ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Fisheries - Conservation of the resources of the sea - System of fishing quotas - Allocation of fishing opportunities between Member States - Regulation No 390/97 fixing and allocating the allowable catches for the Community for 1997 - Calculation of the share of cod catches to be allocated to Sweden - Whether Article 121 of the 1994 Act of Accession infringed - No such infringement

(1994 Act of Accession, Art. 121(1); Council Regulation No 390/97, Annex I)

Summary

$$Article 121(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden does not exclude application of the method of allocation set out therein for determining the share of catches allocated to the Kingdom of Sweden to fishing carried out under agreements concluded between the Community and third countries, whether such fishing takes place inside or outside Community fishing waters. However, as regards cod fishing in Zone III b, c and d (referred to in the table set out in that provision), that method of allocation applies only to fishing opportunities in the Community fishing waters and does not apply to the `compensation cod' - which the Community obtained from third States in order to offset the reduction suffered by certain Member States as a result of the Act of Accession, in their share of allowable catches - even though, in some cases, this may be caught in Community fishing zones.

The Council was therefore right to base its calculation, in Annex I to Regulation No 390/97 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished, of cod catches allocated to the Kingdom of Sweden in Zone III b, c and d only on the total allowable catch allocated to the Community by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission and to exclude the transfers of resources represented by the `compensation cod'.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Protocol on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention - Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits

(Convention of 27 September 1968; Protocol of 3 June 1971, Art. 5; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

2 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Special jurisdiction - Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation - Action founded on obligations of equal rank arising from the same contract - One of the obligations to be performed in the State of the court seised and the other in another Contracting State - Court seised not having jurisdiction to hear the whole action

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1))

Summary

1 In view of the allocation of jurisdiction under the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, it is for the national court seised of an action founded on separate obligations arising from the same contract to assess the relative importance of the contractual obligations at issue for the purposes of the application of Article 5(1) of the Convention, and for the Court of Justice to interpret the Convention in the light of the findings made in this respect by the national court. To alter the substance of the question referred by the latter for a preliminary ruling would be incompatible with the Court's function under the Protocol and with its duty to ensure that the Governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 5 of the Protocol and Article 20 of the Statute of the Court, bearing in mind that, under Article 20, only the order of the referring court is notified to the interested parties.

2 On a proper construction of 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 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the same court does not have jurisdiction to hear the whole of an action founded on two obligations of equal rank arising from the same contract when, according to the conflict rules of the State where that court is situated, one of those obligations is to be performed in that State and the other in another Contracting State. While there are disadvantages in having different courts ruling on different aspects of the same dispute, the plaintiff always has the option, under Article 2 of the Convention, of bringing his entire claim before the courts for the place where the defendant is domiciled.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Men and women - Working conditions and access to employment - Equal treatment - Derogation on grounds of public security - Subject to the rules of Community law - Option available under Article 2(2) of Directive 76/207 - Scope - Exclusion of women from the British Royal Marines - Permissible - Criteria

(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 2(2))

Summary

$$Although it is for the Member States, which have to adopt appropriate measures to ensure their internal and external security, to take decisions on the organisation of their armed forces, it does not follow that such decisions must fall entirely outside the scope of Community law. To recognise that there is inherent in the Treaty a general exception covering all measures taken for reasons of public security, above and beyond the specific cases contemplated in certain provisions, might impair the binding nature of Community law and its uniform application. Decisions taken by Member States, concerning access to employment, vocational training and working conditions in the armed forces, for the purpose of ensuring combat effectiveness do not fall altogether outside the scope of Community law.

If, when adopting such measures, the competent national authorities exercise the option available under Article 2(2) of Directive 76/207, they enjoy a certain measure of discretion which, in the case of combat units such as the British Royal Marines, entitles them, without abusing the principle of proportionality, to come to the view that the specific conditions for deployment of such units - in particular the rule of interoperability to which they are subject - justify their composition remaining exclusively male. Accordingly, the exclusion of women from service in such special combat units may be justified under the above provision by reason of the nature of the activities in question and the context in which they are carried out.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Oils and fats - Olive oil - Consumption aid - Inspections by the Member States - Availability of documents relating to the records and accounts of undertakings when random inspections are carried out

(Council Regulation No 3089/78, Art. 7, first para.; Commission Regulation No 2677/85, Art. 12(1))

2. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - EAGGF financing - Principles - Improper expenditure disallowed

Summary

1. It follows from the first paragraph of Article 7 of Regulation No 3089/78 laying down general rules in respect of aid for the consumption of olive oil and from Article 12(1) of Regulation No 2677/85 laying down implementing rules in respect of the system of consumption aid for olive oil that the documents relating to stock records and accounts must be available on the premises of undertakings when an inspection is carried out by the competent authority, even when it is a random inspection.

( see para. 18 )

2. The Commission may refuse to charge to the EAGGF all expenditure incurred if it finds that there are no adequate control procedures.

