ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations — Judicious use of certain birds in small numbers — Hunting of wild birds for recreational purposes — Included — (Council Directive 79/409, Arts 7(4) and 9(1)(c))

2. Environment — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409 — Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations — Judicious use of certain birds in small numbers — Conditions — (Council Directive 79/409, Art. 9(1)(c))

Summary

1. Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds permits a Member State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives set out in Article 7(4) of that directive. In that connection, the hunting of wild birds for recreational purposes during the periods mentioned in Article 7(4) of the Directive may constitute a judicious use of certain birds in small numbers authorised by Article 9(1)(c) of that directive, as do the capture and sale of wild birds even outside the hunting season with a view to keeping them for use as live decoys or to using them for recreational purposes in fairs and markets.

see paras 11-12, operative part 1

2. Article 9 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds must be interpreted as allowing hunting to be authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) where there is no other satisfactory solution. That condition would not be met, inter alia, if the sole purpose of the derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting periods for certain species of birds in territories which they already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in accordance with Article 7 of the Directive.

Further, hunting must be carried out under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis and must apply only to certain birds in small numbers. The latter condition cannot be satisfied if a hunting derogation does not ensure the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a satisfactory level. If that condition is not fulfilled, the use of birds for recreational hunting cannot, in any event, be considered judicious and, accordingly, acceptable for the purposes of the directive.

Finally, the measures under which hunting is authorised must specify the species which are subject to the derogations, the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing, the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which such derogations may be granted, the authority empowered to declare that the required conditions obtain and to decide what means, arrangements or methods may be used, within what limits and by whom, and the controls which will be carried out.

see paras 15, 17-19, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Consumer protection in respect of consumer credit – Directive 87/102 – Consumer information – Obligation to provide information before each renewal of a credit agreement – None

(Council Directive 87/102)

Summary

Directive 87/02 for the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit does not require, before each renewal, on the existing terms and conditions, of a credit agreement for a specified period entered in the form of a credit facility that may be drawn down in instalments and is linked to a credit card, that is repayable in monthly instalments and bears an interest rate that is expressed to be variable, that the lender inform the borrower in writing of the current annual percentage rate of charge and of the conditions under which the latter may be amended.

(see para. 39, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff — Classification of goods — Binding tariff information — Withdrawal where the customs authorities change the interpretation of the provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned — Whether permissible — (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii))

Summary

Article 9(1) read in conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation No 82/97, must be interpreted as meaning that they provide the customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing a binding tariff information (BTI) where those authorities change the interpretation given therein of the legal provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned.

First, in those provisions, the Community legislature has unequivocally provided that a BTI ceases to be valid where one of the conditions set for its issue was not or is no longer fulfilled. Secondly, since the issue of a BTI is subject to proper justification for the interpretation by the customs authorities of the legal provisions applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned, those authorities are entitled to consider, where it appears to them that that interpretation is wrong, that one of the conditions laid down for the issue of a BTI is no longer fulfilled and to revoke that BTI with a view to amending the tariff classification of the goods concerned.

see paras 23-25, 28, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Obligation on the competent authorities to draw up one or more waste management plans – Suitable disposal sites or installations – Obligation, for purposes of issuing a permit, to mark them on a geographical map or to determine location criteria which are sufficiently precise

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Council Directive 91/156, Arts 7 and 9)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Obligation on Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period – Scope

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 7(1) and Council Directive 91/156, Art. 2(1), first subpara.)

3. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442 – Failure to draw up within the prescribed period one or more waste management plans relating to suitable disposal sites or installations – Issue of individual operating permits – Whether permissible

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Arts 4, 5, 7 and 9)

Summary

1. Article 7 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted to mean that the management plan or plans which the competent authorities of the Member States are required to draw up under that provision must include either a geographical map specifying the exact location of waste disposal sites or location criteria which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9 of the directive to determine whether the site or installation in question falls within the management framework provided for by the plan.

