ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure Reference to the Court under an arbitration clause Unilateral termination under the terms of the contract Right to reimbursement of advances together with interest as provided for in the contract Claim for damages unfounded

(EC Treaty, Art. 181 (now Art. 238 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Obstacles resulting from a system of administrative authorisation relating to privatised undertakings - Justification - Systems of property ownership - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 222 (now Art. 295 EC))

2. Free movement of capital - Restrictions - National rules prohibiting the acquisition by investors from other Member States of more than a given number of shares and providing for a system of prior authorisation for the acquisition of a holding in certain national undertakings in excess of a specified level - Not permissible - Justification on economic grounds - None

(EC Treaty, Arts 73b and 73d(1) (now Arts 56 EC and 58(1) EC))

Summary

$$1. Depending on the circumstances, certain concerns may justify the retention by Member States of a degree of influence within undertakings that were initially public and subsequently privatised, where those undertakings are active in fields involving the provision of services in the public interest or strategic services. However, those concerns cannot entitle Member States to plead their own systems of property ownership, referred to in Article 222 of the Treaty (now Article 295 EC), by way of justification for obstacles, resulting from a system of administrative authorisation relating to privatised undertakings, to the exercise of the freedoms provided for by the Treaty. That article does not have the effect of exempting the Member States' systems of property ownership from the fundamental rules of the Treaty.

( see paras 47-48 )

2. A Member State which adopts and maintains in force national rules (a) prohibiting the acquisition by investors from other Member States of more than a given number of shares in certain national undertakings and (b) requiring the grant by the State of prior authorisation for the acquisition of a holding in certain national undertakings in excess of a specified level fails to comply with its obligations under Article 73b of the Treaty (now Article 56 EC).

Such rules constitute a restriction on the movement of capital within the meaning of that article which cannot be justified. In that regard, restrictions on the fundamental freedom concerned cannot be justified either by the economic policy objectives reflected in such national rules or by the objectives of choosing a strategic partner, strengthening the competitive structure of the market concerned or modernising and increasing the efficiency of means of production, inasmuch as all those grounds fall outside the ambit of the reasons set out in Article 73d(1) of the Treaty (now Article 58(1) EC).

( see paras 46, 52, operative part 1 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Protection of safety and health of workers - Directive 90/270 on work with display screen equipment - Scope - Meaning of display screen - Screens that display film recordings in analogue or digital form - Included - Meaning of control cabs for vehicles or machinery - Scope

(Council Directive 90/270, Arts 1(3)(a) and 2(a))

Summary

$$In view of the purpose of Directive 90/270 of protecting the health and safety of workers by laying down minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment, compliance with the requirements set out in the directive and its annex is essential regardless of the type of image displayed on the screen.

The term graphic display screen, for the purposes of Article 2(a) of the directive must therefore be understood in a broad sense and must be interpreted so as to include screens that display film recordings in analogue or digital form.

On the other hand, the term control cabs for vehicles or machinery, in Article 1(3)(a) of the directive, must be interpreted narrowly inasmuch as these are excluded from the directive's scope of application. That provision must therefore be interpreted as meaning that the term does not extend to a job in which analogue or digital images are processed with the aid of technical devices and/or computer programmes in order to produce television broadcasts.

( see paras 37, 41, 43, 50, 54, operative part 1-2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Remuneration - Income tax - National rules under which the joint assessment to tax of spouses is conditional on their both being resident on national territory - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 48(2) (now, after amendment, Art. 39(2) EC); Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

Summary

$$Article 48(2) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude the application of national rules under which, as regards income tax, the joint assessment to tax of spouses who are not separated either de facto or by virtue of a judicial decision is conditional on their both being resident on national territory and that tax advantage is denied to a worker who is resident in that State, where he/she receives almost the entire income of the household, and whose spouse is resident in another Member State.

( see para. 26 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Taxation for the purposes of Directive 69/335 - Meaning - Charges for registering an increase in the share capital of a capital company which contribute to the State budget - Included

(Council Directive 69/335)

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Entry of an increase in the share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal persons - Essential formality - Levying of registration charges - Not permissible

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 10(c))

3. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Entry of an increase in the share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal persons - Charges by way of fees or dues - Meaning - Charges in direct proportion to the share capital raised - Not covered

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 12(1)(e))

4. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Directive 69/335 - Article 10 - Direct effect

(Council Directive 69/335, Art. 10)

Summary

1. Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as meaning that - in the light of the objectives pursued by it, in particular the abolition of indirect taxes having the same characteristics as capital duty - charges which are levied for entering an increase in the share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal persons and are paid to the State for the financing of its official business constitute a tax for the purposes of the directive.

( see paras 19-21 and operative part 1 )

2. Charges payable for entering an increase in the share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal persons are, where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335, in principle prohibited under Article 10(c) thereof, in so far as the entry of increases in share capital in the national register of legal persons is compulsory and therefore constitutes an essential formality connected with the legal form of the company, necessary if the company is to carry on business.

