ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - National court within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty - Court whose jurisdiction covers an overseas country or territory

( EEC Treaty, Art . 177 )

2 . Association of overseas countries and territories - Right of nationals of other Member States to enter and reside in an overseas country or territory on a non-discriminatory basis - Application confined to the field of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services

( Council Decision 86/283, Art . 176 )

3 . Association of overseas countries and territories - Exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services by nationals of other Member States - Prohibition of discrimination - Direct effect - Conditions

( Council Decision 86/283, Art . 176 )

Summary

1 . As a court or tribunal of a Member State, a court whose jurisdiction covers an overseas country or territory associated with the Community may request a preliminary ruling in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 177 of the Treaty .

2 . The arrangements governing matters of establishment and provision of services in the overseas countries and territories, including the prerequisite right to enter and reside in those countries and territories, must, under Article 176 of Decision 86/283, be applied without discrimination only to nationals of Member States who actually carry on or seek to carry on an activity as a self-employed person under the same conditions as those applied to nationals of the Member State of which the overseas country or territory in question is a dependency, subject to the condition of reciprocity laid down in that article . They do not, however, extend to the entry into and residence in those countries and territories of other nationals of Member States who do not carry on or seek to carry on an activity as a self-employed person .

3 . The prohibition of discrimination laid down by Article 176 of Decision 86/283 may be relied on before the relevant authorities of a country or a territory by a national of a Member State other than the one with which that country or territory maintains special relations, for the purpose of establishing himself or providing services there, provided that the person concerned satisfies the conditions required of nationals not established in that country or territory and if the Member State of which he is a national accords the same treatment to persons from the country or territory in question .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Access to education for a worker' s children - Studies pursued in a State other than the host State - Entitlement to the grant awarded by the host State to its nationals in the event of studies abroad - Studies pursued in the Member State of which the person concerned is a national - No effect

( Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council, Art . 12 )

Summary

Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 lays down a general rule which, in matters of education, requires every Member State to ensure equal treatment between its own nationals and the children of workers who are nationals of another Member State established within its territory . Accordingly, where a Member State gives its nationals the opportunity to obtain a grant in respect of education or training provided abroad, the child of a Community worker must enjoy the same advantage if he decides to pursue his studies outside the host State .

That interpretation cannot be invalidated by the fact that a person seeking education or training decides to follow a course in the Member State of which he is a national . Neither the condition of residence laid down by Article 12 nor the objective pursued by Regulation No 1612/68 justifies such a restriction which, moreover, would lead to another form of discrimination against the children of Community workers by comparison with nationals of the host Member State .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1. Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not acceptable

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Application for failure to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court finding such failure - Period for compliance

(EEC Treaty, Art. 171)

Operative part

(1) Declares that, by failing to take the measures needed to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 April 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EEC Treaty;

(2) Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Case C-334/89

Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic

‛Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conservation of wild birds’

Report for the Hearing

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 8 November 1990 98

Judgment of the Court, 17 January 1991 102

Summary of the Judgment

Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Implementation by the Member States — Obligation to identify the species covered by special protection measures which occur in the national territory

(Council Directive 79/409/EEC, Art. 4(1) and Annex I, as amended by Commission Directive 8 5/411/EEC)

In connection with the allocation of responsibilities with regard to the conservation of wild birds under Directive 79/409, it is for the various Member States to identify, amongst the species listed in Annex I, as amended by Directive 85/411, those which occur in their territory and must therefore be the subject of the special protective and conservation measures required by Article 4(1).
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1. Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure - Justification - Not acceptable

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Measures adopted by the Community institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Need for complete transposition - Prospect of a new directive being adopted - Immaterial

(EEC Treaty, Art. 189, third paragraph)

Operative part

(1) Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 84/539/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electro-medical equipment used in human or veterinary medicine or at least by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

(2) Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Adoption of coordinating directives in the field of the freedom of establishment - Sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law

(EEC Treaty, Art. 215, second paragraph)

2. Free movement of persons - Freedom of establishment - Taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance - Directives 73/239 and 87/343 - Scope - Exclusion of public export credit insurance operations - Lawfulness

(EEC Treaty, Art. 57(2): Council Directives 73/239 and 87/343)

Summary

1. The adoption of directives for the coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action of the Member States concerning the taking up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons provided for by Article 57(2) of the Treaty is generally difficult, and for that reason, in this field, the competent Community institutions must be recognized as enjoying a discretion in relation to the stages in which harmonization is to take place.

Consequently, as is the case with the rules governing the Community' s liability in respect of legislative acts involving choices of economic policy, the unlawfulness of a coordinating directive is not in itself sufficient to establish the Community' s non-contractual liability. There is no non-contractual liability on the part of the Community unless there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual and the institutions concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of their powers.

