ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions — Internal taxation — Charge on the registration of new motor vehicles where there is no similar or competing domestic production — Examination in the light of Article 90 EC — Conditions — Compliance with that provision — Assessment of the charge on the basis of Article 28 EC et seq. — Excluded where there are no figures to show the free movement of goods is impeded — (Arts 28 EC and 90 EC)

Summary

Since it is part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of vehicles in accordance with objective criteria, irrespective of the origin of the products, a charge on the registration of new motor vehicles established by a Member State which does not have any domestic production of vehicles constitutes internal taxation whose compatibility with Community law must be examined in the light of Article 90 EC. That provision must be interpreted as not precluding such a charge where there is no domestic production of cars nor of any products liable to compete with cars in the Member State concerned.

Although, moreover, it is true that it is not permissible for the Member States to impose on products which thus escape the application of the prohibitions contained in Article 90 EC charges of such an amount that the free movement of goods within the common market would be impeded as far as those goods were concerned, it cannot be considered that that charge has ceased to be internal taxation and should be classified as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, for the purposes of Article 28 EC, where the figures as to the number of new vehicles registered in the Member State concerned, and thus imported into that Member State, do not in any way show that the free movement of that type of goods between that Member State and the other Member States is impeded.

see paras 35, 39-43, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — National legislation subjecting the marketing of foodstuffs enriched with nutrients to proof of the population ' s nutritional need — Not permissible — Justification — Protection of public health — No justification — Breach of the principle of proportionality — (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC if it applies an administrative practice which entails that foodstuffs enriched with vitamins and minerals and lawfully produced or marketed in other Member States can be marketed in that State only if it is shown that such enrichment with nutrients meets a need of that State ' s population.

While Community law does not, in principle, preclude a Member State from prohibiting, save for prior authorisation, the marketing of foodstuffs incorporating nutrients, such as vitamins or minerals other than those whose use is lawful under Community legislation, since it is for the Member States, in default of harmonisation and to the extent that uncertainties continue to exist in the current state of scientific research, to decide on their intended level of protection of human health and life, that discretion must, however, be exercised in accordance with the principle of proportionality. It is, moreover, for the national authorities to show in each case, in the light of national nutritional habits and in the light of the results of international scientific research, that their rules are necessary for the protection of public health and, in particular, that the marketing of the products in question poses a real risk thereto.

In that regard, the systematic prohibition on the marketing of enriched products which do not meet a nutritional need of the population does not enable Community law to be observed in regard to the identification and assessment of a real risk to public health, which requires a detailed assessment, case-by-case, of the effects which the addition of the minerals and vitamins in question could entail.

see paras 42, 44-46, 56-57, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom to provide services — Television broadcasting — Directive 89/552 — Television advertising — Frequency of advertising slots during broadcasts — Increased protection of audiovisual works — Films made for television — Meaning — Films providing, from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising — Included — (Council Directive 89/552, Art. 11(3))

2. Freedom to provide services — Television broadcasting — Directive 89/552 — Television advertising — Frequency of advertising slots during broadcasts — Increased protection of audiovisual works — Exception for series — Criteria — (Council Directive 89/552, Art. 11(3))

Summary

1. Films which have been made for television and which provide, from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising are covered by the term "films made for television" in Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552 concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36.

They benefit therefore from the increased protection under that provision for audiovisual works as regards the frequency of advertising slots.

see paras 51, 55, 74, operative part 1

2. The connections which must link films in order that they can come within the exception laid down for "series" by Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552 relating to the increased protection for audiovisual works as regards the frequency of advertising slots, must relate to the content of the films concerned, such as, for example, the development of the same story from one episode to another or the reappearance of one or more characters in different episodes.

Links based on form such as the same broadcasting slot, a broadcast under the same title or theme, or a presentation before or after the programmes cannot be sufficient for the purposes of the definition of the term "series" .

see paras 103-104, 108, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Purpose — Partial annulment — Conditions — Severability of the contested measures — Objective criterion — (Art. 230 EC)

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Beef and veal — Special support measures — Article 5(5) of Regulation No 690/2001 — Compulsory co-financing by the Member States — Illegality — (Commission Regulation No 690/2001, Art. 5(5))

Summary

1. The partial annulment of a Community act is possible only if the elements whose annulment is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act.

