greek Government, represented by M. Apessos; of the Spanish Government, represented by L. Fraguas Gadea; of the French Government, represented by P. Boussaroque, acting as Agent; of the Portuguese Government, represented by A. Barros; of the Finnish Government, represented by E. Bygglin; and of the Commission, represented by A. Aresu and M. Patakia, at the hearing on 22 October 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 March 2003,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

15 January 2004

((Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 – Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector – Deliveries by a producer to a purchaser – Payment of levy – Recovery from the producer))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and the United Kingdom Government, represented by R. Thompson, of Penycoed Farming Partnership, represented by P. Stanley, Barrister, of the Greek Government, represented by I. Chalkias, and of the Commission, represented by M. Niejahr and K. Fitch, at the hearing on 28 November 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 February 2003,
Case C-63/01





Samuel Sidney Evans

v

Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

and

Motors Insurers' Bureau







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

«(Approximation of laws – Directive 84/5/EEC – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Damage or injury caused by unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicles – Protection of victims – Defective transposition of the directive – Liability of the Member State concerned)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 24 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 4 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Compensation for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle – Obligation to pay compensation attaching to a body under an agreement concluded with a public authority of the Member State – Conditions

(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4))

2.. Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Protection of victims – Adequacy of procedural arrangements under national law – Conditions

(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4))

3.. Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Compensation for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle – Compensation taking account of the effluxion of time until actual payment of the sums awarded – Determination of arrangements the responsibility of the Member States

(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4))

4.. Approximation of laws – Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles – Directive 84/5 – Compensation for damage or injury caused by an unidentified or insufficiently insured vehicle – Reimbursement of costs incurred by the victim – Conditions – Assessment by the national court

(Council Directive 84/5, Art. 1(4))

5.. Community law – Rights conferred on individuals – Breach by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach – To be determined by the national court

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Joined Cases C-19/01, C-50/01 and C-84/01

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

v

Alberto Barsotti and Others,

Milena Castellani

v

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

and

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

v

Anna Maria Venturi

(References for preliminary rulings from, respectively, the Tribunale di Pisa, the Tribunale di Siena and the Corte suprema di cassazione)

(Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions – Ceiling to the liability – Part payments by the employer – Social objective of the directive)

Summary of the Judgment

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987 – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions to a sum which covers the employees’ basic needs – Deduction of payments made by the employer during the period covered by the guarantee – Not permissible

(Council Directive 80/987, Arts 3(1), 4(3), first subpara, and 10)

Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not allow a Member State to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions to a sum which covers the basic needs of the employees concerned and from which are to be deducted payments made by the employer during the period covered by the guarantee.

While the Member States are entitled to set a ceiling to the liability for outstanding claims, they are bound to ensure, within the limit of that ceiling, the payment of all the outstanding claims in question. Any part payments received on account by the employees concerned on their claims in respect of the guarantee period must be deducted therefrom in order to determine the extent to which they are outstanding. On the other hand, a rule against aggregation according to which remuneration paid to the said employees during the period covered by the guarantee must be deducted from the ceiling set by the Member State to the liability for outstanding claims directly undermines the minimum protection guaranteed by the directive.

(see paras 36-38, 40, operative part)
Case C-463/01

Commission of the European Communities

v

Federal Republic of Germany

(Environment – Free movement of goods – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62/EC – Exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters – Directive 80/777/EEC – Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Environment – Waste – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 – Power granted to the Member States to encourage systems for the reuse of packaging –Directive not containing specific criteria concerning the organisation of those systems – Assessment of the systems in light of the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of goods

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 5)

2. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – National rules replacing a global packaging-waste collection system with a deposit and return system – Not permissible ­– Justification – Protection of the environment – Condition – Observance of the principle of proportionality

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

1. Article 5 of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste, which grants the Member States the power to encourage, in conformity with the Treaty, systems for the reuse of packaging that can be reused in an environmentally sound manner, formulates that power in general terms and does not specify the criteria to be taken into account by the Member States which exercise it. Accordingly, given that the directive does not regulate, as regards Member States disposed to exercise that power, the organisation of systems encouraging reusable packaging, such systems can be assessed on the basis of the Treaty provisions relating to the free movement of goods.

(see paras 41, 43, 45, 50)

2. A Member State which, as regards non-reusable packaging, replaces a global packaging-collection system with a deposit and return system, obliging producers to alter certain information on their packaging and causing additional costs for every producer and distributor, without affording them a transitional period sufficient to enable them to adapt to the requirements of the new system, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste in conjunction with Article 28 EC.