2. The exclusion of public export credit insurance operations from the scope of Directive 73/239, introduced by that directive and maintained by Directive 87/343, is not discriminatory because it takes account of the differences resulting from the legal and factual situation existing at one stage of the process of coordinating the national provisions in the field of insurance. In such operations and at that stage, protection for insured and third parties, which the abovementioned directives seek to provide, is provided by the State itself, so that the obligation to provide financial guarantees, prescribed by the directive for other export credit insurance operations, is not justified.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Oils and fats - Subsidy for oil seeds - Fixing at an excessively high level following the application of an incorrect exchange rate for the ECU - Correction with retroactive effect by the Commission - Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 1594/83, Article 8, as amended by Regulation No 935/86)

2. Acts of the institutions - Withdrawal - Unlawful measures - Conditions

Summary

1. Article 8 of Regulation No 1594/83 on the subsidy for oil seeds, as amended by Regulation No 935/86, which allows the suspension of advance fixing of the subsidy in the case of certificates applied for and not yet issued, in particular where there is a material error as regards the amount of the subsidy which is published, does not operate to prevent the Commission from correcting with retroactive effect an error in the level of the rate for converting the subsidy expressed in ECU into the currency of the processing country which renders the amount of the subsidy incorrect.

2. While it must be acknowledged that any Community institution which establishes that a measure which it has just adopted is tainted with illegality has the right to withdraw it within a reasonable period, with retroactive effect, that right may be restricted by the need to fulfil the legitimate expectations of a beneficiary of the measure, who has been led to rely on the lawfulness thereof.

The withdrawal of a measure vitiated by a manifest error which cannot have escaped the attention of the traders concerned, carried out less than three months after a judgment of the Court has revealed the need for it, is not open to criticism in the light of the above requirements.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Fisheries - Conservation of the resources of the sea - Community powers - Measures for monitoring catches linked with conservation policy - Applicability to catches made outside the Community fishing zone - Member States' obligations as regards monitoring

(Council Regulations Nos 2057/82 and 2241/87)

Summary

In the exercise of its independent powers to take measures for the conservation of the biological resources of the sea, the Community is authorized to regulate catches made outside the Community fishing zone. The restriction of fishing possibilities outside the Community zone is essential in the light of the actual objectives of the common fisheries policy, given that consideration solely of the stock found in Community waters would scarcely be effective and would undermine the objective of conserving the species concerned, since those species would not be subject to any quotas once they moved outside the Community zone. Accordingly, the Community was entitled to require Member States to apply the control measures laid down by Regulations Nos 2057/82 and 2241/87 to catches made outside the Community fishing zone of stocks subject to a total allowable catch or quota.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom to provide services - Lawyers - Directive 77/249 - Implementation - Persons covered - Exclusion of nationals practising as lawyers in another Member State - Not permissible - Obligation to work in conjunction with a local lawyer - Scope - Procedures - Rule applicable to local lawyers concerning the territorial exclusivity of the right to plead - Not applicable to a lawyer providing services

(EEC Treaty, Arts 59 and 60; Council Directive 77/249)

Summary

The French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty and Directive 77/249 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services by:

(i) depriving French nationals who practise as lawyers in a Member State other than the French Republic of the benefit of the provisions on freedom for lawyers to provide services in France;

(ii) requiring a lawyer providing services to work in conjunction with a lawyer who is a member of a French Bar when acting before authorities or bodies which have no judicial function and when acting in situations where French law does not make the assistance of a lawyer compulsory; and

(iii) requiring a lawyer providing services who appears before a Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), in civil cases where it is compulsory to be represented by a lawyer, to retain a lawyer who is a member of the Bar of that court or is authorized to plead before it in order to plead or carry out the procedural formalities.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common commercial policy ° Protection against dumping ° Injury ° Establishment of causal link ° Obligations of the institutions ° Account taken of factors unconnected with dumping

(Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4(1))

Summary

Under Article 4(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (No 2423/88), the Council and the Commission are under an obligation, when determining the injury, to consider whether the injury caused to the Community industry actually derived from dumped imports. By virtue of that provision, they must disregard any injury deriving from other factors, in particular from the conduct of Community producers themselves.