In that regard, whether partial annulment would alter the substance of the contested measure is an objective criterion and not a subjective criterion linked to the political intention of the authority which adopted the measure at issue. That authority cannot, therefore, argue that without the provision whose annulment is sought it would probably not have adopted the other provisions of the contested act.

see paras 33, 36-37

2. Article 5(5) of Regulation No 690/2001 on special market support measures in the beef sector must be annulled in so far as that provision requires each Member State concerned to finance a percentage of the price of the meat purchased under that regulation.

Regulation No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal does not contain any provision expressly authorising the Commission to derogate from the principle flowing from the basic legislation that all Community support measures in the beef and veal sector must be exclusively financed by the Community. It matters little, in that regard, that Regulation No 690/2001 provides that it is to apply only for a period limited to six months.

see paras 73-76, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Application of national competition law — Competence of national authorities — Restrictions — (Arts 32 EC to 38 EC; Council Regulation No 26)

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Production quotas — Decision of national competent authority when approving a merger of sugar undertakings to require a reallocation of quotas — Reallocation for consideration — Not permissible — (Council Regulation No 1785/81, Art. 25(1), Regulation No 193/82, Art. 4, and Regulation No 1260/2001)

Summary

1. Although the Member States are empowered to apply their national competition law in a sector covered by a common organisation of the markets, they must observe the principles and general rules governing the common agricultural policy and refrain from taking any measures which might undermine or create exceptions to the common organisation of the markets concerned.

see para. 54

2. If, in the exercise of its power of administrative review of a merger of undertakings, the competent authority of a Member State deems it necessary to redistribute sugar production quotas among undertakings situated in its territory in order to safeguard competition, the provisions of Council Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Regulation No 193/82 laying down general rules for transfer of quotas in the sugar sector preclude that authority from stipulating that such a transfer or reallocation of quotas should be for value.

The system of quotas constitutes a mechanism for regulating the market in the sugar sector which aims to ensure the attainment of public-interest objectives. Those characteristics of the system of quotas in the sugar sector mean that the quotas cannot be transferred from one undertaking to another for consideration, in accordance with market forces. The public sale of quotas, in so far as it would be wholly based on financial considerations, would not take account of public-interest objectives laid down in the Community legislation in the sugar sector and would therefore not enable the national authorities to ensure observance of the conditions laid down in those provisions. Furthermore, transfer for consideration would confer on undertakings purchasing quotas ownership over them. However, the existence of such a right would affect the discretion available to Member States in the exercise of the powers, as regards quotas, conferred on them by Community provisions. Such ownership would therefore affect the flexibility inherent in a mechanism for the regulation of the market such as the quotas in the sugar sector, which are capable of varying over time depending on the situation of the market or the needs of the common agricultural policy.

In that connection, the entry into force of Regulation No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, inasmuch as it reproduces the content of the relevant provisions of the above regulations which it replaces, does not alter the interpretation of the Community regulation.

see paras 47-50, 62, 65-66, operative part 1-2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — National legislation prohibiting marketing under the name cleaner with bleach goods whose active chlorine content is less than 35 g/l — Not permissible — Justification — Protection of public health — No justification — Protection of consumers — Disproportionate nature — ( Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

A Member State which refuses access to its market under the name " cleaner with bleach" or similar to products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States where their active chlorine content is less than 35 g/l fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

The protection of the public health cannot justify such an obstacle to trade in so far as the less active chlorine, a dangerous substance, a product contains, the less harmful it is likely to be to the public health. The risk which could be linked to such a product arises from the danger that a consumer might use it inappropriately or for purposes other than those for which it was intended.

Such legislation is however disproportionate to the objective of protecting consumers, since the affixing of a label containing information on the nature and main characteristics of the product, including its active chlorine content, is sufficient to inform consumers of the properties and the composition of the product. The fact that the consumers of a Member State have very definite views regarding the composition or the characteristics of a given product is not, in principle, such as to justify obstacles to the free movement of goods when the characteristics of that product can be correctly appreciated by consumers upon reading the label.

see paras 46, 48-50, 52, 54, 61, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Directive 93/36 — Award of contracts — Most economically advantageous tender — Criteria — Supply of electricity from renewable energy sources — Whether permissible — Conditions — (Council Directive 93/36, Art. 26)

2. Approximation of laws — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665 — Finding of illegality of an award criterion by the review body — Obligation to cancel the invitation to tender — (Council Directive 89/665)

Summary

1. The Community legislation on public procurement does not preclude a contracting authority from applying, in the context of the assessment of the most economically advantageous tender for a contract for the supply of electricity, an award criterion with a weighting of 45% which requires that the electricity supplied be produced from renewable energy sources. The fact that that criterion does not necessarily serve to achieve the objective pursued is irrelevant in that regard.

