ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY QUOTAS FOR STEEL - EXCESS DELIVERIES - COMPLIANCE WITH PRODUCTION QUOTA - JUSTIFICATION - NONE

( DECISION NO 2177/83/ECSC, ARTS 5, 11*(6 ) AND 12 )

2 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY QUOTAS FOR STEEL - EXCESS DELIVERIES - DISPOSAL OF STOCKS - COMMISSION PRACTICE OF TOLERANCE - PRACTICE CHANGED WITHOUT WARNING TO UNDERTAKINGS INDIVIDUALLY AND WITHOUT EXPRESS INDICATION IN SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION - FINE - INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

( DECISIONS NOS 1831/81/ECSC, 1696/82/ECSC, ART . 2*(1 ), AND 2177/83/ECSC, ART . 2*(1 )*)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF FAILURE TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS - PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURE - PURPOSE - PERIODS ALLOWED TO THE MEMBER STATE - REQUIREMENT THAT PERIODS BE REASONABLE - CRITERIA

( EEC TREATY, ART . 169 )

Summary

IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS, THE PURPOSE OF THE PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURE IS TO GIVE THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED AN OPPORTUNITY, ON THE ONE HAND, TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER COMMUNITY LAW AND, ON THE OTHER, TO AVAIL ITSELF OF ITS RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION .

IN VIEW OF THAT DUAL PURPOSE THE COMMISSION MUST ALLOW MEMBER STATES A REASONABLE PERIOD TO REPLY TO THE LETTER OF FORMAL NOTICE AND TO COMPLY WITH A REASONED OPINION, OR, WHERE APPROPRIATE, TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENCE . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PERIOD ALLOWED IS REASONABLE, ACCOUNT MUST BE TAKEN OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . THUS, VERY SHORT PERIODS MAY BE

JUSTIFIED IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE IS AN URGENT NEED TO REMEDY A BREACH OR WHERE THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED IS FULLY AWARE OF THE COMMISSION' S VIEWS LONG BEFORE THE PROCEDURE STARTS .

WHERE THE TIME-LIMITS SET ARE UNREASONABLE, THE COMMISSION CANNOT PREVENT ITS APPLICATION FROM BEING DECLARED INADMISSIBLE BY ASSERTING THAT THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY REPLIES GIVEN AFTER THEIR EXPIRY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED . A MEMBER STATE TO WHICH A MEASURE SUBJECT TO A TIME-LIMIT IS ADDRESSED CANNOT KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, THE COMMISSION WILL IF NECESSARY GRANT IT AN EXTENSION OF THAT TIME-LIMIT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - COMMISSION' S INITIATIVE IN ORDER TO MEET URGENT NEEDS - DUTIES OF ACTION AND ABSTENTION

( EEC TREATY, ART . 5 )

2 . FISHERIES - CONSERVATION OF MARITIME RESOURCES - COUNCIL' S FAILURE TO ACT - ADOPTION OF PROVISIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES - CONDITIONS - COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION - PROPOSALS FOR QUOTAS ADOPTED UNILATERALLY BY THE COMMISSION - QUOTAS EXCEEDED - INTERVENTION MEASURES - FINANCE OUT OF THE EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL GUIDANCE AND GUARANTEE FUND - REFUSAL - UNLAWFULNESS

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 729/70, ART . 3 )

3 . COMMUNITY LAW - PRINCIPLES - LEGAL CERTAINTY - RULES WHICH MAY HAVE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 5 OF THE EEC TREATY IMPOSES ON MEMBER STATES SPECIAL DUTIES OF ACTION AND ABSTENTION WHERE THE COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO MEET URGENT FISHERY CONSERVATION NEEDS, HAS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL PROPOSALS WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL, REPRESENT A BASIS FOR CONCERTED COMMUNITY ACTION .

2 . WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS FAILED TO ADOPT THE CONSERVATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT FISH STOCKS, SUCH MEASURES, DESIGNED TO ANSWER URGENT NEEDS, MAY BE AGREED UPON BY MEANS OF A PROCESS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COMMUNITY TO MEET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES . IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH COOPERATION, PROPOSALS UNILATERALLY MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO THE FISHING QUOTAS TO BE ALLOCATED TO A MEMBER STATE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMMUNITY RULES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 729/70 OF THE COUNCIL ON THE FINANCING OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, DISREGARD OF WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION' S REFUSAL TO CHARGE TO THE EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL GUIDANCE AND GUARANTEE FUND EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE FORM OF INTERVENTION MEASURES BY THE MEMBER STATE IN RELATION TO CATCHES IN EXCESS OF THE SAID QUOTAS .