( see para. 24 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Acts of the institutions - Choice of legal basis - Criteria - Context in which the measure was adopted - Irrelevance - Application of the Treaty rules in force at the time the measure was adopted

2. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - System for the identification and registration of bovine animals and labelling of beef and veal - Regulation No 820/97 - Legal basis - Article 43 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 37 EC) - Taking into account of public health

(EC Treaty, Arts 39 and 129(1), third subpara., (now Arts 33 EC and 152(1), third subpara. EC) and Art. 43 (now, after amendment, Art. 37 EC); Council Regulation No 820/97)

Summary

1. In the context of the organisation of the powers of the Community the choice of the legal basis for a measure must rest on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Those factors include in particular the aim and the content of the measure. In this connection, the fact that an institution wishes to participate more fully in the adoption of a given measure, the work carried out in other respects in the sphere of action covered by the measure and the context in which the measure was adopted are irrelevant. Furthermore, Community measures must be adopted in accordance with the Treaty rules in force at the time of their adoption.

( see paras 43-45 )

2. Article 43 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 37 EC) constitutes the appropriate legal basis for all rules concerning the production and marketing of the agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty, which contributes to the implementation of one or more objectives of the common agricultural policy listed in Article 39 of the Treaty (now Article 33 EC).

Regulation No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products, in regulating the conditions for the production and marketing of beef and beef products with a view to improving the transparency of those conditions, is essentially intended to attain the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty, in particular the stabilisation of the market, and was therefore rightly adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty.

That conclusion is not undermined by the fact that the system introduced by the contested regulation will have positive effects for the protection of public health. The taking into account of public health in the context of measures adopted on the basis of Article 43 is compatible with the third subparagraph of Article 129(1) of the Treaty (now the third subparagraph of Article 152(1) EC). Moreover, the protection of health contributes to the attainment of the objectives of the common agricultural policy which are laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty, particularly where agricultural production is directly dependent on demand amongst consumers who are increasingly concerned to protect their health.

( see paras 47, 49, 59-62 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Reduction of the amount of pension awarded to a migrant worker by the amount awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State - Spouse's pension not involving any increase in the couple's total income - Not permissible

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

Summary

$$The exercise of the right to free movement within the Community is impeded if a worker's social advantage is lost or reduced simply because a benefit of the same kind awarded to a worker's spouse under the legislation of another Member State is taken into account when, on the one hand, the grant of that latter benefit has not led to any increase in the couple's total income and, on the other, there has been a concomitant reduction of the same amount in the personal pension received by the worker under the legislation of that same State. Such a result might well discourage Community workers from exercising their right to free movement and would therefore constitute a barrier to that freedom enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC).

In those circumtances, where the competent authorities of a Member State apply a provision of law

- which fixes the amount of the retirement pension awarded to a married worker,

- which provides for that pension to be reduced, by the amount of a pension awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State, but

- which provides for the application of a derogating clause in respect of overlapping where the pension paid elsewhere is less than a certain amount,

it is contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty for those authorities to reduce the amount of the pension awarded to a migrant worker by the amount of a pension awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State, when the grant of that latter pension does not involve any increase in the couple's total income.

( see paras 41-42, 45 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 89/104 - Exhaustion of the right conferred by a trade mark - Conditions - Product placed on the market in the Community or the European Economic Area - National legislation providing for the exhaustion of rights in respect of products placed on the market in non-member countries - Not permissible

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(1))

2 Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 89/104 - Product placed on the market in the Community or in the European Economic Area with the consent of the trade-mark proprietor - Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark - Scope - Limited to individual items of the approved product that have been put on the market with the consent of the proprietor

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(1) and (2))

Summary

1 Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104 on trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), must be interpreted as meaning that rights conferred by a mark are exhausted only if the products have been put on the market in the Community (in the EEA since the EEA Agreement entered into force) and that the Directive does not leave it open to the Member States to provide in their domestic law for exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark in respect of products put on the market in non-member countries.

2 The purpose of Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104 on trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), is to make possible the further marketing of an individual item of a product bearing a trade mark that has been put on the market in the Community (in the EEA since the EEA Agreement entered into force) with the consent of the trade-mark proprietor and to prevent him from opposing such marketing. The rights conferred by a trade mark are exhausted only in respect of the individual items of the product which have been put on the market with the proprietor's consent. With respect to the other individual items of that product, put on the market without his consent, the proprietor may continue to prohibit the use of the mark in pursuance of the right conferred on him by the Directive. Accordingly, Article 7(1) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, for there to be consent within the meaning of that provision, such consent must relate to each individual item of the product in respect of which exhaustion is pleaded.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Admissibility - Points of law - Interpretation of the reference in Article 41 of the EC Statute of the Court to new and decisive facts - Covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 41, first para., and 51)

2 Appeals - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Assessment of whether facts not addressed by the Court of First Instance in proceedings for revision are new and decisive - Not covered

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 41, first para.)

