ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Subject-matter of the action - Determination by the reasoned opinion - Period allowed to a Member State - Subsequent termination of the infringement - Interest in continuing the action - Possible liability of the Member State

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Packaging and labelling - Directive 76/768/EEC - Exhaustive harmonization - National rules imposing obligations not provided for by the directive - Impermissibility

(Council Directive 76/768/EEC, Art. 7(1) and (3))

Summary

1. The subject-matter of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty is determined by the Commission' s reasoned opinion and even where the default has been remedied after the time-limit prescribed in the second paragraph of that article has expired there is still an interest in pursuing the action in order to establish the basis of liability which a Member State may incur, as a result of its default towards other Member States, the Community or private parties.

2. Directive 76/768 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products has provided exhaustively for the harmonization of national rules on the packaging and labelling of those products. Accordingly, a Member State which subjects the marketing of cosmetic products to the lodging with the competent national authorities of a declaration containing information other than that which it may require under Article 7(3) of the directive and which requires that any manufacturer or person responsible for the marketing of a cosmetic product should keep at the seat of his undertaking in the Member State concerned a file for each product manufactured or imported containing all particulars relating to the composition, properties and description of the product, to the formal record of the manufacture and inspection of each batch and to the method adopted for such inspection, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Exclusive jurisdiction - Proceedings relating to tenancies of immovable property - Concept - Letting of holiday accommodation by a business organizing travel - Not applicable - Conditions

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 16(1))

Summary

Article 16(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is to be interpreted as not applying to a contract concluded in a Contracting State whereby a business organizing travel with its seat in that State undertakes to procure for a client domiciled in the same State the use for several weeks of holiday accommodation not owned by it in another Contracting State, and to book the travel arrangements. A complex contract of that type, which concerns a range of services provided in return for a lump sum paid by the customer, is outside the scope within which the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 16(1) finds its raison d' être and cannot constitute a "tenancy agreement" within the meaning of that provision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Right of entry and residence for nationals of Member States ° Return to a Member State of one of its nationals who has exercised his right of free movement ° Right of residence of that person' s spouse

(EEC Treaty, Art. 52; Council Directive 73/148)

Summary

The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and preclude measures which might place Community citizens at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State. For that purpose, nationals of Member States have in particular the right, which they derive directly from Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, to enter and reside in the territory of other Member States in order to pursue an economic activity there as envisaged by those provisions.

A national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity as an employed or self-employed person in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national in order to pursue an activity there as an employed or self-employed person, his conditions were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under Community law in the territory of another Member State. He would in particular be deterred from so doing if his spouse and children were not also permitted to enter and reside in the territory of that State under conditions at least equivalent to those granted by Community law in the territory of another Member State.

The fact that a national of a Member State enters and resides in the territory of that State by virtue of the rights attendant upon his nationality, without its being necessary for him to rely on his rights under Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty, does not preclude him from relying on the latter rights when he takes up residence again in that Member State.

Consequently, Article 52 of the Treaty and Directive 73/148 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services must be construed as requiring a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the territory of the State of which he or she is a national. The spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered or resided in the territory of another Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Commission decision reducing the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to a vocational training programme

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

Whilst in the context of the original application for assistance from the European Social Fund, a summary statement of the reasons for the Commission' s refusal to grant assistance satisfies the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty, a decision reducing the amount of assistance originally granted must, on the other hand, since it entails more serious consequences for the applicant, clearly state the grounds justifying the reduction of the assistance in relation to the amount originally approved.

That requirement is not satisfied by a decision based on the fact that certain items of expenditure incurred were not approved on the grant of the assistance, where no detailed and specific decision of approval had been notified and no indication was given of the manner in which the amount of the reduction notified to the recipient was arrived at.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Milk and milk products ° Additional levy on milk ° Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy ° Producers who suspended deliveries of milk under the system of non-marketing or conversion premiums ° Grant of a special reference quantity ° Rule against overlapping barring transferees of a non-marketing or conversion premium who obtained a reference quantity under other provisions of the additional levy scheme ° Principle of protection of legitimate expectations ° Infringement

(Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, Art. 3a(1))

Summary

The rules laid down by Regulation No 857/84 on the additional levy on milk had to take account of the fact that a producer who has taken over a holding subject to a non-marketing or conversion undertaking pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77 together with the obligations entered into by his predecessor and has accordingly been paid the balance of the premium in accordance with Article 6 of that regulation, was legitimately entitled, in exactly the same way as a producer who was bound by such an undertaking throughout the non-marketing or conversion period, to expect not to be subject to subsequent restrictions specifically affecting him on account of that undertaking.

