ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Meaning - Prohibition on keeping certain animal species on part of the national territory

(EC Treaty, Art. 30)

2 Free movement of goods - Derogations - Protection of the health of animals - Conservation of biodiversity - Prohibition on keeping on an island any species of bee other than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Læsø brown bee) - Whether permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 36)

Summary

1 A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping of certain animal species on a particular part of the national territory and their importation to that part of the national territory constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.

A legislative measure of that kind, which concerns the intrinsic characteristics of the species in question, cannot be regarded as a measure regulating selling arrangements. Moreover, it has a direct and immediate impact on trade, and not effects too uncertain and too indirect for the obligation which it lays down not to be capable of being regarded as being of such a kind as to hinder trade between Member States.

2 A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping on an island such as Læsø of any species of bee other than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Læsø brown bee) must be regarded as justified, under Article 36 of the Treaty, on the ground of the protection of the health and life of animals.

Measures to preserve an indigenous animal population with distinct characteristics contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity through ensuring the survival of the population concerned; their aim is thus to protect the life of those animals.

From the point of view of the conservation of biodiversity, it is immaterial whether the object of protection is a separate subspecies, a distinct strain within any given species or merely a local colony, so long as the populations in question have characteristics distinguishing them from others and are therefore judged worthy of protection either to shelter them from the risk of extinction, or, even in the absence of such risk, to serve a scientific or other interest in preserving the pure population at the location concerned.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services - Credit institutions - Prohibition, in the case of persons or undertakings which are not credit institutions, on carrying on the business of taking deposits or other repayable funds from the public - Other repayable funds - Meaning - Financial instruments which are the subject of a contractual agreement to repay the funds paid - Covered

(Council Directives 77/780 and 89/646, Art. 3)

Summary

The term `other repayable funds' in Article 3 of the Second Directive 89/646 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780, which lays down a prohibition, in the case of persons or undertakings which are not credit institutions, on carrying on the business of taking deposits or other repayable funds from the public, refers not only to financial instruments which possess the intrinsic characteristic of repayability, but also to those which, although not possessing that characteristic, are the subject of a contractual agreement to repay the funds paid.

It is clear from Directives 77/780 and 89/646 that the protection of savings constitutes one of the objectives of the measures taken to coordinate credit institutions. According to the fourth recital in the preamble to the First Directive 77/780, those measures must apply to all credit institutions. The fifth recital adds that their scope should therefore be as broad as possible, covering all institutions whose business is to receive repayable funds from the public whether in the form of deposits or in other forms such as the continuing issue of bonds and other comparable securities.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Acts of the institutions - Regulations - Implementing regulation - Derogation from the basic regulation - Not permissible

2 Fisheries - Conservation of the resources of the sea - Inspection of fishing vessels - Scheme of joint international inspection adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation - Regulation No 494/97, amending Regulation No 2828/88 - Breach of an international agreement binding upon the Community and of a basic regulation - No such breach

(Council Regulations Nos 1956/88 and 3067/95; Commission Regulations Nos 2868/88 and 494/97; Council Decision 95/586)

Summary

1 An implementing regulation adopted on the basis of an enabling provision in the basic regulation may not derogate from the provisions of that regulation, to which it is subordinate.

2 In inserting in Regulation No 2868/88 establishing detailed rules for the application of the Joint International Inspection Scheme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) Article 4(a)(6) which provides that a NAFO inspector, whichever contracting party has appointed him, may attend the thorough inspection carried out at the port of diversion, referred to in point 10(ii) of the Annex to the basic regulation (No 1956/88), without there being any need to obtain the consent of the authorities of the flag Member State, Regulation No 494/97 is not contrary to the agreement concluded between the European Community and Canada on fisheries in the context of the NAFO Convention, approved by Decision 95/586; nor is it contrary to Regulation No 1956/88, as amended by Regulation No 3067/95 implementing that Agreement.

Although point 10(ii) of the annex to Regulation No 1956/88 specifically concerns the situation where a vessel suspected of having infringed the NAFO rules undergoes a thorough inspection in a port of diversion and provides for the attendance in such circumstances of an inspector from any other contracting party that wishes to participate without there being any need to obtain the consent of the flag State, point 10(iv) of that Annex and point II.9(e)(iv) of Annex I to the agreed minute of the above Agreement, which do require the flag State's consent, concern solely the specific situation where another contracting party wishes to have an inspector board a vessel which has been ordered to make for a port of diversion for a thorough inspection. The latter provisions refer to the inspection of the vessel in the port solely in order to emphasise that the inspector of a contracting party other than the flag State has the right, once aboard, to remain on the vessel until the inspection in the port has been completed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Community public procurement - Arbitration clause attributing jurisdiction to the Court of Justice - Unilateral termination under the terms of the contract - Claim for reimbursement of monies advanced and for damages - Damage - Costs occasioned by judicial proceedings - Not covered