It cannot be concluded that the Community institutions have properly determined the injury if none of the information produced to the Court shows that they actually considered whether the Community industry itself might have contributed to the injury through its refusal to supply the operator who obtained dumped imports and that they established that the factors, unconnected with any dumping, alleged by that importer were not the cause of the injury established.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Defence based on the argument that the period for transposition laid down in the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal is unjust and inappropriate - Not acceptable

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169; Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, Arts 392 and 395)

Summary

A Member State may not justify a failure to fulfil its obligations in not implementing a directive within the prescribed period by pleading that in its case that period, as set by Articles 392 and 395 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, was neither fair nor appropriate in that its expiry coincided with the date of accession: Acts of Accession are not acts of the institutions the validity of whose provisions can be challenged before the Court.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Provision suspending the application to Gibraltar airport of the directive concerning the authorization of scheduled inter-regional air services for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between Member States ° Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Directive 89/463, Art. 2(2))

Summary

Article 2(2) of Directive 89/463 concerning the authorization of scheduled inter-regional air services for the transport of passengers, mail and cargo between Member States, which suspends the application of that directive to Gibraltar airport until the cooperation arrangements for that airport agreed between the Governments of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom come into operation, cannot be regarded as constituting a decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so that an action for its annulment brought by a natural or legal person is inadmissible.

Where an instrument contains limitations or derogations which are temporary or territorial in nature, they form an integral part of the provisions as a whole within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, are of the same general nature as those provisions. The suspension by the said article of the application of the directive, which is itself of general application, affects equally all air carriers wishing to operate a direct inter-regional air service between another Community airport and Gibraltar airport and, more generally, all those using the latter airport. Furthermore, apart from the fact that Gibraltar airport is not the only airport to have been temporarily excluded from the scheme of the directive, the said suspension merely reflects the consequences of the existence of an objective obstacle, arising from differences between two Member States, to the immediate application of the directive to Gibraltar airport.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers - Unemployed person going to another Member State - Maintenance of entitlement to benefits - Limits - Unemployed person not subject lastly to the legislation of the Member State of residence - Refusal to pay unemployment benefits for more than three months - Permissible

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 67(3), 69 and 70)

Summary

The Community legislation applicable to the grant of unemployment benefits to unemployed persons residing in a Member State other than the competent Member State, in particular Articles 67(3), 69 and 70 of Regulation No 1408/71, does not preclude a Member State from refusing to grant a worker unemployment benefit for more than the maximum period of three months laid down in Article 69 of that regulation when the worker has not completed lastly periods of insurance or employment in that Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods - Derogations - Protection of public health - Prohibition on the marketing of a foodstuff containing a certain preservative - Justification - Conditions and limits

( EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36; Council Directive 64/54 )

Summary

Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the marketing of a foodstuff which has been imported from another Member State where it is lawfully produced and marketed and to which one of the substances listed in the annex to Council Directive 64/54/EEC, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the preservatives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption, has been added, provided that the principle of proportionality underlying the last sentence of Article 36 is observed . This means that, in the Member State of importation, the marketing of that foodstuff must be authorized under a procedure which is readily accessible to manufacturers and traders and which can be completed within a reasonable period, where the addition of the substance in question meets a genuine need - in particular a technological need - and represents no danger to public health . It is for the competent national authorities to show in each case, in the light of national eating habits and with due regard to the results of international scientific research, that their rules are necessary in order to give effective protection to the interests referred to in Article 36 of the Treaty .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Prohibition - Scope - Measures applicable without distinction

(EEC Treaty Arts 59 and 60)

2. Freedom to provide services - Restrictions justified in the public interest - Permissibility - Conditions

(EEC Treaty, Art. 59)

3. Freedom to provide services - Activities relating to the maintenance of industrial property rights - Requirement for a particular professional qualification - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 59)

Summary

1. Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against a person providing services on the grounds of his nationality, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services. In particular, a Member State may not make the provision of services in its territory subject to compliance with all the conditions required for establishment and thereby deprive of all practical effectiveness the provisions of the Treaty whose object is, precisely, to guarantee the freedom to provide services. Such a restriction is all the less permissible where, unlike the situation governed by the third paragraph of Article 60 of the Treaty, the service is supplied without its being necessary for the person providing it to visit the territory of the Member State where it is provided.

2. Having regard to the particular characteristics of the provisions of services in certain sectors of activity, specific requirements imposed on the provider, which result from the application of rules governing those types of activities, cannot be regarded as incompatible with the Treaty. However, as a fundamental principle of the Treaty, the freedom to provide services may be limited only by provisions which are justified by imperative reasons relating to the public interest and which apply to all persons or undertakings pursuing an activity in the State of destination, in so far as that interest is not protected by the rules to which the person providing the services is subject in the Member State in which he is established. In particular, those requirements must be objectively necessary in order to ensure compliance with professional rules and to guarantee the protection of the recipient of services and they must not exceed what is necessary to attain those objectives.

3. Article 59 of the EEC Treaty precludes provisions of a Member State which prohibit a company established in another Member State from providing patent-owners in the territory of the first State with a service for monitoring those patents and renewing them by payment of the requisite fees, on the ground that, by virtue of those provisions, such activities are reserved to persons holding a special professional qualification, such as a qualification as patent agent.