ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Freedom of movement for persons ° Derogations ° Decision concerning the control of foreign nationals ° Decision ordering the expulsion of a Community national lawfully residing in the territory of a Member State ° Examination and opinion procedure before the competent authority ° Obligation to obtain the opinion of the competent authority before the administrative authority takes the decision to expel

(Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1))

2. Freedom of movement for persons ° Derogations ° Decision concerning the control of foreign nationals ° Decision ordering expulsion ° Examination and opinion procedure before the competent authority ° Competent authority ° Necessary condition ° Duties performed in absolute independence ° Appointment by the administrative authority which takes the decision to expel ° Permissible

(Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1))

Summary

1. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it prohibits the administrative authority from taking a decision ordering the expulsion of a Community national lawfully residing in the national territory, whether holding a residence permit or not required to hold one, before a competent authority has given its opinion.

2. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health does not preclude the competent authority required to give an opinion prior to a decision ordering expulsion from being appointed by the same administrative authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion, provided that the competent authority can perform its duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any control by the authority empowered to take the measures provided for in the directive, and that it follows a procedure enabling the person concerned, on the terms laid down by the directive, effectively to present his defence. It is for the national court to determine in each case whether those requirements have been met.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Freedom of establishment ° Freedom to provide services ° Activities in the field of pharmacy ° Directive 85/432 ° Implementation by Member States ° Time-limit ° Postponement by a Member State of the entry into force of new university curricula depriving some qualified persons of the benefit of the mutual recognition of qualifications ° Not permissible

(Council Directive 85/432, Arts 1, 2 and 5)

Summary

A Member State which, by adopting out of time provisions to implement Directive 85/432 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, postpones the time-limit laid down therein for the entry into force of new training curricula meeting the requirements of the directive, with the result that students will follow a course of study whose failure to comply with those requirements precludes the mutual recognition of their qualifications, whereas the belated implementation of the directive does not automatically entail such effects because an additional training programme could have been organized for those students who had commenced their studies after the expiry of the time-limit for transposition but before actual transposition, fails to fulfil its obligations under that directive and particularly under Articles 1, 2 and 5 thereof.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Environment ° Conservation of wild birds ° Directive 79/409 ° Scope ° Subspecies which, in contrast to the corresponding species or other subspecies thereof, occur naturally in the wild only outside the European territory of the Community ° Included

(Council Directive 79/409, Art. 1)

Summary

Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds applies to bird subspecies which occur naturally in the wild only outside the European territory of the Member States if the species to which they belong or other subspecies thereof occur naturally in the wild within the territory in question.

It follows both from the second and third recitals in the preamble to the Directive and from Article 1 thereof, as well as, more generally, from the Directive considered as a whole, that it is intended to provide effective protection for European avifauna and that this protection is centred on the concept of species, a concept which, in avian taxonomy, includes all of a species' subdivisions, such as breeds and subspecies. In view of the fact that the concept of subspecies is not based on distinguishing criteria which are as strict and objective as those defining species inter se, if the scope of the Directive were to be limited to those subspecies which occur within European territory and did not extend to non-European subspecies, it would be difficult to implement the Directive in the Member States, with the consequent risk that it might not be uniformly applied within the Community.

If non-European subspecies could be freely imported into the Community, the risk that exotic subspecies might be released into the wild there, leading possibly to artificial alterations of the natural avifauna occurring in the Community, could not be excluded. This would be incompatible with the objective of safeguarding biological balances mentioned in the second recital in the preamble to the Directive.
When it refers amongst the categories of transport excluded from the scope of its provisions to transport by ‘vehicles used in ... refuse collection and disposal,’ Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport must be interpreted as referring to vehicles used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is not subject to more specific rules and for the transportation of such waste over short distances, within the context of a general service in the public interest provided directly by the public authorities or by private undertakings under their control.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Products processed from fruit and vegetables ° Protective measures applicable to imports of preserved mushrooms ° Levying of an additional amount ° Set at a level effectively prohibiting imports ° Disproportionate financial burden ° Breach of the principle of proportionality ° Unlawful

(Commission Regulation No 2163/92, Art. 1)

Summary

In setting, by Regulation No 2163/92, the flat-rate additional amount to be levied on imports of preserved cultivated mushrooms at a level corresponding to the cost price in the Community of grade 3 preserved mushrooms, the Commission was in breach of the principle of proportionality. Set at such a level, that amount constitutes a charge which substantially increases the cost of imported mushrooms and is thus equivalent to a substantive prohibition of imports exceeding the quantities fixed by the import quota, so that it goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of the said regulation, namely to discourage and thereby considerably limit imports into the Community beyond the quantities laid down. Accordingly Article 1 of Regulation No 2163/92 is invalid as regards the level of the additional amount set.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition ° Dominant position ° Relevant market ° Delimitation ° Criteria

(EC Treaty, Art. 86)

2. Competition ° Dominant position ° Conduct on a neighbouring market to the dominated market ° Application of Article 86 even in the absence of a dominant position on the neighbouring market ° Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 86)

3. Competition ° Dominant position ° Abuse ° System of tied sales

(EC Treaty, Art. 86)

4. Competition ° Dominant position ° Abuse ° Pricing below cost in order to eliminate a competitor

(EC Treaty, Art. 86)

Summary

1. When defining the relevant market for the purpose of applying Article 86 of the Treaty, the competitive conditions and the structure of supply and demand on the market are relevant criteria for determining whether certain products are interchangeable with others.