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

Summary

$$In the context of claims for payment of compensation for damage suffered because of the non-performance of a contract, costs incurred by the parties for the purpose of judicial proceedings cannot as such be regarded as constituting damage distinct from the burden of costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Approximation of laws on health policy - Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat - Directive 85/73 - Fee levels - Whether individuals may oppose the collection of fees higher than the levels of the standard amounts - Not possible - Condition - Collection of special fees exceeding the level of the standard fees - Whether permissible - Condition - Option available to the local authorities delegated of collecting a higher amount - Scope

(Council Directive 85/73, Art. 2(3) and the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 93/118)

Summary

$$Where a Member State has not transposed Directive 85/73 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, as amended by Directive 93/118, into national law within the period prescribed, individuals cannot oppose the collection of fees higher than the levels of the standard amounts fixed in point 1 of Chapter I of the Annex to the Directive, where those fees do not exceed the actual costs.

A Member State may exercise the option available under point 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex to that Directive of collecting a special fee exceeding the level of the standard fees fixed in point 1 of Chapter I, provided only that the special fee does not exceed the actual costs incurred, no further condition being imposed.

In cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of the Directive authorises it to collect an amount higher than Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid - Concept - Cases where social charges are partially reduced, entailing exemptions from the financial charges arising from normal application of the general social security system - Covered - State measures intended to offset costs for undertakings arising as a result of collective agreements

(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

Summary

$$The concept of aid encompasses advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, mitigate the charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking. A partial reduction of social charges devolving upon undertakings of a particular industrial sector constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) if that measure is intended partially to exempt those undertakings from the financial charges arising from the normal application of the general social security system, without there being any justification for this exemption on the basis of the nature or general scheme of this system. The social character of State assistance is not sufficient to exclude it outright from being categorised as aid for the purposes of Article 92.

Thus, State measures the object of which is the degressive reduction of employers' social security contributions for undertakings in a number of particular industrial sectors must be categorised as aid for the purposes of Article 92 of the Treaty, where they are intended to offset the costs arising as a result of agreements concluded between employers and trade unions, which the undertakings are bound to observe and which are included, by their nature, in their budgets.

As regards the assessment of those costs, agreements concluded by both sides of industry form a whole and cannot be evaluated by taking account, out of context, of only some of their positive or negative aspects for one or other party. In view of the variety of considerations which induce the two sides of industry to negotiate, and of the fact that the result of their negotiations is the fruit of a compromise for which each party makes concessions in certain areas in exchange for advantages in other areas, which are not necessarily related, it is in principle impossible to evaluate with the required accuracy the final cost of such agreements for undertakings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Lack of any response to the letter provided for in Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 - Commission prohibited from closing a procedure on a complaint in special circumstances - Permissible

(Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 6)

2. Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal - Inadmissible

3. Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Treaty Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1. In finding that special circumstances could preclude the Commission from closing the procedure on complaints where the complainant has not responded to a letter under Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 within the time-limit set by the Commission, the Court of First Instance correctly balanced the requirements of good administration and legal certainty on the one hand against those of ensuring the procedural safeguards provided for complainants on the other.

( see para. 71 )

2. A plea in law put forward for the first time in the appeal before the Court of Justice must be rejected as inadmissible. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to authorise it to bring before the Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is thus confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

( see para. 79 )

3. Under Articles 168a of the Treaty (now Article 225 EC), and 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

The Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction, first, to make a finding as to the facts, save where the substantive inaccuracy of such findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and, second, to assess those facts.

( see paras 91-92 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Benefits - National legislation to prevent overlapping - Where, in calculating pensions, the war years are taken into account in accordance with a presumption confined to periods not reckonable for the purposes of a pension under the scheme of another Member State - Such rules do not constitute `provisions on reduction, suspension or withdrawal' within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92)

Summary

$$The term `provisions on reduction, suspension or withdrawal' within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92, does not cover national legislation - such as that establishing the Belgian `war years presumption' - under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945, was in employment in respect of which minimum contributions were paid under a social security scheme of the State concerned is deemed to have paid sufficient contributions to establish that he was normally and principally employed throughout the period between the date on which the period of employment established came to an end and 1 January 1946, but under which that presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State.

