ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods ° Trade with non-member countries ° Customs duties ° Charges having equivalent effect ° Unilaterally introduced by Member States after the Common Customs Tariff entered into force ° Not permissible ° Levying of charges introduced before the Common Customs Tariff entered into force ° Whether permissible ° Conditions

(EC Treaty, Arts 18 to 29)

2. Preliminary rulings ° Interpretation ° Effects in time of rulings on interpretation ° Retrospective effect ° Limits ° Legal certainty

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

1. It is incompatible with the EEC Treaty, now the EC Treaty, to levy a customs duty or a charge having equivalent effect which has been unilaterally introduced by a Member State after the introduction of the Common Customs Tariff on 1 July 1968 on goods imported directly from non-member countries which are not linked to the Community by a special agreement.

However, the Treaty does not preclude the levying of a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports which, having regard to all its characteristic elements ° including its designation, the chargeable event, the basis of assessment, the criteria for its application, the taxable persons and the way in which the revenue raised is applied ° must be regarded as a charge already in existence on 1 July 1968, provided that the level at which it is levied has not been raised. Where the level has been raised, only the amount over and above the initial level must be regarded as incompatible with the Treaty.

2. The Treaty provisions relating to customs duties and charges having equivalent effect cannot, for overriding reasons of legal certainty, be relied upon in support of claims for the reimbursement of sums, levied by way of "droit additionnel" on goods from non-member countries which are not linked to the Community by a special agreement, before 16 July 1992 ° the date of the judgment (C-163/90, Legros and Others) ruling that charges of that nature are not permissible under Community law ° except by claimants who have initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim before that date.

This also applies to sums levied on such goods before that date by way of "octroi de mer" to the extent that the levying of such sums, in breach of the prohibition on the unilateral introduction of new charges having equivalent effect after the establishment of the Common Customs Tariff, would be unlawful.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

(Social policy ° Approximation of laws ° Transfers of undertakings ° Safeguarding of employees' rights ° Directive 77/187 ° Scope ° Transfer ° Concept ° Transfer of administrative functions from a municipality to a grouping constituted by a number of municipalities ° 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 meaning that the concept of a "transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business" does not apply to the transfer of administrative functions from a municipality to a grouping constituted by a number of municipalities.

The Directive sets out to protect workers against the potentially unfavourable consequences for them of changes in the structure of undertakings resulting from economic trends at national and Community level, through, inter alia, transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses to other employers as a result of transfers or mergers, but does not cover the reorganization of structures of the public administration or the transfer of administrative functions between public administrative authorities.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

21 March 1996

((Social legislation relating to road transport – Derogation for refuse vehicles))

In Case C-335/94,

THE COURT (First 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 United Kingdom, represented by Nicholas Green, Barrister, and of the Commission, represented by Götz zur Hausen, at the hearing on 30 November 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 25 January 1996,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Fisheries ° Conservation of the resources of the sea ° Fishing quotas ° Obligations of Member States regarding control ° Practical difficulties ° Not relevant ° Provisional prohibition of fishing in time to ensure that quotas are not exceeded

(Council Regulation No 2241/87, Art. 11(2))

2. Fisheries ° Conservation of the resources of the sea ° Fishing quotas ° Control measures ° Obligation of Member States to impose penalties ° Internal difficulties irrelevant

(Council Regulation No 2241/87, Art 1(2))

Summary

1. A Member State cannot rely on practical difficulties related, for example, to deficiencies in its statistical system, in order to justify its failure to adopt appropriate control measures with regard to compliance with fishing quotas. On the contrary, it is for the Member States responsible for implementing Community regulations in the fishery products sector to overcome those difficulties by taking appropriate measures.

In particular, under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, Member States must adopt binding measures to prohibit on a provisional basis all fishing activity even before quotas are exhausted when, in the absence of such prohibition, the tonnage caught would be likely to exceed those quotas.

2. Under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, where the competent authorities of a Member State observe that the rules concerning fishery conservation and control are not being complied with, they are required to take penal or administrative action. If the competent authorities of a Member State could systematically refrain from taking action against the persons responsible for such infringements, both the conservation and management of fishery resources and the uniform application of the common fisheries policy would be jeopardized. Consequently, when the Commission has fixed a date for prohibiting a type of fishing, a Member State is required to take penal or administrative action against persons responsible for continuing the fishing activities in question and related activities covered by the Community rules. Mere apprehension of internal difficulties, in the form of serious socio-economic problems, cannot justify a failure to apply the rules in question.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Community law ° Principles ° Rights of the defence ° Breach by national procedural rules applicable to offences under legislation falling outside the ambit of Community law ° Examination by the Court ° Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