2. Application of Article 86 presupposes a link between the dominant position and the alleged abusive conduct, which is normally not present where conduct on a market distinct from the dominated market produces effects on that distinct market. In the case of distinct, but associated, markets, application of Article 86 to conduct found on the associated, non-dominated, market and having effects on that associated market can only be justified by special circumstances.

An undertaking which enjoys a quasi-monopoly on certain markets and a leading position on distinct, though closely associated, markets is placed in a situation comparable to that of holding a dominant position on those markets as a whole. Conduct by such an undertaking on those distinct markets which is alleged to be abusive may therefore be covered by Article 86 of the Treaty without any need to show that it is dominant on them.

3. The list of abusive practices set out in the second paragraph of Article 86 of the Treaty is not exhaustive. Consequently, even where tied sales of two products are in accordance with commercial usage or there is a natural link between the two products in question, such sales may still constitute abuse within the meaning of Article 86 unless they are objectively justified.

4. When determining whether an undertaking has practised predatory pricing for the purposes of applying Article 86 of the Treaty, a distinction must be drawn between prices below average variable costs, which must always be considered abusive, and prices below average total costs but above average variable costs, which are only to be considered abusive if an intention to eliminate can be shown.

It would not be appropriate to require in addition, in order to categorize its pricing as predatory, proof that the undertaking concerned had a realistic chance of recouping its losses. It must be possible to penalize predatory pricing whenever there is a risk that competitors will be eliminated.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Proof of failure - Burden of proof on the Commission

(EC Treaty, Art.169)

Summary

In an action under Article 169 of the Treaty to establish the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations, it is incumbent on the Commission to prove the alleged failure to fulfil obligations.
Case C-297/94





Dominique Bruyère and Others

v

Belgian State





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Belgian Conseil d'État)

«(Veterinary medicinal products – Directives 81/851/EEC and 90/676/EEC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Elmer delivered on 17 October 1995

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 21 March 1996

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Preliminary rulings – Questions submitted to the Court – Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions submitted – Determination by the national court – Possibility for the parties to alter the wording of the questions – Not possible

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2.. Approximation of laws – Veterinary medicinal products – Prohibitions laid down by Directive 81/851 – Scope – Parallel application of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty – Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36; Council Directive 81/851, Art. 4, and Council Directives 90/676 and 93/40)

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

28 March 1996

((Compulsory insurance of motor vehicles – Exclusion of damage caused by intoxicated drivers))

In Case C-129/94,

THE COURT (Fifth 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 Spanish Government, represented by Gloria Calvo Díaz, the Greek Government, represented by Panagiotis Kamarineas and Christina Sitara, the United Kingdom, represented by Rhodri Thompson, and the Commission, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca Vilá Costa, of its Legal Service, at the hearing on 7 December 1995,

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Budget of the European Union ° Budgetary procedure ° Absence of agreement between the Council and the Parliament on the modification of the maximum rate of increase in respect of non-compulsory expenditure ° Final adoption of the budget by the President of the Parliament ° Illegal

(EC Treaty, Art. 203(7) and (9))

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Judgment ordering annulment ° Effects ° Limits imposed by the Court ° Invalidity of the budget of the European Union

(EC Treaty, Art. 174, second para.; EAEC Treaty, Art. 147, second para.)

Summary

1. Although the Treaty provides that the maximum rate of increase in respect of non-compulsory expenditure must be fixed by the Commission on the basis of objective factors, no criterion has been laid down for the modification of that rate. According to the fifth subparagraph of Article 203(9), it is sufficient for the Council and the Parliament to come to an agreement. In view of the importance of such an agreement, which confers on the two institutions, acting in concert, the freedom to increase the appropriations in respect of non-compulsory expenditure in excess of the rate declared by the Commission, the existence of that agreement may not be inferred from the presumed intention of one or other of those institutions, and it will not actually exist unless the two institutions have agreed the total amount of expenditure to be classified as non-compulsory; that amount constitutes the basis of the maximum rate of increase.

It follows that, since the Council, through its President, had refused to agree to the new maximum rate of increase in respect of non-compulsory expenditure, as classified by the Parliament, the declaration of the final adoption of the budget by the President of the Parliament is illegal and the budget is invalid.

