ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Family allowances - Pensioners - Benefits for orphans - Benefits payable by the State of residence - Level of benefit higher in the Member State paying the pension - Pension entitlement acquired not solely by virtue of the national laws of the Member State responsible for payment but by virtue of the aggregation rules - Entitlement to a benefit supplement - None

(Council Regulations Nos 1408/71, Arts 77(2)(b)(i) and 78(2)(b)(i), and 2001/83)

Summary

Articles 77(2)(b)(i) and 78(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a Member State is not bound to grant supplementary family benefits to pensioners or orphans residing in another Member State where the amount of the family benefits paid by the Member State of residence is lower than that of the benefits provided for by the laws of the first Member State if entitlement to the pension, or to the orphan's pension, has been acquired not solely by virtue of insurance periods completed in that State but by virtue of the application of the aggregation rules provided for by the regulation.

Entitlement to supplementary family benefits over and above the benefits paid by the State of residence presupposes entitlement to a pension, or to an orphan's pension, acquired solely under the legislation of a Member State other than the State of residence. Where the entitlement of the pensioner or orphan exists only by virtue of the application of the aggregation rules provided for by the regulation, the application of Articles 77 and 78, which provide for benefits to be granted in accordance with the laws of the State of residence, does not deprive the persons concerned of the benefits granted solely under the legislation of another Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Right of Turkish nationals to the extension of their residence permit after one year's legal employment - Conditions - Legal employment for a continuous period of one year with the same employer

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Article 6(1), first indent)

Summary

The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council must be interpreted as making the extension of a Turkish worker's residence permit in the host Member State subject to his having been legally employed continuously for one year with the same employer.

First, that provision, which requires the completion of one year's continuous employment for there to be a right of renewal of the work permit in respect of the same employer and implies the existence of a right of residence for the person concerned to enable him actually to work as an employed person, is based on the premiss that only a contractual relationship which lasts for one year is expressive of employment relations stable enough to guarantee the Turkish worker continuity of his employment with the same employer.

Second, the coherence of the system of gradual integration of Turkish workers in the host Member State's labour force, established by the three indents of Article 6(1), would be disrupted if the worker had the right to enter the service of another employer even before satisfying the condition of one year's legal employment specified in the first indent of Article 6(1) when, under the second indent of Article 6(1), it is only after three years of legal employment in the Member State concerned that a Turkish worker is entitled to take up work with a different employer, on condition that the employer is engaged in the same business as the previous employer and respects the priority to be given to workers of the Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Grated cheese obtained from a type of cheese having a moisture content greater than that normally used which, by reason of the method of its packaging and preservation, is in an agglomerated form but, after unpacking and exposure to the surrounding air, breaks down into irregular granules - Classification under subheading 0406 20 90 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

Subheading 0406 20 90 of Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 3174/88 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, must be interpreted as including grated cheese obtained from a type of cheese having a moisture content greater than that normally used to produce grated cheese which, when imported, is, by reason of the method of packaging and preservation used, in an agglomerated form and, after unpacking and exposure to the surrounding air, breaks down into irregular granules.

In so far as the cheese in question was grated prior to packaging and broke down into irregular granules after unpacking and exposure to the surrounding air, neither the fact that the product in question is obtained from a type of cheese having a moisture content greater than that normally used to produce grated cheese nor the method of packaging or preservation of the product can, for purposes of the Combined Nomenclature, deprive it of its objective character, namely grated cheese.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Accession of new Member States to the Communities - Austria - Finland - Sweden - Adaptation of Community acts which have not been adapted by the Act of Accession itself - Amendment, with retroactive effect, of Decision No 3092/94 of the Parliament and the Council by Council Decision No 95/184 - Whether beyond the scope of the powers provided for in Article 169 of the Act of Accession - Not ultra vires

(Act of Accession 1994, Art. 169; Council Decision No 95/184; Decision No 3092/94 of the Parliament and the Council)

Summary

Council Decision No 95/184 amending Decision No 3092/94 of the Parliament and the Council introducing a Community system of information on home and leisure accidents, which, in order to take account of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, increased the number of hospitals participating in the system, while adjusting the funding granted by Member States for that purpose, and which was adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 169 of the Act of Accession, providing for the adaptation of acts of the institutions which have not been adapted by the Act itself, was not adopted outside the scope ratione temporis or ratione materiae of the powers defined in that provision.

