ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support for producers of certain arable crops – Compensatory payments for areas down to arable crops or subject to set-aside – Exclusion for land under permanent crops – Definition – Uncultivated land – Included

(Council Regulations No 1765/92, Art. 9, and No 1251/1999, Art. 7)

2. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support for producers of certain arable crops – Compensatory payments for areas down to arable crops or subject to set-aside – Exclusion for land under permanent crops – Event terminating use of the land for permanent crop of fruit trees

(Council Regulations No 1765/92, Art. 9, and No 1251/1999, Art. 7)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Support for producers of certain arable crops – Compensatory payments for areas down to arable crops or subject to set-aside – Exclusion for land under permanent crops – Land no longer used for permanent crops – Use for non-agricultural purposes – Conditions

(Council Regulations No 1765/92, Art. 9, and No 1251/1999, Art. 7)

Summary

1. Articles 9 of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/1999, both establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops, must be interpreted as meaning that, for land under permanent crops to be excluded from compensatory payments, there is no requirement that the land has been cultivated, and in particular that insecticides have been used or crops harvested, since those provisions refer merely to the land use without requiring it actually to be cultivated.

(see paras 15, 19, operative part 1)

2. Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/1999, both establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops, which exclude from compensatory payments land under permanent crops, must be interpreted as meaning that the land ceases to be under permanent crops, in the case of apple production, once the apple trees have been felled, even if they have not been removed. However, the mere decision to fell the trees, without that decision being put into practice, does not mean that the land ceases to be under permanent crops.

(see para. 23, operative part 2)

3. Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92 and Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/1999, both establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops, which exclude from compensatory payments land under permanent crops, must be interpreted as meaning that land which has ceased to be under permanent crops must be regarded as being used for non-agricultural purposes if is shown that it is not intended for the production of other plants or animals.

(see para. 27, operative part 3)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Definition of collective redundancy – Termination of contract of employment without the consent of the worker dependent on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will – Included

(Council Directive 98/59, Art. 1(1)(a))

Summary

The concept of ‘redundancy’, as mentioned in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, has meaning in Community law and may not be defined by any reference to the laws of the Member States. It has to be interpreted as including not only redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, but any termination of contract of employment not sought by the worker, and therefore without his consent. Therefore, termination of a contract of employment without the worker’s consent cannot escape the application of the directive just because it depends on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will. The objectives of the directive which is designed, inter alia, to strengthen the protection of workers in the case of collective redundancies would be attained only in part if such a termination of a contract of employment were to be excluded from the body of rules laid down by the directive.

(see paras 49-50, 52-53, 60, 66, operative part 1)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of workers’ rights – Directive 77/187 – Taking over by the State of activities previously carried on by a legal person governed by private law – Possibility for the State to comply with national rules for public employees – Substantial reduction in remuneration – Substantial change in working conditions – Termination regarded as resulting from the action of the employer

(Council Directive 77/187, Arts 1(1) and 4(2))

Summary

Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as not precluding in principle, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking from a legal person governed by private law to the State, the latter, as new employer, from reducing the amount of the remuneration of the employees concerned for the purpose of complying with the national rules in force for public employees. However, the competent authorities responsible for applying and interpreting those rules are obliged to do so as far as possible in the light of the purpose of that directive, taking into account in particular the employee’s length of service, in so far as the national rules governing the position of State employees take a State employee’s length of service into consideration for calculating his remuneration. If such a calculation leads to a substantial reduction in the employee’s remuneration, such a reduction constitutes a substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employees concerned by the transfer, so that the termination of their contracts of employment for that reason must be regarded as resulting from the action of the employer, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 77/187.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

European Communities, own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States – Obligation independent of the possibility of an entry in the accounts or post-clearance recovery of customs duties – No establishment and making available, without there being any reason of force majeure or impossibility of recovery in the long term for reasons which cannot be attributed to the Member State concerned – Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Regulations No 1552/89, Art. 17(2), and No 2913/92, Art. 220(2)(b); Council Decision 94/728, Arts 2 and 8)

Summary

Member States are required to establish the Communities’ own resources as soon as their own customs authorities have the necessary particulars and, therefore, are in a position to calculate the amount of duties arising from a customs debt and determine the debtor, regardless of the issue of whether the criteria for the application of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code are met and therefore whether or not it is possible to proceed with a subsequent entry in the accounts or post-clearance recovery of the customs duties in question.

In those circumstances, a Member State which fails to establish the Communities’ own resources and to make the corresponding amount available to the Commission, without one of the conditions laid down in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376 on the system of the Communities’ own resources being met, namely that for reasons of force majeure those amounts could not be collected or that recovery is impossible in the long term for reasons which cannot be attributed to them, fails to fulfil its obligations under Community law, in particular under Articles 2 and 8 of Decision 94/728 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources.