The Court does not have jurisdiction, in proceedings for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty, to determine whether procedural rules applicable to offences under national legislation which falls outside the scope of Community law may be in breach of the principles concerning observance of the rights of the defence and of the adversarial nature of proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of persons ° Freedom of establishment ° More than one place of work within the territory of the Community ° National legislation requiring a self-employed person, notwithstanding his membership of a social security scheme in the Member State of his habitual residence, to pay social security contributions which afford him no additional cover ° Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 52)

Summary

Given that freedom of establishment is not confined to the right to create a single establishment within the Community but includes freedom to set up and maintain, subject to observance of the professional rules of conduct, more than one place of work within the territory of the Member States, Article 52 of the Treaty seeks to facilitate the pursuit of occupational activities throughout the territory of the Member States and consequently precludes national legislation which might inhibit the extension of such activities beyond the territory of a single Member State. Accordingly, it precludes a Member State from requiring contributions to be made to the scheme for self-employed persons by persons already working as self-employed persons in another Member State where they have their habitual residence and are affiliated to a social security scheme, where that obligation is wholly unjustified in that it provides them with no additional social protection.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy ° Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ° Persons covered by Directive 79/7 ° Working population within the meaning of Article 2 of the directive ° Person who undertakes, as an unremunerated activity, the care of his or her handicapped spouse but has not abandoned an occupational activity or interrupted efforts to find employment ° Excluded

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 2)

Summary

Article 2 of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, which defines the persons to whom it applies by reference to the working population, must be interpreted as not covering a person who undertakes, as an unremunerated activity, the care of his or her handicapped spouse, regardless of the extent of that activity and the competence required to carry it out, where the person in question did not, in order to do so, abandon an occupational activity or interrupt efforts to find employment.

An interpretation purporting to include within the concept of working population a member of a family who, without payment, undertakes an activity for the benefit of another member of the family on the ground that such activity calls for a degree of competence, is of a particular nature or scope or would have to be provided by an outsider in return for remuneration if the member of the family in question did not provide it would have the effect of infinitely extending the scope of the directive, whereas the purpose of Article 2 of the directive is precisely to delimit that scope.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Structural reform - Improvement in the efficiency of structures - Aid for extensification of production of beef and veal - Conditions for granting - Reduction in output - Calculation - Account taken of drops in output during the intermediate period between the end of the reference period and the beginning of the period of the undertaking - Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 797/85, Art. 1b(3)(c), as amended by Regulations Nos 1760/87 and 1094/88; Commission Regulation No 4115/88, Art. 4(1) and (2))

Summary

Regulation No 797/85 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures requires Member States to introduce an aid scheme in order to promote the extensification of production in certain sectors; extensification is defined as a reduction for a given period of undertaking, in the output of the product concerned in relation to a reference period to be determined by the Member States and in the beef and veal sector the Member States may stipulate that the number of livestock units must be reduced by at least 20%.

Article 1b(3)(c) of that Regulation, as amended by Regulation No 1760/87, and as both amended by Regulation No 1094/88, and Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 4115/88 laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State, where there has been a drop in output during the intermediate period between the end of the reference period and the beginning of the period of the undertaking, to make the grant of aid for extensification in any case conditional on output achieved during the intermediate period being reduced, during the period of the undertaking, by an amount corresponding to at least 20% of output during the reference period.

The regulations in question contain no mention of an intermediate period and it cannot be concluded from their wording that reduction in output can never take place, in whole or in part, before the period of the undertaking commences. Moreover, the objective of the rules, which consists in encouraging producers, in exchange for aid, to reduce the normal output of their holding, is also achieved if the drop in output which has already been achieved during the intermediate period is maintained for the entire period of the undertaking.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Scope - Civil and commercial matters - Matters relating to maintenance - Decisions rendered in divorce proceedings ordering payment of a lump sum and transfer of ownership in certain property - Included - Conditions

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 1, first para., and second para., point 1, and Art. 42)

Summary

If the reasoning of a decision rendered in divorce proceedings shows that the provision which it awards is designed to enable one spouse to provide for himself or herself or if the needs and resources of each of the spouses are taken into consideration in the determination of its amount, the decision will be concerned with maintenance and will therefore fall within the scope 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 and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic. On the other hand, where the provision awarded is solely concerned with dividing property between the spouses, the decision will be concerned with rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship and will not therefore be enforceable under the Brussels Convention. A decision which does both these things may, in accordance with Article 42 of the Brussels Convention, be enforced in part if it clearly shows the aims to which the different parts of the judicial provision correspond.

It follows that a decision rendered in divorce proceedings ordering payment of a lump sum and transfer of ownership in certain property by one party to his or her former spouse must be regarded as relating to maintenance and therefore as falling within the scope of the Convention if its purpose is to ensure the former spouse's maintenance. The fact that in its decision the court of origin disregarded a marriage contract is of no account in this regard.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Economic activity within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive - Mere acquisition and holding of bonds and receipt of income therefrom - Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(2))

Summary

Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere acquisition of ownership in and the holding of bonds, activities which are not subservient to any other business activity, and the receipt of income therefrom are not to be regarded as economic activities conferring on the person concerned the status of a taxable person.