(see para. 35, operative part. 1)

2. Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to draw up waste management plans within a reasonable period, which may go beyond the time-limit for transposing Directive 91/156 laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the latter.

(see para. 38, operative part 2)

3. Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, read in conjunction with Article 9 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State which has not adopted, within the period prescribed, one or more waste management plans relating to suitable sites or installations for waste disposal from issuing individual permits to operate such sites and installations.

(see para. 46, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ – Place where the harmful event occurred – Definition – Place of domicile of claimant who has suffered financial loss arising from capital investments in another Contracting State – Excluded

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(3))

Summary

Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcements of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ does not refer to the place where the claimant is domiciled or where his ‘assets are concentrated’ by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose and was incurred in another Contracting State.

The term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere. First, such an interpretation would mean that the determination of the court having jurisdiction would depend on matters that were uncertain and would thus run counter to the strengthening of the legal protection of persons established in the Community which, by enabling the claimant to identify easily the court in which he may sue and the defendant reasonably to foresee in which court he may be sued, is one of the objectives of the Convention. Second, it would be liable in most cases to give jurisdiction to the courts of the place in which the claimant was domiciled. The Convention does not favour that solution except in cases where it expressly so provides.

(see paras 19-21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Injunction granted by a court of a Contracting State prohibiting a party from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court in another Contracting State – Not permissible – Incompatible with the principle of mutual cooperation underlying the Convention

(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968)

Summary

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, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings.

Such an injunction constitutes interference with the jurisdiction of the foreign court which, as such, is incompatible with the system of the Convention. That interference cannot be justified by the fact that it is only indirect and is intended to prevent an abuse of process by the party concerned, because the judgment made as to the abusive nature of that conduct implies an assessment of the appropriateness of bringing proceedings before a court of another Member State, which runs counter to the principle of mutual trust which underpins the Convention and prohibits a court, except in special cases occurring only at the stage of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, from reviewing the jurisdiction of the court of another Member State.

(see paras 26-28, 31, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – National legislation providing that full-time and part-time teachers are entitled to overtime remuneration only when they have worked the same number of additional hours – Not permissible – Conditions – Indirect discrimination against women employed part-time

(Art. 141 EC; Council Directive 75/117, Art. 1)

Summary

Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that teachers, part-time as well as full-time, do not receive any remuneration for additional hours worked when the additional work does not exceed three hours per calendar month, if that different treatment affects considerably more women than men and if there is no objective unrelated to sex which justifies that different treatment or it is not necessary to achieve the objective pursued.

(see para. 19, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Prohibition on the advertising of alcoholic beverages during the television broadcast of sporting events – Justified on the grounds of public health

(EC Treaty, Arts 56(1) and 59 (now, after amendment, Arts 46(1) EC and 49 EC))

Summary

By making television broadcasting in a Member State by French television channels of sporting events taking place in other Member States conditional on the prior removal of advertising for alcoholic beverages, the Member State concerned has not failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).

It is true that such rules on television advertising constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty. They entail a restriction on freedom to provide advertising services in so far as the owners of the advertising hoardings must refuse, as a preventive measure, any advertising for alcoholic beverages if the sporting event is likely to be retransmitted in the Member State concerned. They also impede the provision of broadcasting services for television programmes, since broadcasters in that Member State must refuse all retransmission of sporting events in which hoardings bearing advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State may be visible, and the organisers of sporting events taking place abroad cannot sell the retransmission rights to those broadcasters if the transmission of the television programmes of such events is likely to contain indirect television advertising for those alcoholic beverages.

However, such rules on television advertising pursue an objective relating to the protection of public health within the meaning of Article 56(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 46(1) EC) since the measures restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages in order to combat alcohol abuse reflect public health concerns.

Furthermore, such rules are appropriate to ensure that aim and they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve such an objective. They limit the situations in which hoardings advertising alcoholic beverages may be seen on television and are therefore likely to restrict the broadcasting of such advertising, thus reducing the occasions on which television viewers might be encouraged to consume alcoholic beverages.