Although the decision in question was adopted after accession and took effect from that date, neither the wording of Article 169 - interpreted by reference to the general scheme and purpose of the Title of which it forms part - nor the principle of the acceptance of the acquis communautaire in new Member States, nor considerations of legal certainty or the protection of legitimate expectations preclude temporary rules of that kind. Secondly, the fact that the initial decision had been jointly adopted by the Parliament and the Council, and that Article 169 provides that the Council may make amendments only in so far as it adopted the original measures does not preclude the Council from adopting the decision in question alone. Acts of the Council, without further qualification, are those adopted by that institution, either alone or together with the Parliament under the co-decision procedure, and consequently the power provided for in Article 169 also covers measures which the Council has adopted jointly with the Parliament.
Case C-382/95

Techex Computer + Grafík Vertriebs GmbH

v

Hauptzollamt München

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof

‛Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff classification of a ‘Vista Board’ electronic component intended for image processing and capable of being used as a graphics card in a computer — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature’

Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 2 October 1997 I-7365

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 18 December 1997 I-7377

Summary of the Judgment

Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Data processing for the purposes of heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomendature — Concept — Processing of image data — Included — Machine units having a ‘specific function’ within the meaning of Note i(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined NomencUture — Concept — Processing of image data with an automatic data-processing machine unit which includes an analogue/'digital converter, a high-quality graphics processor and a digital/analogue converter — Excluded

The term ‘data-processing’ within the meaning of heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by the annexes to Regulations Nos 3174/88, 2886/89 and 2472/90, covers the processing of images.

Image processing, as it can be carried out with an automatic data-processing machine unit which includes, inter alia, an analogue/digital converter, a high-quality graphics processor and a digital/analogue converter, and which enables an entire automatic data-processing machine to perform certain functions, is not to be regarded as the performance of a ‘spécifie function’ for the purposes of the last paragraph of Note 5(B) of Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Time-limits - Extension on account of distance - Application to the Community institutions - Place of residence to be taken into consideration in the case of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Annex II, Art. 1)

2 Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Review procedure - Re-opening of investigation - Conditions - Sufficient evidence of dumping and resultant injury

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 4, 7, 14 and 15)

Summary

1 For the purposes of lodging an appeal, the Commission, whose seat is in Brussels, is entitled to a procedural extension on account of distance of two days, pursuant to Article 1 of the Decision of the Court on extension of time-limits on account of distance, forming Annex II to the rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, despite the fact that it has stated an address for service in Luxembourg for the purposes of the procedure before the Court of First Instance.

The above provision takes into consideration only the place of habitual residence of the party concerned, not the address for service given by that party in accordance with Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance or Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Moreover, appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice are distinct from previous proceedings before the Court of First Instance, so that the choice of an address for service for the purposes of those proceedings does not apply for the purposes of any appeal.

2 The existence of sufficient evidence of dumping and the injury resulting therefrom is always a prerequisite for the opening of an investigation, within the meaning of Article 7 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation No 2423/88, whether at the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding or in the course of a review of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties.

In that connection, where, in the course of a review procedure opened pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of the basic regulation, the Community institutions must consider whether the expiry of an anti-dumping measure previously imposed could once more lead to injury or to a threat of injury, such consideration must comply with the provisions of Article 4 of the basic regulation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Right of family members to take up salaried employment - Community rules - Not applicable in a situation purely internal to a Member State - National of a non-member country married to a national of a Member State never having exercised the right to freedom of movement

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 11)

Summary

The Treaty rules governing freedom of movement for workers and regulations adopted to implement them cannot be applied to cases which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by Community law and all elements of which are purely internal to a single Member State.

A national of a non-member country married to a worker having the nationality of a Member State cannot, therefore, rely on the right conferred by Article 11 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community when that worker has never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the Community.
Keywords



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Free movement of goods - Community transit - Community status of goods - Means of proof - Confined to documents T2 and T2 L alone - Whether compatible with Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 9 and 10; Council Regulation No 222/77; Commission Regulation No 223/77)

2 Free movement of goods - Community transit - Community status of goods - Means of proof - Findings of the competent authorities of a Member State made during inspections carried out under the Community transit procedure - Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 222/77, Art. 37(2))

Summary

3 The rule laid down in Regulation No 222/77 on Community transit and Regulation No 223/77 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure to the effect that, save as otherwise provided, proof of the Community status of goods may be provided only by means of transit documents T2 or T2 L is consistent with Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty.

In the first place, Articles 9 and 10 are silent as to the means of proof and the burden of proof of the Community status of goods and leave it to secondary Community legislation to settle those matters, while, second, the provision of a standard and simple means of proof, combined with the possibility of producing such proof even after the frontier has been crossed, is justified by the need to facilitate the movement of goods within the Community, which is one of the basic principles of the common market.

4 Article 37(2) of Regulation No 222/77 does not allow proof of the Community status of goods to be provided by means of the findings of the competent authorities of a Member State made when inspections are carried out under the Community transit procedure.

That provision cannot constitute a derogation from the rule that, save as otherwise provided, proof of the Community status of goods may be provided only by means of transit documents T2 or T2 L. Admission of the findings referred to in Article 37(2) as proof would lead to reintroduction of the simultaneous application of national administrative procedures which the rules governing Community transit are designed precisely to avoid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Members of family - Indirect entitlement - Child of a national of a Member State who died before accession of his country of origin to the Community - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 48; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Arts 7(2) and 10)

2 Social security for migrant workers - Equal treatment - Family benefits - Orphans' benefits - Right to extension of an orphan's benefit provided for by the legislation of a Member State where the recipient's training was interrupted by military service - Assimilation of military service in another Member State to national military service for the purposes of granting the extension

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 3(1))

Summary

3 Members of a worker's family within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 qualify only indirectly for the equal treatment accorded to the worker himself by Article 7 of that regulation.