The activity of a bondholder may be defined as a form of investment which does not extend further than straightforward asset management and, if it gives rise to income in the form of interest, such interest cannot be regarded as a return on an economic activity or transaction carried out by its recipient.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid - Examination by the Commission - Establishment of a framework on aid in an economic sector - Commission decision prolonging, with retroactive effect, the validity of the Community framework on State aid in an economic sector after its expiry - Obligation to obtain the agreement of the Member States

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(1))

Summary

In order to prolong, with retroactive effect to the date of its expiry, the Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry, adopted on the basis of Article 93(1) of the Treaty, the Commission is required to obtain the agreement of the Member States.

Without any prolongation, the framework ceases to exist on the date on which it is set to expire, so that a decision to prolong it, adopted after expiry of the period of validity of the decision which it prolongs constitutes a modification of the existing legal situation and must be adopted according to the same procedure as that required for the adoption of the decision which established the original framework or of a decision making modifications to it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law - Principles - Fundamental rights - Observance ensured by the Court - Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of national legislation not falling within the field of application of Community law - Review by the Court - Precluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 164 and 177)

Summary

Where national legislation is concerned with a situation which does not fall within the field of application of Community law, the Court cannot, in a reference for a preliminary ruling, give the interpretative guidance necessary for the national court to determine whether that national legislation is in conformity with the fundamental rights whose observance the Court ensures, such as those deriving in particular from the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Accordingly, provisions of national law not designed to secure compliance with rules of Community law are concerned with a situation which does not fall within the field of application of Community law even though a term of imprisonment imposed by virtue of those provisions may impede the person concerned from exercising his right to freedom of movement, since a purely hypothetical prospect of exercising that right does not establish a sufficient connection with Community law to justify the application of Community provisions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Budget of the European Communities - Financial Regulation - Provisions applicable to external aid - Procedure for tendering for public contracts financed under the PHARE programme - Different roles of the beneficiary country and the Commission - Powers of the beneficiary country as regards the conclusion of contracts - Commission decision rejecting a tender submitted by a tendering undertaking because it did not satisfy the conditions for Community funding - Decision severable from the contractual procedure which was to lead to the conclusion of the contract - Act capable of being the subject of an action for annulment

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, para. 4)

2 International agreements - Agreement on the European Economic Area - Temporal application - Inapplicable to legal situations arising before the agreement came into force - Procedure for awarding a public works contract opened before but closed after 1 January 1994 - Inapplicability

Summary

3 The act by which the Commission, in the context of a tendering procedure for the award of public contracts financed by the PHARE programme, informs a tendering undertaking that it is rejecting its tender on the ground that the tender does not satisfy the conditions for obtaining Community funding set out in the invitation to tender, while forming part of a contractual procedure which is to lead to the conclusion of a national contract by the beneficiary State, can be severed from that context inasmuch as, first, it is adopted by the Commission in the exercise of its own powers and, secondly, it is specifically directed to an individual undertaking, which loses any chance of actually being awarded the contract simply because that act is adopted. Accordingly, the Commission's decision to refuse the undertaking in question the benefit of Community funding in itself has binding legal effects as regards the undertaking and can therefore be the subject of an action for annulment.

4 The legal framework for the tendering procedure for the award of public contracts financed by the PHARE programme is established by the general conditions of the restricted invitation to tender. Since tenders were submitted and the competitive tender stage was definitively closed in 1993 under those general conditions, the European Economic Area Agreement, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, was not applicable ratione temporis to that procedure. That agreement cannot, without infringing the principle of legal certainty, have the effect of changing the conditions on which the invitation to tender was issued and on the basis of which the tenders were submitted, or of requiring the contract-awarding procedure to be reopened.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Communities - Seat of the institutions - Decision of the Governments of the Member States to locate the seat of the Parliament in Strasbourg - Scope - Obligation to hold 12 ordinary plenary part-sessions there on a regular basis - Vote of the European Parliament to hold 11 part-sessions in 1996 - Unlawful

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 25; EC Treaty, Art. 142; EAEC Treaty, Art. 112; Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 12 December 1992; Vote of the Parliament of 20 September 1995)

Summary

The decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities, definitively locating the seat of the Parliament in Strasbourg, whilst maintaining several places of work for that institution, must be interpreted as defining the seat of the Parliament as the place where 12 ordinary plenary part-sessions must take place on a regular basis, including those during which the Parliament is to exercise the budgetary powers conferred upon it by the Treaty. Additional plenary part-sessions cannot therefore be scheduled for any other place of work unless the Parliament holds the 12 ordinary plenary part-sessions in Strasbourg, where it has its seat.

To the extent that it provides for not 12 but 11 ordinary plenary part-sessions in Strasbourg in 1996, the vote of the European Parliament adopting the calendar of part-sessions of the institution for that year must be annulled.