(see paras 66, 68, 70, operative part)
Case C-161/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 1999/94/EC – Failure to communicate implementing measures)»

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 19 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-85/02





Commission of the European Communities

v

French Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to implement Directive 91/439/EC)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 12 December 2002

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 13 February 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down by the reasoned opinion

(Art. 226 EC)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

16 October 2003

((Community Customs Code – Customs debt on importation – Charging of interest on arrears))

and

THE COURT (Second Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 May 2003,
Case C-170/02 P





Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Action for a declaration of failure to act – Competition – Complaint – Control of concentrations – Definition of a position for the purposes of Article 232 EC – Inadmissibility)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 8 May 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 25 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Commission's obligations vis-à-vis qualifying third parties – Obligation to define its position on a complaint

(Council Regulation No 4064/89)

2.. Actions for failure to act – Institution must be called upon to act – Action to be taken within a reasonable time – Cases relating to concentrations between undertakings

(Art. 232, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Arts 4, 6 and 10(1), (3) and (6))

1.

2.
Case C-201/02





The Queen on the application of Delena Wells

v

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court))

«(Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – National measure granting consent for mining operations without an environmental impact assessment being carried out – Direct effect of directives – Triangular situation)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 25 September 2003

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 January 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Environment – Assessment of the environmental effects of certain projects – Directive 85/337 – Obligation on the competent authorities to carry out an assessment before consent is granted – Meaning of consent for the purposes of Article 1(2) – Decision laying down new conditions for a project to resume mining operations – Included

(Council Directive 85/337, Arts 1(2), 2(1) and 4(2))

2.. Environment – Assessment of the environmental effects of certain projects – Directive 85/337 – Obligation on the competent authorities to carry out an assessment before consent is granted – Obligation not being directly linked to the performance of another obligation falling, pursuant to the directive, on a third party – Ability of an individual to rely on the directive

(Council Directive 85/337, Arts 1(2), 2(1) and 4(2))

3.. Environment – Assessment of the environmental effects of certain projects – Directive 85/337 – Obligation on the competent authorities to carry out an assessment before consent is granted – Failure to carry out the assessment – Obligation on the authorities to remedy the failure – Scope – Application of the detailed procedural rules under national law

(Art. 10 EC; Council Directive 85/337, Art. 2(1))

1.

2.

3.
Joined Cases C-4/02 and C-5/02





Hilde Schönheit

v

Stadt Frankfurt am Main





and





Silvia Becker

v

Land Hessen





(References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main)

«(Social policy – Equal pay for men and women – Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and Article 141(1) and (2) EC and of Directive 86/378/EEC or Directive 79/7/EEC – Meaning of pay – Civil service pension scheme – Calculation of the old-age pension for part-time civil servants – Discriminatory treatment as compared with full-time workers – Indirect discrimination based on sex – Conditions governing justification for objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex – Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Protocol concerning Article 141 EC) – Temporal effects)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 22 May 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 23 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Pay – Meaning – Scheme for retirement pensions for civil servants provided to them by reason of their employment relationship – Included – Legislation which may entail a reduction in the pension of civil servants who have worked part-time for at least a part of their working life – Reduction principally affecting female civil servants – Not permitted in the absence of objective justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC); Art. 141(1) and (2) EC)

2.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – National law principally affecting female workers – Not permitted in the absence of objective justification – Appraisal of the national court – Criteria – Budgetary considerations – Not included – Objective justification – Legislation whose result is to reduce the amount of a worker's retirement pension in a proportion greater than that represented by his or her periods of part-time work – No justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC); Art. 141(1) and (2) EC)

3.. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and Article 141(1) and (2) EC – Applicability to benefits provided by an occupational social security scheme – Benefits payable in respect of periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990 – Excluded by Protocol No 2 concerning Article 119 of the Treaty (now Protocol concerning Article 141 EC) – Exception

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC); Protocol No 2 concerning Article 119 (now Protocol concerning Article 141 EC))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-8/02

Ludwig Leichtle

v

Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen)

(Freedom to provide services – Sickness insurance scheme for civil servants – Health cure taken in another Member State – Expenditure on board, lodging, travel, visitors’ tax and a final medical report – Conditions for reimbursement – Prior declaration of eligibility for assistance – Criteria – Justification)