However, the rule against overlapping in the second indent of Article 3a(1) of Regulation No 857/84, according to which allocation of a special reference quantity is restricted to producers bound by an undertaking given pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77 who have not otherwise obtained a reference quantity on the terms prescribed by other rules of the additional levy system, imposes precisely such restrictions on that category of producers in so far as it bars them from obtaining a reference quantity in respect of the holding for which the said undertaking was given, whereas no such prohibition of overlapping is laid down for producers who were not bound by such an undertaking during the reference year. That provision therefore frustrates the legitimate expectation which the producers concerned were entitled to entertain as to the limited nature of their undertakings, which they entered into before the system of the additional levy on milk came into force, and is, to that extent, invalid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

State aid ° Prohibition ° Exceptions ° Duty of Member State requesting derogation to collaborate with the Commission

(EEC Treaty, Art. 92(2))

Summary

A Member State which seeks to be allowed to grant aid by way of derogation from the Treaty rules has a duty to collaborate with the Commission. In pursuance of that duty, it must in particular provide all the information to enable the Commission to verify that the conditions for the derogation sought are fulfilled.
Judgment of the Court of 25 July 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Failure to comply with a directive - Labelling and advertising of foodstuffs. - Case C-32/90.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-04189

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

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

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Approximation of laws - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 79/112 - National legislation requiring the date of manufacture and the place of production to be indicated - Not permissible

(Council Directive 79/112)

Parties

In Case C-32/90,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Sergio Fabro, a member of the Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Guido Berardis, also a member of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Italian Republic, represented by I.M. Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adélaïde,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by requiring manufacturers of extruded pasta products to state on the label the date of manufacture and the place of origin or provenance of the product, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty and points 4 and 7 of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (Official Journal 1979 L 33, p. 1),

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, M. Díez de Velasco (Presidents of Chambers), C.N. Kakouris, F.A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg and P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges,

(The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced.)

hereby rules:

Operative part

1. By requiring manufacturers of extruded pasta products to state on the label the date of manufacture and the place of origin or provenance of the product, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under points 4 and 7 of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (Official Journal 1979 L 33, p. 1);

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty ° Goods carried in travellers' personal luggage ° Remission of value added tax on exportation ° Community rules requiring production of an invoice or a document in lieu thereof ° National rules requiring production of a special document ° Not permissible

(Council Directives 69/169, Art. 6(4) and 77/388, Art. 22(8))

Summary

A Member State which, for the purpose of remission of value added tax on goods being exported in travellers' personal luggage, exclusively requires compulsory presentation of a document known as a "special invoice" in an official standard form, thereby preventing the exercise of that right by travellers who are in possession of an ordinary invoice which duly complies with Spanish legislation and with the Sixth Council Directive ° 77/388 ° on turnover taxes fails to fulfil its obligations under Directive 69/169 relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel.

On the one hand, in the field covered by Directive 69/169, the Member States, which retain only the limited powers granted them by the actual provisions of the directive, cannot rely on any of its provisions in order to require a special document as evidence, whereas Article 6(4) of the directive demands only the production of an invoice or other document in lieu thereof. On the other hand any such requirement exceeds the limits of what is authorized by Article 22(8) of the aforesaid Sixth Directive as regards the need to ensure that the tax is correctly levied, and is of such a nature as to make the exercise of the right to remission of tax very difficult and to give rise to double taxation, whereas the objective of the relevant provisions is precisely to avoid double taxation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Import and export licences and advance ° fixing certificates ° Explanatory notice published by the Commission for the benefit of traders ° Document for information ° No binding effect

2. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Sugar ° Exports to non-member countries ° System of standing invitation to tender ° Advance fixing of the refund ° Refund set out on the export licence in the currency of a Member State ° Refund awarded in ECU ° Use of the export licence in another Member State ° Rules for conversion into the currency of that State ° Application to the amount in ECU of the representative rate applicable at the time of completion of customs export formalities

(Commission Regulations No 2382/84, No 2976/84 and No 3067/84)

Summary

1. The Commission' s Notice of 11 March 1981 on import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products, published in the C Series of the Official Journal of the European Communities and intended to make it easier for the customs authorities and for traders to complete the formalities laid down in the Community rules on trade in agricultural produce between the Community and non-member countries, is in the nature of a document for information and does not constitute a binding act which by itself would enable the national authorities to rely on the conversion rules set out therein as against traders.