Such national rules capable of hindering intra-Community trade may be justified by overriding requirements relating to protection of the environment only if the means which they employ are suitable for the purpose of attaining the desired objectives and do not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.

(see paras 59, 62, 68, 75, 78-79, operative part)
Case C-465/01

Commission of the European Communities

v

Republic of Austria

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of movement of workers – Nationals of the Union or the EEA – Nationals of a non-member State associated with the Community by way of an agreement – Eligibility for election to workers’ chambers and works councils – Principle of non-discrimination as regards conditions of work)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Exercise of trade union rights – National law excluding workers who are nationals of another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area from eligibility for election to workers’ chambers – Not permissible – Justification based on possibility of participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law – None

(Art. 39 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 28; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 8)

2. International agreements – Association or cooperation agreements with the Community – Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Exercise of trade union rights – National law excluding workers who are nationals of a non-Member State which has concluded an agreement with the Community from eligibility for election to workers’ chambers and works councils – Not permissible

1. A Member State, which denies the right to stand for election to bodies responsible for the representation and defence of workers’ interests, such as workers’ chambers, to workers who are nationals of other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area, fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Regulation No 2434/92, and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Such legislation is contrary to the general prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality underlying those provisions.

Neither the legal nature of those bodies, as defined under national law, nor the fact that certain of their functions could involve participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law, can justify that legislation.

(see paras 30, 33, 40, 56, operative part)

2. A Member State which denies the right to stand for election to bodies representing and defending the interests of workers, such as workers’ chambers and works councils, to workers who are legally employed in a Member State, fails to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of agreements concluded between the Community and non-Member States which prohibit discrimination, as regards conditions of work, against any such workers.

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality set out in the agreements in question requires that all workers, be they domestic nationals or nationals of one of the non-Member States concerned, enjoy identical conditions of work and employment and, in particular, be allowed to participate, in the same way, in elections organised by those bodies. A difference in treatment according to nationality is contrary to that general principle.

(see paras 48-49, 56, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers — Old-age pension and life assurance — Benefits — Extinction of the right to a pension supplement granted under national legislation as a result of the person concerned receiving a pension awarded by the competent institution of another Member State — Recovery of the sums paid though not due — Application of national law — Limits — Observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — (Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 94, 95, 95a and 95b)

Summary

Since Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, does no more than ensure coordination of provisions of national legislation in the field of social security, it is national law which is applicable to a situation arising out of the payment of sums not due, made to a person in receipt of more than one pension by virtue of his belonging to social security schemes in various Member States, in the form of a pension supplement where the maximum authorised income is exceeded. The two-year time-limit, which is allowed by Articles 94, 95, 95a and 95b of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, to the persons concerned to request that the more favourable provisions introduced into the Community legislation be applied to them, cannot be applied by analogy to such a situation.

National law must, however, observe the Community principle of equivalence, in accordance with which the detailed procedural rules governing the treatment of situations arising out of the exercise of a Community freedom must be no less favourable than those governing purely internal situations, and the Community principle of effectiveness, in accordance with which those procedural rules must not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights arising out of the situation of Community origin.

Those principles apply to all the procedural rules governing the treatment of situations arising out of the exercise of a Community freedom, whether those rules are administrative or judicial, such as the provisions of national law relating to the limitation of actions and the recovery of sums paid though not due or those requiring the competent institutions to take account of the good faith of the persons concerned or to carry out proper checks of their situation with regard to pensions.

see paras 52-54, 56-58, 62-63, 73, operative part
Keywords



Keywords

1. 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. 226 EC)

2. Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failure to fulfil obligations — Justification based on internal legal order — Not permissible — (Art. 226 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Protection of plant health — Directive 77/93 — Import into the Community of plants originating in non-member countries and subject to special requirements — Special requirements which cannot be fulfilled at places other than that of origin — Affixing of an appropriate origin mark to plant packaging — Authorities empowered to issue phytosanitary certificates — Authorities of the country of origin — (Council Directive 77/93 (as amended by Directives 91/683, 92/103 and 98/2), Annex IV, Part A, Section 1, items 16.2 to 16.4)

Summary

On a proper interpretation of Directive 77/93 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, as amended, inter alia, by Directives 91/683, 92/103 and 98/2, the special requirement that an appropriate origin mark be affixed to the plants ' packaging, laid down in item 16.1 of Annex IV, Part A, Section I, to that directive, can be fulfilled only in the country of origin of the plants concerned.

