ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Obligation for undertakings in the construction industry providing services to pay employer ' s contributions which duplicate contributions paid in the place of establishment — Not permissible — Justification — None — (EC Treaty, Arts 59 and 60)

Summary

Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking in the construction industry established in another Member State and temporarily carrying out works in the first-mentioned Member State to pay employer ' s contributions in respect of loyalty stamps and bad-weather stamps with respect to workers assigned to carry out those works, where that undertaking is already liable for comparable employer ' s contributions, with respect to the same workers and for the same period of work, in the State where it is established.

Such an obligation, even if it is applicable without distinction to undertakings established in the national territory and those established in another Member State which make use of the freedom to provide services, constitutes, in so far as the competitiveness of the latter is affected since it must pay contributions in two Member States, a restriction on that freedom. Such restriction could be justified by the public interest in the social protection of workers in the construction industry, although in that event the workers in question should not enjoy the same protection or essentially similar protection in the Member State where their employer is established.

It is for the national court to determine whether, apart from the technical differences between the schemes protecting employees in the two Member States in question, the workers concerned do not already benefit, in the Member State where the undertaking which employs them is established, from a mechanism, maintained by the contributions of their employer, which offers them protection essentially comparable to that financed by the contributions provided for in the State where the service is provided. If it is confirmed that such is indeed the case, the restriction on the freedom to provide services is not permissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Concept — (Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Legislation of a Member State ensuring in respect of its nationals, during the suspension of their contract of employment in the public sector on account of military service, the continued payment on their behalf of employer ' s and employee ' s supplementary retirement contributions — Advantage excluded from the scope of Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 because granted as compensation for the consequences of military service — Advantage may not be claimed by nationals of other Member States — (Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1) and (2))

Summary

1. " Social advantages" within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community should be understood to mean all those advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract of employment, are generally granted to national workers because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory and the extension of which to workers who are nationals of other Member States therefore seems likely to facilitate their mobility within the Community.

2. Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as meaning that a worker who is a national of a Member State and performs military service in that State and whose contract of employment in the public sector of another Member State is thus suspended is not entitled, during such suspension, to have payment continued on his behalf, under the same conditions as if he were working, of the employer ' s and employee ' s contributions to the supplementary retirement scheme of which he is a member in the Member State of employment, even if the latter grants such a right to its nationals in the same circumstances.

The continued payment of supplementary retirement contributions during a period of suspension of the employment contract which is granted to nationals of the Member State in question constitutes an advantage established by the legislature to compensate partially those nationals called up to perform military service for the consequences of that obligation. It is not made by virtue of a statutory or contractual obligation incumbent on the employer as conditions of employment and work, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 and cannot be considered to be an advantage granted to national workers because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory, that is as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) thereof.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions ° Harmonization of laws ° Indirect taxes on the raising of capital ° Levying of a charge by virtue of the registration of an undertaking which also serves, where that undertaking is owned by a capital company and without any increase in the charge, as registration of that company ° Whether permissible

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

Summary

Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, which prohibits, under the prohibition of indirect taxes with the same characteristics as capital duty, the charging of any taxes in respect of registration or any other formality required before the commencement of business to which a company may be subject by reason of its legal form, must be interpreted as not applying to a levy which is payable annually by virtue of the registration of an undertaking with a Chamber of Trade and Industry, even if that operation also serves, where the undertaking is owned by a capital company, as registration of that company, without that latter formality being accompanied by an increase in the levy in question.

The event which gives rise to such a levy consists not in the registration of the company which owns an undertaking but in the registration of the undertaking itself, the levy being unrelated to the legal form of the entity which owns the undertaking in respect of which the levy is due. The levy in question cannot therefore be linked to formalities to which capital companies may be made subject by reason of their legal form.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. ECSC ° Scope of the Treaty ° Discrimination practised by purchasers against coal producers ° Included ° Provisions of the EC Treaty not applicable

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4, 33, 35, 63(1), 80, 81 and 88; EC Treaty, Art. 232)

2. ECSC ° Provisions relating to discrimination as regards price and other conditions of purchase ° Articles 4(b) and 63(1) ° Direct effect ° None ° Recommendations based on Article 63(1) ° Direct effect ° Conditions

3. ECSC ° Provisions relating to cartels and abuses of dominant positions ° Binding force of individual decisions adopted by the Commission ° Obligations of national courts ° Power of review of the Community court

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 14, 41, 65 and 66(7))

Summary

1. The provisions of the ECSC Treaty, and in particular Articles 4(b) and 63(1) thereof, and not those of the EC Treaty, constitute the legal framework for dealing with discrimination practised by purchasers against producers as regards price, volume and other terms and conditions for the purchase of coal.

First, it is clear from those two provisions, taken together, that they are aimed at discrimination systematically practised by purchasers irrespective of their status of undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty, to the detriment of coal producers which are undertakings within the meaning of Article 80. Secondly, in the ECSC Treaty the Commission has appropriate means of action and the producer undertakings have effective judicial protection against such discrimination, without any need to resort to the instruments and procedures established by the EC Treaty.