2. Where, in proceedings brought under Article 173 of the EC Treaty and Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty, the Court finds the budget of the European Union to be invalid at a point in time when the financial year which it covers has for the most part already elapsed, the need to ensure the continuity of the European public service, together with important considerations of legal certainty comparable to those which apply in the event of the annulment of certain regulations, justify the exercise by the Court of the power expressly conferred on it by the second paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty and the second paragraph of Article 147 of the EAEC Treaty, and call for a statement by it as to which of the effects of the budget in issue are to be regarded as definitive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers ° Unemployment ° Unemployed person going to another Member State ° Retention of right to benefit ° Special provision applicable to unemployed persons coming under Belgian legislation ° Requalification for benefits ° Conditions ° Inapplicable to the acquisition, under the conditions laid down by national law, of new benefit entitlements

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 69(4))

Summary

Article 69(4) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 applies not to an unemployed person' s acquisition of entitlement to benefits, but to his requalification for benefits, when he returns to Belgium after the three-month period prescribed by Article 69(1)(c) has expired. Article 69(4) does not permit entitlement to benefits to be denied to unemployed persons who, on the date of their application for benefits, fulfil the conditions imposed by Belgian law for acquisition of such entitlement. Where a worker has exercised the right given to him by Article 69 to seek work in a Member State other than the competent Member State while continuing to receive unemployment benefits, to prevent him from acquiring entitlement to such benefits unless he fulfils the conditions laid down for requalifying therefor after a stay of more than three months outside the competent State, when workers who have not left the competent State do not have to fulfil those conditions, would discriminate against migrant workers and discourage the mobility of persons seeking employment that Article 69 seeks to promote.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments ° Recognition and enforcement ° Grounds for refusal ° Defendant who is not properly served with or notified of the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time and who fails to appear ° Definition of "in default of appearance" ° Defendant unaware of proceedings initiated against him and represented by a lawyer without his authority ° Included ° Remedy available in the State in which judgment was given, allowing it to be contested on the ground of lack of representation ° Not material

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 27(2))

Summary

Where proceedings are initiated against a person without his knowledge and a lawyer appears before the court first seised on his behalf but without his authority, such a person is quite powerless to defend himself and must be regarded as a defendant in default of appearance, within the meaning of Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, even if the proceedings before the court first seised became, in point of form, proceedings inter partes. That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the defendant may apply to have the judgment in question annulled on the ground of lack of representation, since the proper time for a defendant to have an opportunity to defend himself is the time at which proceedings are commenced.

Article 27(2) of the Convention therefore applies to judgments given against a defendant who was not duly served with, or notified of, the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time and who was not validly represented during those proceedings, albeit the judgments given were not given in default of appearance because someone purporting to represent the defendant appeared before the court first seised.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Sugar ° Offsetting of storage costs ° Levy imposed on manufacturers ° Materialization of the obligation to pay the levy ° Disposal of the sugar

(Council Regulations No 1358/77, Art. 6(4), and No 1785/81, Art. 8(2), third subpara. (a))

2. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Sugar ° Basic production levy ° Additional levy on the B quota ° Materialization of the obligation to pay the levies ° End of each marketing year

(Council Regulation No 1785/81, Art. 28(3) and (4))

3. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Sugar ° Elimination levy ° Materialization of the obligation to pay the levy ° End of each of the marketing years from 1986/87 to 1990/91

(Council Regulation No 1785/81, Art. 32a(1), as amended by Regulation No 934/86; Commission Regulation No 3046/86, Art. 1(1))

4. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Sugar ° Special elimination levy ° Materialization of the obligation to pay the levy ° End of the 1986/87 marketing year

(Council Regulation No 1914/87, Art. 1; Commission Regulation No 3061/87, Arts 1 and 2)

Summary

1. Article 8(2), third subparagraph (a), of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector and Article 6(4) of Regulation No 1358/77 laying down general rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation No 750/68 must be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay the storage levy are satisfied when the sugar is disposed of.

2. Article 28(3) and (4) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay the basic production levy and the additional levy on the B quota are satisfied when sugar production is calculated at the end of each marketing year.

3. Article 32a(1) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector, as amended by Regulation No 934/86, and Article 1(1) of Regulation No 3046/86 laying down detailed rules concerning the collection of the elimination levy in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay the elimination levy are satisfied when sugar production is calculated at the end of each of the marketing years from 1986/87 to 1990/91.

4. Article 1 of Regulation No 1914/87 introducing a special elimination levy in the sugar sector for the 1986/87 marketing year and Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 3061/87 fixing the coefficient for the calculation of that levy must be interpreted as meaning that the prescribed conditions for materialization of the obligation to pay the special elimination levy are satisfied when sugar production is calculated at the end of the 1986/87 marketing year.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Special jurisdiction - Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation - Contract of employment - Place where the employee habitually carries out his work - Meaning - Work carried out in more than one Contracting State

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1), as amended by the 1989 Accession Convention)

Summary

Article 5(1) 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 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the performance of a contract of employment, an employee carries out his work in several Contracting States, the place where he habitually carries out his work, within the meaning of that provision, is the place where he has established the effective centre of his working activities. When identifying that place, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the employee spends most of his working time in one of the Contracting States in which he has an office where he organizes his activities for his employer and to which he returns after each business trip abroad.