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – National legislation relating to the reimbursement of expenditure in connection with a health cure taken in another Member State – Requirement to obtain prior recognition of eligibility – Granted only if the treatment is absolutely necessary owing to the greatly increased prospects of success in the other Member State – Not permissible – Grant precluded if the cure is commenced before the conclusion of the court proceedings brought against the decision of refusal – Not permissible – Grant conditional upon the health spa concerned being listed in the Register of Health Spas – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Arts 49 EC and 50 EC)

Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude rules of a Member State under which reimbursement of expenditure incurred on board, lodging, travel, visitors’ tax and the making of a final medical report in connection with a health cure taken in another Member State is conditional on obtaining prior recognition of eligibility, which is given only where it is established, in a report drawn up by a medical officer or a medical consultant, that the proposed cure is absolutely necessary owing to the greatly increased prospects of success in that other Member State.

Those provisions preclude also the application of national rules under which the reimbursement of such expenditure is precluded where the person concerned has not awaited the conclusion of the court proceedings brought against the decision refusing to recognise that expenditure as eligible for assistance before commencing the cure in question.

Articles 49 EC and 50 EC are, on the other hand, to be interpreted as meaning that they do not in principle preclude rules of a Member State under which reimbursement of such expenditure, whether the health cure is taken in that Member State or in another Member State, is made only where the health spa concerned is listed in the Register of Health Spas. However, it is for the national court to ensure that any conditions to which the registration of a health spa in such a register may be subject are objective and do not have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within the Member State concerned.

(see paras 51, 59, operative part 1-3)
Case C-18/02





Danmarks Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S

v

LO Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbejdsret)

«(Brussels Convention – Article 5(3) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Place where the harmful event occurred – Measure taken by a trade union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship registered in another Contracting State)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 18 September 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 5 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Protocol on the Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention – National courts which may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling – Arbejdsret, court of first and last instance under Danish law with jurisdiction over disputes relating to the legality of certain industrial action – Included

(Protocol of 3 June 1971, Art. 2)

2.. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Meaning – Case concerning the legality of industrial action which comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court other than the court which has jurisdiction to hear any associated claims for compensation – Included

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

3.. 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 – Damage caused by industrial action initiated by a union in a Contracting State which had admitted a ship registered in another Contracting State into its waters – Damage deemed to have occurred in flag State – Account taken of the nationality of the ship – Limits

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

1.

2.

3.
Case C-99/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State aid – Second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC – Aid incompatible with the common market – Obligation to recover – Absolute impossibility of implementation)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance with a Commission decision finding State aid incompatible with the common market – Pleas in defence – Absolute impossibility of implementation

(Art. 88(2) EC)

2. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Difficulties in implementation – Obligation on the Commission and the Member State to cooperate in seeking a solution consistent with the Treaty

(Arts 10 EC and 88(2) EC)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to comply with a Commission decision finding State aid incompatible with the common market – Obligation to recover the aid granted – Reference period – Period fixed by the decision failure to implement which is denied or, subsequently, by the Commission

(Art. 88(2), second subpara., EC)

1. The only defence available to a Member State in opposing an infringement action by the Commission under Article 88(2) EC is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it to implement the decision properly.

(see para. 16)

2. A Member State which, in giving effect to a Commission decision on State aid, encounters unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties or becomes aware of consequences overlooked by the Commission, may submit those problems to the Commission for consideration, together with proposals for suitable amendments to the decision in question. In such cases, the Commission and the Member State must, by virtue of the rule imposing on the Member States and the Community institutions a duty of genuine cooperation which underlies, in particular, Article 10 EC, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions and, in particular, the provisions on aid.

(see para. 17)

3. Because the second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC does not provide for a pre-litigation phase, in contrast to Article 226 EC, and therefore the Commission does not issue a reasoned opinion allowing Member States a certain period within which to comply with its decision, when the second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC is applied the reference period can only be that provided for in the decision failure to implement which is denied or, where appropriate, that subsequently fixed by the Commission.

(see para. 24)
Joined Cases C-361/02 and C-362/02

Elliniko Dimosio

v

Nikolaos Tsapalos and Konstantinos Diamantakis

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus)

(Directive 76/308/EEC – Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties – Application to claims which arose prior to the entry into force of the directive)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties – Directive 76/308 – Temporal application – Application to claims which arose before the entry into force of the directive in the State where the requested authority is situated

(Council Directive 76/308)

Directive 76/308 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, is to be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before that directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

Since the purpose of the directive is to eliminate obstacles to the functioning of the common market arising from problems related to the crossborder recovery of the claims referred to and to prevent fraudulent operations, it is conceivable that the directive may apply to claims existing at the time it entered into force in the State where the requested authority is situated.

(see paras 22-23, operative part)