On the other hand, that legislation does preclude such a criterion where

─ it is not accompanied by requirements which permit the accuracy of the information contained in the tenders to be effectively verified,

─ it requires tenderers to state how much electricity they can supply from renewable energy sources to a non-defined group of consumers, and allocates the maximum number of points to whichever tenderer states the highest amount, where the supply volume is taken into account only to the extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption expected in the context of the procurement.

It is for the national court to determine whether, despite the contracting authority's failure to stipulate a specific supply period, the award criterion was sufficiently clearly formulated to satisfy the requirements of equal treatment and transparency of procedures for awarding public contracts.

see para. 72, operative part 1

2. The community legislation on public procurement requires the contracting authority to cancel an invitation to tender if it transpires in review proceedings under Article 1 of Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public work contracts, as amended by Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, that a decision relating to one of the award criteria laid down by that authority is unlawful and it is therefore annulled by the review body.

In such a case the contracting authority cannot validly continue the tender procedure leaving aside that criterion since that would be tantamount to amending the criteria applicable to the procedure in question.

see paras 94-95, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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)

Summary

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)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals – Admissibility – Party not unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para. (c))

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118)

Summary

1. A party which is neither partially nor wholly unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance is not entitled to appeal against the judgment under appeal before the Court of Justice, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.

(see para. 42)

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1), first paragraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court, it fails to satisfy the requirements regarding the statement of grounds under those provisions.

However, provided that the applicant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in an appeal. If an applicant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Court of First Instance, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose.

An appeal which seeks specifically to contest the assessment by the Court of First Instance of several points of law which were referred to at first instance and which contains specific indications of the aspects of the judgment under appeal criticised and the pleas in law and the arguments on which it is based is, therefore, admissible.

(see paras 48-51)

3. Under Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 42(2) of those rules, which prohibits generally the introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the procedure, applies to the procedure before the Court of Justice on appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court’s jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it.

(see para. 52)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Uniform interpretation – Differences between the various language versions – General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as the basis for reference

2. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Scope – Doubling of an already existing railway track involving a new track route – Included

(Council Directive 85/337, Annex I, para. 7, and Annex II, para. 12)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Objective character – Taking into consideration of an incorrect interpretation of a Community law – Excluded

(Art. 226 EC)

4. Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337 – Applicability – Relevant test

(Council Directive 85/337)

Summary

1. The need for a uniform interpretation of Community law requires, in the case of divergence between different language versions of a provision, that it be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

(see para. 45)

2. A project such as the doubling of an already existing railway track can have a significant effect on the environment within the meaning of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, since it is likely to have lasting effects on, for example, flora and fauna, the composition of soil or even on the landscape and produce significant noise effects, inter alia, so that it must be included in the scope of the directive. Accordingly, a project of that sort cannot be considered a mere modification to an earlier project within the meaning of point 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337, but is covered by paragraph 7 of Annex I of the directive in which the projects subject to an assessment of the effects on the environment are listed.

That conclusion is all the more obvious when the execution of the project at issue involves a new track route, even if that applies only to part of the project. Such a construction project is by its nature likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Directive 85/337.

(see paras 48-50)

3. An action for failure to fulfil obligations brought under Article 226 EC is objective in nature and the fact that the failure to fulfil obligations complained of results from a Member State’s incorrect interpretation of the Community-law provisions cannot preclude the Court from declaring that there has been such a failure.

(see para. 58)

4. The relevant criterion for the implementation of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment is based on the significant effect that a particular project is ‘likely’ to have on the environment. Under those conditions, it is not for the Commission to establish the concrete negative effects that a project in fact has on the environment.

(see para. 59)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

16 January 2003

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 86/609/EEC – Protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes – Incomplete transposition))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

11 March 2003

((Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 12(1) – Revocation of trade mark owner's rights – Concept of genuine use of a trade mark – Maintenance of goods already sold and sales of replacement parts and accessories))

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 Ansul BV and the Commission at the hearing on 4 June 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 July 2002,