3 Procedure - Revision of a judgment - Conditions governing the admissibility of an application - New fact - Meaning - Assertions or personal opinions lacking official authority - Not covered

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 41, first para.)

4 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea contesting the ruling by the Court of First Instance on costs - Inadmissible where all the other pleas in law have been rejected

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, second para.)

Summary

1 Under Article 168a of the EC Treaty and Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, there is a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only. Interpretation of Article 41, first paragraph, of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice - which provides that an application for revision of a judgment may be made `only on discovery of a fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, and which, when the judgment was given, was unknown to the Court and to the party claiming the revision' - and the classification of the facts relied on by the party applying for revision as falling within the purview of that phrase are points of law which may be subject to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

2 The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction, in an appeal against a judgment declaring an application for revision inadmissible but making no finding in relation to certain factual evidence first relied upon by the applicant at the appeal stage, to determine or consider for the first time whether such facts constitute new and decisive facts for the purposes of Article 41, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

3 Assertions or personal opinions lacking official authority, which relate to facts which might possibly be classified as new facts for the purposes of Article 41, first paragraph, of the Statute of the Court of Justice cannot in themselves constitute such facts.

4 Where all the other pleas in law put forward in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been rejected, a plea alleging that its ruling on costs was unlawful must, by virtue of Article 51, second paragraph, of the Statute of the Court, be rejected as inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Raw tobacco - Disposal of stocks held by intervention agencies - Commission's discretion - Scope - Consequences

(Commission Regulation No 3389/73)

Summary

$$Where the Commission decides, in the context of the arrangements for the disposal of tobacco held by intervention agencies, not to award a particular contract because of the risk of disturbance of the market, it enjoys a wide power for the assessment of complex economic situations. The decision whether or not to accept a bid is not therefore a simple and mechanical administrative operation but calls for the appraisal of a complex economic situation. In those circumstances, even decisions which may subsequently prove to be open to criticism do not necessarily cause the Community to incur liability in the absence of a manifest error of assessment on the part of the institution.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Procedures for the award of public supply contracts - Directive 93/36 - Article 2(2) - Independent in scope from Directive 92/50 - Where the contracting authority grants to a body other than such an authority the right to engage in a public service - Obligatory to require compliance with the principle of non-discrimination - No obligation to require compliance with tendering procedures

(Council Directives 92/50 and 93/36, Art. 2(2))

Summary

$$Article 2(2) of Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts - which is independent in scope from the provisions of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts - is to be interpreted as follows:

- it requires a contracting authority which grants to a body other than such a contracting authority special or exclusive rights to engage in a public service activity to require of that body, in relation to the public supply contracts which it awards to third parties in the context of that activity, that it comply with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality;

- it does not, however, require in those circumstances that the contracting authority demand that, in awarding such public supply contracts, the body in question comply with the tendering procedures laid down by Directive 93/36.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Deduction of expenditure related to professional training courses from taxable income - National legislation introducing a presumption that expenditure relating to courses organised in other Member States is non-deductible - Not permissible - Whether justified on grounds of public interest or by the need to preserve fiscal cohesion - No such justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 59 (now, after amendment, Art 49 EC))

Summary

$$Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) precludes a Member State from having rules which, for the purposes of determining taxable income, are based on the presumption that professional training courses held in ordinary tourist resorts located in other Member States involve such a significant tourism element that the costs of taking part in those courses cannot be treated as deductible operating costs, whereas there is no such presumption in the case of professional training courses held in ordinary tourist resorts located within the territory of that Member State.

Such rules, which make it more difficult to deduct costs relating to participation in professional training courses organised abroad than to deduct costs relating to such courses organised in the national territory involve a difference in treatment, based on the place where the service is provided, which cannot be justified by the need to preserve fiscal cohesion or by the need for effective fiscal supervision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Structural reform - Improvement in the efficiency of structures - Aid for the extensification of production - Detailed rules for applying the aid scheme - Failure by the aid beneficiary to honour his extensification undertaking - Penalty - Reduction of the aid - Detailed rules for calculating reductions

(Commission Regulation No 4115/88, Art. 16(1), as amended by Regulation No 838/93)

Summary

$$Article 16(1) of Regulation No 4115/88 laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to promote the extensification of production, as amended by Regulation No 838/93, must be interpreted as meaning that the method which it lays down of calculating the reduction of extensification aid is applicable where the discrepancy between the number of units for which the aid is requested and the number of units measured exceeds two hectares but is less than 10% of the surface for which aid is requested.

The reduction of extensification aid provided for in the second sentence of Article 16(1) above, covers the whole period of the undertaking given by the beneficiary of the aid, unless the latter can prove that the discrepancy between the number of units for which aid was requested and the number of units measured is neither intentional nor the result of negligence on its part.$

(see paras 14, 20, 1-2)
Keywords



Keywords

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169 (now Art. 226 EC))