( see paras 24-25 and operative part 2 )

3. Fees or dues within the meaning of Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335 do not cover charges levied for entering an increase in the share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal persons, the amount of which increases in direct proportion to the share capital raised and in respect of which there is no upper limit.

( see para. 35 and operative part 3 )

4. Article 10 of Directive 69/335 creates rights on which individuals may rely in proceedings before the national courts. The prohibition laid down in that provision is expressed in sufficiently precise and unconditional terms to be relied upon by individuals in the national courts in order to contest a provision of national law which is contrary to the directive.

( see paras 37-38 and operative part 4 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Equal treatment - National legislation fixing, in connection with the transfer to another Member State of a cash benefit, a higher minimum amount than that paid within the country - Payment to be sent to another Member State not involving higher expenses - Unlawful

(Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council, Art. 3(1), and Council Regulation No 1945/93)

Summary

$$The principle of equal treatment, as laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1945/93, precludes national legislation which fixes the minimum amount of a cash benefit that can be paid to a Community national residing in another Member State at a higher level than that required where that payment is made within the same Member State, in circumstances where the payment to be sent to another Member State does not involve expenses higher than those incurred in respect of the payment of the same benefit within the first Member State.

( see para. 35 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Automatic promotion of officials on the previous year's list of candidates considered most deserving of promotion - Illegal - Judgment of the Court of First Instance finding the procedure illegal - Inconsistency in the grounds - Error in law - None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 45(1), first subpara.)

Summary

$$For each promotions procedure, the first subparagraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations places the appointing authority under an obligation to undertake a consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and of the reports on them.

Although the requirement of a consideration of the candidates' comparative merits may take into consideration the fact that a candidate has already been on the list of most deserving officials in a previous procedure, it none the less requires that the merits of each candidate be assessed in comparison with those of other candidates for promotion, including officials who have not been previously on the list of most deserving candidates.

There is no inconsistency in finding that, on the one hand, in the context of the promotions procedure in issue, the officials on the previous year's list of candidates considered most deserving of promotion are included on the current year's list only on condition that they are not no longer deserving of promotion and, on the other hand, that, in proceeding in this way, the appointing authority did not consider the comparative merits of candidates for promotion, in accordance with the requirements of the first subparagraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations. An assessment of the question whether a candidate is no longer deserving of promotion, which is of a purely individual nature, does not mean that the merits of all the officials eligible for promotion were actually compared.

For the same reason, the Court of First Instance did not err in law in holding that consideration of the question whether an official eligible for promotion is no longer deserving of promotion was not equivalent to a consideration of the comparative merits, as required by the first subparagraph of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations.

( see paras 18-19, 23-24 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations Examination by the Court as to whether an action is well founded Situation to be taken into consideration Situation at the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

$$In proceedings under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.

( see para. 16 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws - Uniform laws - Industrial and commercial property - Patent law - Supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products - Conditions of obtaining - Obtaining of a first authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product - Product - Definition

(Parliament and Council Regulation No 1610/96, Art. 3)

2. Approximation of laws - Uniform laws - Industrial and commercial property - Patent law - Supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products - Conditions of obtaining - Product protected by a basic patent - Obtaining of a first authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product - Product differing from a previously authorised product only in the proportion of the active chemical compound to the impurity it contains

(Parliament and Council Regulation No 1610/96, Art. 3(1)(a) and (d))

Summary

1. The concept of a product within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products covers chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur naturally or by manufacture, including any impurity inevitably resulting from the manufacturing process, which have general or specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts of plants or plant products. Two products which differ only in the proportion of the active chemical compound to the impurity they contain, one having a greater percentage of the impurity than the other, must be regarded as the same product within the meaning of that article. The fact that a marketing authorisation must be obtained for the new plant protection product which has a different proportion of active chemical compound to impurity from that of the former plant protection product is not relevant for the purposes of establishing whether or not the constituent products of those plant protection products are the same.

( see paras 25, 29, 32 and operative part 1-3 )

2. The conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation No 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products are, in any event, not all satisfied where a product, as a plant protection product, manufactured according to a patented process and the subject of a marketing authorisation, differs from a previously authorised product, as a plant protection product, only in the proportion of the active chemical compound to the impurity it contains, the percentage of impurity being greater in the older product than in the new one, and where that process patent has been designated as the basic patent.

( see para. 38 and operative part 4 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Court or tribunal of a Member State within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC) - Meaning - Bezirksgericht when acting as the tribunal responsible for keeping the land register - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 177, now Art 234 EC)

Summary

$$It follows from Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC) that a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature.