(see paras 26, 30-31)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons – Social security for migrant workers – Community rules – Material scope – Compensation for ex-prisoners of war – Excluded

(Art. 39(2) EC; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2), and Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(4))

Summary

Article 39(2) EC, Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which refuses to grant an allowance in favour of former prisoners of war on the ground that the applicant did not hold the nationality of the Member State involved when the application was made, but that of another Member State.

Having regard to its aim and the conditions for its grant, such an allowance is covered by Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1408/71, which provides that it does not apply to ‘benefit schemes for victims of war or its consequences’, so that it is excluded from the material scope of that regulation.

Furthermore, such an allowance does not fall within the category of advantages granted to national workers principally because of their status as workers or national residents and, as a result, does not fulfil the essential characteristics of the ‘social advantages’ referred to in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.

The same conclusion must be reached in the light of Article 39(2) EC, which covers conditions of employment, remuneration and other working conditions, which cannot cover compensatory allowances which are linked to service rendered in wartime by citizens to their own country and whose essential aim is to provide those citizens with a benefit because of the hardships they endured for that country.

(see paras 16, 18-21, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials – Communities’ right of subrogation to an official’s rights against the third party liable for an actionable event – Limits – Application of national law to determine the extent of the obligation to compensate – National legislation excluding a survivor’s pension from that obligation

(Staff Regulations, Art. 85a(1))

Summary

The subrogation provided for by Article 85a of the Staff Regulations is subrogation by operation of law. It takes place, within the limits of the obligations devolving upon the Communities under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, upon the occurrence of the harmful event for which a third party is liable.

However, it follows clearly from Article 85a(1) that the Communities do not have greater rights against the third party than the victim or those entitled under him.

The purpose of Article 85a of the Staff Regulations is not to alter the national rules applicable for determining whether and to what extent there is liability on the part of the third party who caused the injury. That third party’s liability remains subject to the substantive rules which are normally to be applied by the national court before which the victim’s proceedings are brought, that is to say, in principle, the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the injury has occurred.

It follows that if the national law on liability applicable to this case excludes a survivor’s pension, such as that provided for by Articles 79 and 79(a) of the Staff Regulations, from the scope of the compensation obligation of the perpetrator of a wrongful act, the Communities cannot obtain reimbursement of the sums corresponding to that survivor’s pension by means of the subrogation under Article 85a of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 15-18)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulation No 3950/92 – Aid granted by a Member State although not authorised by the regulation – Prohibited – No effect on the functioning of the market – No impact

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, Arts 5 and 8)

Summary

Where the Community has established a common market organisation in a particular sector, it is for it to seek solutions to problems which may arise in the context of the common agricultural policy. Member States must therefore refrain from taking any unilateral measure in that area, even if that measure is likely to support the common policy of the Community.

In the context of the common organisation of the market for milk products, only State aid expressly authorised by Regulation No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, in particular Articles 5 and 8, is lawful. It follows that State aid granted by a Member State which consists of an interest-rate rebate on loans contracted to acquire reference quantities from other producers is not expressly authorised either by Article 5 or by Article 8 of that regulation, it must be regarded as incompatible with the common market. Furthermore, that aid is still unlawful, even if it is not such as to distort the functioning of that market for milk and milk products, since lawfulness does not depend on the possible effects that that aid may have on the functioning of that market.

(see paras 19-20, 22, 31)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9 – Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database – Resources used to draw up a football fixtures list – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7(1))

Summary

The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to investment in the creation of that database. It thus refers to the resources used to seek out existing materials and collect them in the database but does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database.

In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league do not constitute such investment. Moreover, finding the data which make up such a list does not require any particular effort on the part of the professional leagues, which participate directly in the creation of those data. Nor should the resources used for the verification or presentation of the data making up the list be considered to represent substantial investment independent of the investment in the creation of those data.

(see paras 23-24, 31, 33-35, 37, operative part)