In so far as the affixing of an appropriate origin mark enables exporters to be exempted from the requirements for an official statement in the country of origin, laid down in items 16.2 to 16.4, it would be paradoxical if such a mark, which is intended to certify the origin of products, could be issued outside the country of origin, after the plants have been exported. The simple fact that item 16.1 requires the mark to be affixed to the packaging confirms that that requirement must be fulfilled at the time of the initial packaging of the products with a view to their dispatch, necessarily before they are transported to a non-member country other than the country of origin.

Furthermore, the fact that the affixing of the mark exempts exporters from the requirements for an official statement laid down in items 16.2 to 16.4 precludes the mark from being affixed by the producer of the plants alone, without any possible involvement of the authorities empowered to make those official statements.

This interpretation of item 16.1 is not called into question by the amendments which Directive 98/2 made to items 16.2 and 16.3 and which were designed to render the requirements for an official statement mandatory in every case, including where the non-member country of origin is recognised as free from the harmful organisms in question.

The phytosanitary certificate required in order to bring those plants into the Community must, therefore, be issued in their country of origin by, or under the supervision of, the competent authorities of that country.

see paras 60-61, 66-67, 75, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex — Condition governing the legality of Community acts

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Doctors — Directives 86/457 and 93/16 — Specific training in general medical practice — Requirement of a certain number of full-time training periods — Assessment in the light of the principle of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex — Whether permissible — ( Council Directives 76/207, 86/457, Art. 5(1), and 93/16, Art. 34(1))

Summary

1. Compliance with the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, which forms part of the fundamental rights the observance of which, as general principles of Community law, the Court has a duty to ensure, is a condition governing the legality of all measures adopted by the Community institutions.

see paras 25, 28, operative part 1

2. Article 5(1) of Directive 86/457 on specific training in general medical practice and Article 34(1) of Directive 93/16 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, according to which part-time training in general medical practice must include a certain number of periods of full-time training, are not incompatible with the prohibition on indirect discrimination on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive 76/207.

Although such a requirement works particularly to the disadvantage of persons of the female sex as compared with persons of the male sex, it must however be regarded as justified by objective factors unrelated to discrimination on grounds of sex, since the Community legislature reasonably took the view that that requirement enables doctors to acquire the experience necessary, by following patients ' pathological conditions as they may evolve over time, and to obtain sufficient experience in the various situations likely to arise more particularly in general medical practice.

see paras 35, 40, 42, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Fiscal legislation — Taxation of winnings from games of chance — Exemption restricted to winnings from games conducted in national territory — Not permissible — (Art. 49 EC)

Summary

Article 49 EC prohibits a Member State ' s legislation under which winnings from games of chance organised in other Member States are treated as income of the winner chargeable to income tax, whereas winnings from games of chance conducted in the Member State in question are not taxable.

see para. 27, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy — Approximation of laws — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59 — Definition of employer — (Council Directive 98/59, Art. 1(1)(a))

Summary

The term "employer" within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies also covers employers engaged in non-profit-making activities. It is clear from the actual wording of Article 1 of the directive that the provision applies to redundancies effected by "an employer" , without further distinction, so that it applies to all employers. An interpretation to the contrary would not be consistent with the aims of the directive, as they are apparent from the second recital.

see para. 26
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Subheading 2101 20 92 (Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or concentrates of tea or maté) – Classification by Regulation No 306/2001 under that subheading of certain goods whose content of extract of tea does not exceed 2.5% and 2.2% of the total weight – Correctness – Applicability by analogy to mixtures with a slightly lower content of extract of tea

(Commission Regulation No 306/2001)

Summary

Subheading 2101 20 92 (Preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or concentrates of tea or maté) of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in the version set out in Regulation No 2031/2001 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as covering goods having a low content of extract of tea, such as those described in points 2 and 3 of the table set out in the annex to Regulation No 306/2001 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (goods whose content of extract of tea does not exceed 2.5% and 2.2% of the total weight respectively).

The classification decided by the Commission in that regulation is applicable by analogy to two mixtures intended for the production of beverages with a basis of tea, both composed of 64% granulated sugar and 1.9% extract of tea and water, to which is added, in one of the two mixtures, 0.8% citric acid.

(see paras 32, 38, operative part 1-2)