2. Since Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty does not apply by itself, it cannot have direct effect. Similarly, having regard to the power of the Commission, laid down in Article 63(1) of that Treaty, to make appropriate recommendations to the Governments concerned where it finds that discrimination is being systematically practised by purchasers, individuals cannot contend before the national courts that such discrimination is incompatible with Article 63(1) as long as the alleged discrimination has not been the subject of a recommendation addressed to the Governments concerned.

However, whenever the provisions of a recommendation based on Article 63(1) appear, as regards their subject-matter, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon directly by individuals before the national court on the same conditions as directives under the EC Treaty. The same rules apply to ECSC recommendations and directives, which are measures of the same kind.

3. Since the Commission has sole jurisdiction, subject to review by the Community court, to adopt decisions on the basis of Articles 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty in the matter of cartels and abuses of dominant positions, such decisions, which are binding in their entirety pursuant to Article 14 of the ECSC Treaty, are binding on the national courts which may, however, still ask the Court of Justice to rule on the validity or interpretation of those provisions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. International agreements ° EEC-Turkey Association Agreement ° Association Council set up by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement ° Decision on social security for migrant workers ° Entry into force, in the absence of an express provision, on the date when the measure was adopted

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Arts 6, 22(1) and 23; Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council)

2. International agreements ° Community agreements ° Direct effect ° Conditions ° Decision No 3/80 on social security for migrant workers of the Association Council set up by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement ° Absence of direct effect

(Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Arts 12 and 13)

Summary

1. In the absence of any express provision on its entry into force, Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States to Turkish workers and members of their families entered into force on the date on which it was adopted and has been binding on the Contracting Parties since then. It follows from Articles 6, 22(1) and 23 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement that decisions of the Association Council are measures adopted by a body provided for by the Agreement and empowered by the Contracting Parties to adopt such measures. In so far as they implement the objectives set by the Agreement, such decisions are directly connected with the Agreement and, as a result of the second sentence of Article 22(1) thereof, have the effect of binding the Contracting Parties.

2. In common with provisions of agreements concluded by the Community with non-member countries, a provision adopted by an association council, set up by an association agreement to implement its provisions, must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and the purpose and nature of the agreement itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure.

Those conditions are not met by Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States to Turkish workers and members of their families.

In the same way that Regulation No 1408/71, to which Decision No 3/80 refers and which is also intended to coordinate the different legislation of the Member States within the Community, required the adoption of implementing measures, which were embodied in Regulation No 574/72, by its nature Decision No 3/80 was intended to be supplemented and implemented in the Community by a subsequent act of the Council.

It follows that, so long as the supplementary measures essential for implementing Decision No 3/80 have not been adopted by the Council, Articles 12 and 13 of that decision do not have direct effect in the territory of the Member States and are therefore not such as to entitle individuals to rely on them before the national courts.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social policy ° Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ° Scope of Directive 79/7 ° Concessionary fares for the elderly on public passenger transport services ° Excluded

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 3(1))

Summary

On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, a scheme under which concessionary fares on public passenger transport services are granted to certain classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does not fall within the scope of the Directive.

First, a benefit consisting of concessionary fares on public passenger transport services does not afford direct and effective protection against one of the risks listed in Article 3(1) and the fact that the recipient of a benefit is, as a matter of fact, because of his age, in one of the situations envisaged by that article does not suffice to bring that benefit as such within the scope of the Directive.

Secondly, it cannot be concluded from the fact that, besides referring to the field of social security, Article 1 of Directive 79/7 refers to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 and that Article 3(1)(a) refers to statutory schemes which provide protection against the risks listed, without specifying that those schemes must fall under social security, that the scope of the Directive extends to social protection as a whole, and consequently to measures such as the said concessionary fares. In view of the unequivocal terms of the title of Directive 79/7, the various recitals in its preamble and Article 1 thereof, which all state that the Directive is intended to ensure the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, the reference to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 cannot be interpreted otherwise than as referring to provisions concerning social assistance, which generally fall outside the area of social security but fall within the scope of the Directive pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) where they are intended to supplement or replace the schemes referred to in Article 3(1)(a).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws ° Telecommunications terminal equipment ° Directive 91/263 ° Implementation by the Member States ° National provisions simply reproducing the text of Directive 86/361 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment ° Not sufficient

(Council Directives 86/361 and 91/263)

2. Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by the Member States ° Insufficiency of a practice which is in conformity with the requirements of a directive ° Insufficiency of a draft national regulation

(EC Treaty, Art. 189, third para.)