The Bezirksgericht Bregenz (Austria) may not therefore refer questions to the Court, when it makes an administrative decision without being required to decide a legal dispute. Such is the case when it considers an application for registration of a contract of sale of land in the land register in accordance with the provisions of the Grundbuchgesetz (Austrian Federal Law of 1955 on the Land Register). In the context of that activity, since it is not seised of a dispute, but must merely determine whether the application complies with the conditions laid down by the law for the registration of property rights in the land register, the Bezirksgericht exercises a non-judicial function.

( see paras. 14-17 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - National rules reserving the performance of private security activities to private security firms holding the nationality of the State concerned - Not permissible - Justification - None

(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 59 (now, after amendment, Arts 43 EC and 49 EC), 55, first para., and 66 (now Arts 45, first para., EC and 55 EC))

2. Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - National rules reserving employment as a sworn private security guard to nationals - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC))

3. Freedom of movement for persons - Derogations - Employment in the public service - Concept - Employment by a private natural or legal person - Not included

(EC Treaty, Art. 48(4) (now, after amendment, Art. 39(4) EC))

Summary

1. Where a Member State provides that private security work (including surveillance or caretaking of movable property and buildings) may be carried out on its territory, subject to licence, only by private security firms holding the nationality of that State, the Member State in question fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC). Such a nationality condition constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services which cannot be justified by the derogation provided for in the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Treaty (now the first paragraph of Article 45 EC) in conjunction, as the case may be, with Article 66 of the Treaty (now Article 55 EC).

( see paras 19, 22, 28 and operative part )

2. Where a Member State provides that only its nationals, holding the appropriate licence, may be employed as sworn private security guards, thereby preventing workers from other Member States from holding such employment in that State, the Member State in question fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC).

( see paras 24, 28 and operative part )

3. The concept of employment in the public service, as contained in Article 48(4) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(4) EC), does not encompass employment by a private natural or legal person, whatever the duties of the employee.

( see para. 25 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules - Contested by the Member State concerned - Burden of proof

(Council Regulation No 729/70)

2. Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Preparation of decisions - Evaluation of expenditure to be excluded from Community financing - Meaning of evaluation

(Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1))

Summary

1. Under the procedure for the clearance of EAGGF accounts, whilst it is for the Commission, where it intends to disallow expenditure declared by a Member State, to prove that an infringement of the rules on the common organisation of the agricultural markets has occurred, it is the Member State which is best placed to collect and verify the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts.

( see para. 14 )

2. According to the wording of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, when the Commission considers that expenditure was not effected according to Community rules, it is to communicate to the Member State concerned an evaluation of any expenditure which it may propose to exclude from Community financing. That term should be interpreted, as should its equivalent in the different language versions, as meaning that it is not necessary to state a particular figure for the value of the expenditure in question and that it is sufficient to provide the elements necessary in order to calculate that value at least approximately.

( see para. 16 )

3. When decisions relating to the clearance of EAGGF are prepared, each case must be assessed separately to determine whether, when a Member State carried out operations financed by the EAGGF, it acted in accordance with the requirements of Community law and, if it failed to do so, to what extent. A Member State may plead breach of the principle of equal treatment only if the cases it cites are at least comparable as regards all the elements which characterise them, including, in particular, the period during which the expenditure was incurred, the sectors concerned and the nature of the irregularities complained of. Prohibited discrimination can arise only where comparable situations are treated differently, unless such treatment is objectively justified.

( see paras 26-28 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Transport - Air transport - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - National legislation providing for different departure taxes for national and intra-Community flights - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art. 49 EC); Council Regulation No 2408/92, Art. 3(1))

Summary

$$National legislation which provides for different departure taxes to be paid by aircraft passengers according to whether their flight is domestic or intra-Community must be regarded as a restriction on the freedom to provide services and is prohibited under the combined provisions of Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, a regulation which defines the conditions for applying in the air transport sector the principle of the freedom to provide services. The freedom enshrined in Article 59 of the Treaty precludes the application of any national legislation which has the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within one Member State.

( see paras 11-12, 15 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Pension funds entrusted with providing benefits under an occupational pension scheme - Obligation to ensure equal treatment between men and women - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Arts 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Arts 136 EC to 143 EC))

Summary

$$Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be interpreted to the effect that bodies such as German pension funds (Pensionskassen) entrusted with providing benefits under an occupational pension scheme are required to ensure equal treatment between men and women, even if the employees discriminated against on the basis of sex have, as against those directly liable, namely their employers in their capacity as parties to their employment contracts, a protected right in the event of insolvency that excludes all discrimination.

The circumstance that, as an insuring body, a German pension fund is subject to insurance law and therefore to the entirely separate principle of equal treatment applicable under that law and that the increase in the volume of its insurance obligations as a consequence of the application of Article 119 of the Treaty may give rise to measures designed to cover that increase, which might include an increase in contributions for all affiliated employees, is an issue which must be resolved by national law. In any event, the existence of such a problem does not affect the obligation for German pension funds to comply with the principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 and neither the legal independence that they enjoy nor indeed their status as insuring bodies are of any importance in that r espect.

( see paras 25, 33 and operative part )