In so far as a provision of that kind is part of legislation whose purpose is to reduce the damaging effects of the Second World War on the pension rights of workers subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned, it merely gives due effect to the fact that, for all or part of the periods of employment in respect of which the person concerned is not in a position to prove payment of sufficient social security contributions under the scheme in question, he is already receiving a pension under another scheme.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Oils and fats - Olive oil - Production aid - Time-limit for payment to producers - Non-observance - Plea of force majeure not available

(Commission Regulation No 2796/93)

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

(Council Regulation No 729/70)

Summary

1. A Member State cannot plead a case of force majeure as regards compliance with the deadline laid down for payment of aid to producers in Regulation No 2796/93 amending Regulation No 3061/84 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil, where it puts forward that argument only after the date laid down has taken no steps to have that date varied by the Community authorities, even though the difficulties which it describes were known in advance.

( see paras 24-25 )

2. A Member State against which the Commission has justified its decision finding the absence of or shortcomings in the controls carried out in connection with the application of the EAGGF Guarantee Section cannot rebut the Commission's findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. If it is not able to show that they are inaccurate, the Commission's findings can give rise to serious doubts as to the existence of an adequate and effective series of supervisory measures and inspection procedures.

( see para. 53 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Examination of merits by the Court - Situation to be taken into consideration - Situation at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion

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

2. Environment - Water pollution - Directive 76/464 - Obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Scope

(Council Directive 76/464, Art. 7 and annex, List II)

Summary

1. In the context of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty (now Article 226 EC), the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be taken into account by the Court.

( see para. 35 )

2. The programmes which the Member States are required to establish, under Article 7 of Directive 76/464, in order to reduce pollution of their waters by the substances within List II in the annex to the directive must be specific, that is to say, they must have a comprehensive and coherent approach, covering the entire national territory and providing practical and coordinated arrangements for the reduction of pollution caused by any of the substances in List II which are relevant in the particular context of each Member State, in accordance with the quality objectives fixed by those programmes for the waters affected.

Accordingly, national measures cannot be regarded as programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive where, even if capable of contributing to a reduction in water pollution, they are merely ad hoc measures and not comprehensive and coherent programmes of that kind, based on studies of the waters affected and setting quality objectives.

( see paras 39-40, 42 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

State aid - Draft aid plans - Examination by the Commission - Preliminary phase and inter partes phase - Purpose of the preliminary phase - Obligation on the Commission to examine all the facts and points of law notified by the Member State concerned and brought to its notice by the interested parties - Obligation, in the event of difficulties in assessing the compatibility of the aid, to initiate the inter partes procedure

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and (3) (now Art. 88(2) and (3) EC))

Summary

$$The procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) is essential whenever the Commission has serious difficulties in determining whether an aid is compatible with the common market. Therefore, when taking a decision in favour of an aid, the Commission may restrict itself to the preliminary phase provided for under Article 93(3) only if it is able to satisfy itself after an initial examination that the draft aid plan is compatible with the Treaty. In that respect, State aid, certain of the conditions of which contravene other provisions of the Treaty, cannot be declared by the Commission to be compatible with the common market. If, on the other hand, the initial examination leads the Commission to the opposite conclusion or if it does not enable it to overcome all the difficulties involved in determining whether the aid is compatible with the common market, the Commission is under a duty to carry out all the requisite consultations and, for that purpose, to initiate the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty.

The preliminary stage provided for in Article 93(3) of the Treaty is intended merely to allow the Commission a sufficient period of time for reflection and investigation so that it can form a prima facie opinion on the draft aid plans notified to it, thus enabling it either to conclude, without the need for detailed examination, that the aid is compatible with the common market or, by contrast, to make a finding that the content of those plans raises doubts as to that compatibility. In that respect, the Commission is required to examine all the facts and points of law brought to its notice by persons, undertakings and associations whose interests may be affected by the granting of the aid. It is therefore in the light of both the information notified by the State concerned and that provided by any complainants that the institution must make its assessment in the context of the preliminary examination provided for in Article 93(3) of the Treaty.

( see paras 33-35 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil obligations - Maintenance in force of national legislation incompatible with Community law - Not permissible irrespective of whether or not the provision of Community law at issue is directly applicable

2 Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Directive intended to confer rights on individuals - Whether such directives may be transposed into national law without benefit of legislation - Not permissible

Summary

1 The incompatibility of national legislation with provisions of Community law, even with those which are directly applicable, can be finally remedied only by means of national provisions of a binding nature which have the same legal force as those which must be amended.

2 The provisions of a directive must be implemented with unquestionable binding force and with the specificity, precision and clarity required in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, under which, in the case of a directive intended to confer rights on individuals, persons concerned must be enabled to ascertain the full extent of their rights.