2. Under the Community rules on export refunds for white sugar determined by means of a standing invitation to tender, the monetary conversion of an export refund fixed in advance and set out on the export licence in the currency of the Member State in which the tender is submitted but awarded in ECU is to be carried out, where the licence is used in another Member State, between that amount in ECU and the national currency of the exporting Member State at the representative rate applicable at the time of completion of customs export formalities.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins ° Aid for products used in the manufacture of animal feed ° Non-payment of the full amount of the minimum price by the first buyer ° Conditions for the granting of aid

(Commission Regulation No 3540/85)

Summary

Regulation No 3540/85 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins must be interpreted as meaning that, should the minimum price not have been paid to the producer in full, the first buyer is in principle not entitled to receive the aid provided. That aid may, however, be received once the first buyer has paid the producer an additional sum to make up the minimum price.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Member States ° Obligations ° Implementation of directives ° Failure ° Justification ° Existence in the directive not transposed of a provision authorizing Member States to apply transitional measures ° No justification

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 189, third para.)

Summary

A Member State cannot, as justification for failure to transpose a directive within the prescribed period, rely on a provision in the directive which authorizes Member States to apply transitional measures for a specified period after implementation of the directive at national level. Acceptance of such an argument would lead to prolongation of the period allowed for transposition of the directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Sugar ° Import levies ° Collection on goods of Community origin stolen during storage under customs control with a view to export to third countries ° Not permissible

(Regulation No 3330/74 of the Council, Art. 15)

Summary

Article 15 of Regulation No 3330/74 on the common organization of the market in sugar must be interpreted as meaning that no import levy is payable on goods of Community origin which were stolen whilst placed under the T 1 regime (external Community transit) for export to third countries conferring a right to export refunds, where the export refunds previously obtained have already been repaid.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Free movement of goods ° Customs duties ° Charges having equivalent effect ° Internal taxation ° Compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge applied to domestic and imported products but benefiting only the former ° Basis for classification

(EEC Treaty, Arts 12 and 95)

2. Free movement of goods ° Customs duties ° Charges having equivalent effect ° Internal taxation ° Treaty rules ° Direct effect

(EEC Treaty, Arts 12, 13 and 95)

3. State aid ° Concept ° Compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge applied to domestic and imported products but benefiting only the former ° Included ° Conditions ° Jurisdiction of the national courts ° Scope

(EEC Treaty, Arts 92 and 93)

Summary

1. A compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge, applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the burden borne by those products, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties prohibited by Article 12 of the Treaty. If those advantages only partly offset the burden borne by domestic products, such a charge constitutes discriminatory taxation within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty, the collection of which is prohibited as regards the proportion used to offset the burden borne by domestic products.

2. Articles 12, 13 and 95 of the Treaty have direct effect and create rights for individuals which the national courts must protect.

3. A compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge, applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the burden borne by those products, may, depending on how the revenue from it is used, constitute State aid incompatible with the common market if the conditions for the application of Article 92 of the Treaty are met, that being a matter for the Commission to determine in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 93 of the Treaty. In that respect, regard must be had to the jurisdiction of the national courts where, in introducing that charge, the Member State concerned failed to comply with its obligations under Article 93(3) of the Treaty, and where a Commission decision under Article 93(2) of the Treaty has found the levying of the charge as a method of financing State aid to be incompatible with the common market.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Beef and veal ° Private-storage aid ° Available at the same time as the advance payment of export refunds ° Introduction of a special period when products for which refunds have been received whilst they were under private storage arrangements may remain under a customs-warehousing or free-zone procedure ° No effect on the starting point of the period for which they may remain under a customs procedure

(Commission Regulations No 798/80, Art. 11(2), and No 2267/84, Art. 6(2))

Summary

Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2267/84 providing for the grant of private-storage aid for beef and veal derogates from Article 11(2) of Regulation No 798/80, which sets the time-limit within which goods qualifying for the advance payment of export refunds may remain under customs-warehousing or free-zone procedures, in that it increases from six to twelve months the period for which products or goods covered by a private storage contract under Regulation No 2267/84 may at the same time remain under either of those customs procedures. Article 6(2) does not, however, affect the starting point of the period for which, under Article 11(2), they may remain under a customs procedure, even where the operation of putting into storage for the purposes of private-storage aid is not yet complete when that period starts. It follows that, in such circumstances, the period for which products or goods covered by a private-storage contract may at the same time be covered by a customs-warehousing or free-zone procedure expires before the period which the exporter is obliged to observe for the purposes of the private- storage aid which was granted to him.