It follows that where a national of a Member State has died before the accession of his country of origin to the Community and therefore does not have the status of a worker within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty or of Regulation No 1612/68, his child cannot benefit, as a member of the family of a Community worker, from the equal treatment rule laid down by Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68.

4 Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of a Member State provides for extension of the right to an orphan's benefit beyond the age of 25 for recipients of such benefits whose training has been interrupted by their military service, that State is required to assimilate military service in another Member State to military service under its own legislation.

The equal treatment rule laid down by that provision prohibits not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result. The refusal to assimilate military service in another Member State to military service completed in the State concerned is liable to result in nationals of other Member States being unable to benefit from the right to extension of the orphan's benefit beyond the age of 25 for a period equal to that of their military service where the recipient's training is interrupted by reason of such service.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Failure to fulfil obligations - Consideration of the merits by the Court of Justice - Relevant situation - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

(Euratom Treaty, Art. 141)

2 EAEC - Health protection - Radiation protection of persons undergoing medical examination or medical treatment - Directive 84/466 - Implementation not complete

(Council Directive 84/466/Euratom, Arts 3, 4 and 5)

Summary

3 In the context of an action under Article 141 of the Euratom Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

4 A Member State which:

- fails to establish criteria of acceptability for radiological installations and nuclear medical installations and to have those installations rectified when defective or taken out of service where they no longer meet the criteria specified;

- instead of limiting the number of installations and regulating their siting, merely conducts a survey of the installations together with a scheme of distribution with no legally binding force;

- instead of making a qualified expert in radiophysics available to sophisticated departments of radiotherapy and nuclear medicine, merely provides, by measures that are not in the nature of regulations, for notices of competitions with a view to the training of such personnel;

does not fully implement Directive 84/466 laying down basic measures for the radiation protection of persons undergoing medical examination or treatment and, consequently, fails to fulfil its obligations under the Euratom Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Product lacking in any specific therapeutic or prophylactic effect - Classification as `medicinal product' under heading 30 04 of the Combined Nomenclature - Excluded - Product sold exclusively in pharmacies and having the characteristics of a `medicinal product' within the meaning of Directive 65/65 - No determinant value in regard to tariff classification

(Council Regulation No 1010/86; Council Directive 65/65)

Summary

A product presented in the form of tablets consisting of 6 250 IU of vitamin A, smaller quantities of 11 other vitamins, 550 mg of sugar and 92.5 mg of cocoa, together with excipients, flavourings and coating, and recommended for the prevention or correction of vitamin deficiencies linked to an inadequate or unbalanced diet cannot be classified under heading 30 04 of the Combined Nomenclature and consequently does not come within the scope of Regulation No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry, if it has not been established either that the product has clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism or that it is capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments.

Nor, for identical reasons, can a product which contains a combination of amino acids, mineral salts and trace elements, along with iron ribonucleate, globin amino extract, sodium vanadate, copper glycocollate, iodine and excipients, and is indicated in cases of debility or reduced physical and mental efficiency, convalescence, overwork, poor appetite, weight loss and ageing, be classified under heading 30 04, and consequently does not come within the scope of Regulation No 1010/86.

Neither the fact that such products have been given marketing authorizations as `medicinal products' issued by the competent State authorities in accordance with the requirements of Directive 65/65 on proprietary medicinal products nor the fact that they are `medicinal products according to presentation' within the meaning of Directive 65/65 or are distributed exclusively in pharmacies has any determinant value in regard to their tariff classification.
Case C-8/96

Locamion SA

v

Directeur des Services Fiscaux d'Indre-et-Loire

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Tours

‛Directive 69/335/EEC — Regional charge on vehicle registration certificates’

Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas delivered on 20 February 1997 I-7057

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 11 December 1997 I-7077

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions — Harmonization of Uws — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Capital duty levied on capital companies in respect of certain transactions — Prohibition on levying other taxes in respect of the same transactions — Scope — Regional charge levied in France on vehicle registration certificates — Not covered

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 10)

Article 10 of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital — as amended by Directives 73/79, 73/80, 74/553 and 85/303 — which lists the other indirect taxes with the same characteristics as capital duty or stamp duty on securities, collection of which is prohibited, must be interpreted as not precluding a tax such as the regional charge levied in France on vehicle registration certificates, in so far as the characteristics of that charge differ in the following respects from those of the taxes prohibited under the provision in question:

— it does not attach to the transfer of vehicles to a capital company but, more specifically, to their use on the road;

— the detailed rules for calculating it are fundamentally different from those governing the capital duty harmonized by the Directive;

— it is not payable in respect of contributions, loans or provision of services, occurring as part of the transactions referred to in Article 4 of the Directive;