Summary

1. National provisions simply reproducing the text of Directive 86/361 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment are not sufficient to transpose Directive 91/263 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity. Between Directive 86/361 and Directive 91/263 there are clear differences as a result of which a Member State cannot claim to have implemented the second simply by having transposed the first. Amongst other things, Directive 91/263 constitutes, in relation to Directive 86/361, a further stage for full mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment, has an aim and a scope wider than Directive 86/361, lays down three requirements for terminal equipment which do not appear in the list of the essential requirements set out in Directive 86/361 and introduces a system of EC marking for terminal equipment complying with the requirements of the directive, which was not provided for by Directive 86/361.

2. The fact that a practice is in conformity with the requirements of a directive in the matter of protection can provide no reason for not transposing that directive into national law by means of provisions capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to enable individuals to ascertain their rights and obligations. Similarly, a draft national regulation is not capable of transposing a directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Beef and veal ° Special premium for producers ° Conditions for granting ° Inspections by the competent authorities ° Administrative controls ° Meaning ° On-farm inspections ° Criteria for selecting holdings

(Commission Regulation No 714/89, Art. 8)

2. Agriculture ° Common organization of the markets ° Beef and veal ° Special premium for producers ° Conditions for granting ° Identification of animals ° Requirement of additional specific marking in the event of consignment to another Member State ° Scope

(Commission Regulation No 714/89, Art. 7(1))

Summary

1. Under the control procedure provided for by Article 8 of Regulation No 714/89 laying down detailed rules applying to the special premium for beef producers, administrative controls and on-farm inspections were designed by the Community legislature as two means of verification which, although separate, complement each other.

Administrative controls preceding on-farm inspections must be carried out in such a way as to enable the national authorities to draw all possible conclusions, be they matters of certainty or of doubt, regarding compliance with the conditions for granting premiums. Accordingly, such controls should consist in checking that the claims and the undertakings or declarations accompanying them are in due order, comparing claims with any lodged by the same producer in earlier years, comparing claims with those relating to other holdings, above all the larger ones, and examining the information obtained in combination with the available statistics, and any other relevant data, so as to identify any dubious cases.

The selection of claimants to be subjected to an on-farm inspection must be based on a combination of appropriate criteria and not solely, or even mainly, on chance. Thus, on-farm inspections may, for example, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the control procedure, focus as a matter of priority on the largest holdings or those which, on the basis of the results of the administrative control, appeared suspect, and the others may be inspected on a random basis.

2. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 714/89, the purpose of which is to ensure that the premium is not paid to producers twice for the same animal, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of additional specific marking, laid down for animals which, after payment of the premium, are to be consigned to another Member State, relates only to animals identified by a marking system used both for cattle eligible for the special premium and for other purposes. In such circumstances, it is impossible for the authorities of other Member States to which such cattle are consigned to determine whether the mark borne by the animal relates to payment of the special premium or to something else. In contrast, animals already bearing specific marking which is used only for the purposes of the special premium and conforms to the first subparagraph can be identified by the authorities of the Member State to which they are consigned.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Financing by the EAGGF - Condition - Grant compatible with the Community rules - Export declaration - Presented in writing prior to the goods leaving the customs territory of the Community

(Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 3(5) and (6); Council Directive 81/177, Art. 2)

2 Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Refusal to charge to the EAGGF expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules - Disputed by the Member State concerned - Burden of proof

3 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

1 Only refunds granted `in accordance with the Community rules' within the framework of the common organisation of markets are financed by the EAGGF. As regards the requirements which must be met by the export declaration, the combined effect of Article 2 of Directive 81/177 and Article 3(5) and (6) of Regulation No 3665/87 is that an export declaration must be made in writing, inter alia, in order for it to be possible to check whether the information given by the exporter corresponds to the goods presented for export, and that it must be submitted before the goods have left the customs territory of the Community.

2 When the Commission refuses to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF on the ground that it was incurred as a result of breaches of Community rules attributable to a Member State, it is for that State to show that the conditions for obtaining the financing disallowed are fulfilled. In relation to export refunds, that rule is equally applicable in a case where the Commission considers, on the basis of inspections carried out by its staff, that the Member State in question did not carry out the necessary inspections before the goods left the customs territory of the Community.

3 The extent of the duty to state the reasons on which a decision is based, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, depends on the nature of the act in question and on the context in which it was adopted.

In the particular context of the preparation of decisions relating to the clearance of accounts concerning expenditure financed by the EAGGF, the statement of reasons for a decision must be regarded as sufficient if the Member State to which the decision was addressed was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and was aware of the reasons for which the Commission took the view that it must not charge the sum in dispute to the EAGGF.
Case C-315/94





Peter de Vos

v

Stadt Bielefeld





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld)

«(Freedom of movement for persons – Military service – Social advantage)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 14 December 1995

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 14 March 1996

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Concept

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Legislation of a Member State ensuring in respect of its nationals, during the suspension of their contract of employment in the public sector on account of military service, the continued payment on their behalf of employer's and employee's supplementary retirement contributions – Advantage excluded from the scope of Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 because granted as compensation for the consequences of military service – Advantage may not be claimed by nationals of other Member States

(Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1) and (2))

1.

2.