3 . COMMUNITY LEGISLATION MUST BE CERTAIN AND ITS APPLICATION FORESEEABLE BY THOSE SUBJECT TO IT . THAT REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY MUST BE OBSERVED ALL THE MORE STRICTLY IN THE CASE OF RULES LIABLE TO ENTAIL FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES, IN ORDER THAT THOSE CONCERNED MAY KNOW PRECISELY THE EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THEY IMPOSE ON THEM .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers - Invalidity insurance - Special procedures for applying German legislation - Consideration of qualifications in determining entitlement to benefits - Community provision authorizing the refusal to take account of a qualification obtained in another Member State - Covert discrimination on grounds of nationality - Void

( EEC Treaty, Arts 48 and 51; Council Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, Annex VI, Part C, Point 15 )

Summary

Point 15 of Section C in Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71 is invalid in so far as it provides, in regard to entitlement to a pension in respect of occupational invalidity or incapacity for work, or a miner' s pension in respect of a reduction in his capacity to work as a miner, or a miner' s pension in respect of occupational invalidity or incapacity for work, that, where under German legislation account must be taken of the occupation hitherto pursued by the person concerned, that entitlement is to be determined by taking account only of activities subject to compulsory insurance under German legislation .

Although that provision applies regardless of the nationality of the worker concerned, it works, when combined with the provisions of the German legislation, to the disadvantage of migrant workers coming from Member States other than Germany who have been employed successively in those States and in the Federal Republic of Germany because it prevents them from obtaining recognition, for the purposes of entitlement to a pension, of a qualification obtained in another Member State which is higher than that which they have in the Federal Republic of Germany . Since it is not of such a nature as to guarantee the equal treatment required by Article 48 of the Treaty, such a provision has no place in the coordination of national laws provided for in Article 51 of the Treaty in order to promote freedom of movement for workers in the Community .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

COMMUNITY LAW - DIRECT EFFECT - NATIONAL CHARGES INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW - REPAYMENT - PLACING THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE CHARGES HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED ON ENTIRELY ON THE TAXPAYER - NOT PERMISSIBLE

Summary

THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT ADOPT PROVISIONS WHICH MAKE THE REPAYMENT OF CHARGES LEVIED CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW CONDITIONAL UPON THE PRODUCTION OF PROOF THAT THOSE CHARGES HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED ON TO THE PURCHASERS OF THE

PRODUCTS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE CHARGES AND PLACE THE BURDEN OF ADDUCING SUCH NEGATIVE PROOF ENTIRELY UPON THE NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS CLAIMING REPAYMENT .

THE ANSWER DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE NATIONAL PROVISION HAS RETROACTIVE EFFECT, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AT ISSUE OR WHETHER THE MARKET IS FREE, REGULATED OR MONOPOLISTIC, EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping practices - Dumping margin - Determination of the normal value - Constructed value - Taking into account a reasonable profit margin

( Council Regulation No 2176/84, Art . 2 ( 3 ) ( b ) ( ii ) )

2 . Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping practices - Dumping margin - Comparison between the normal value and the export price - Choice of the level of trade at which the values to be compared are determined - Taking into account the specific features of the commercial organization of the manufacturer concerned - Legality

( Council Regulation No 2176/84, Art . 2 ( 9 ) )

Summary

1 . Where the Community institutions are obliged, under the procedure for calculating anti-dumping duties, to take the constructed value as a basis for establishing the normal value, they are entitled to adopt as a reasonable profit margin the margin obtained on the domestic market of the country of manufacture for similar products by a competitor of the manufacturer practising the dumping, particularly where they adopt the margin of the competitor with the lowest profit, and it is no defence to argue that the information in question is not known to the manufacturer concerned .

Where it is impossible to take real prices as a basis, references to factors not known to the manufacturer concerned are often necessary under the system laid down by Regulation No 2176/84 and the degree of unforeseeability resulting therefrom has to be accepted .

2 . Under the procedure for calculating anti-dumping duties, the Community institutions are not mistaken in making, for the purpose of establishing the dumping margin, a comparison between export prices established at the manufacturer' s "ex-factory" level and a constructed normal value at the "ex-exclusive distributor" level, where it is apparent that, in view of the particular commercial structure adopted by the manufacturers of the exporting country which consists in entrusting to an exclusive distributor tasks normally carried out by a sales department, only the price charged by that distributor can be regarded as the normal value of the product .

It is of little importance that the exclusive distributor does not sell the dumped products, since the normal value of those products must be constructed as if they had been sold on the domestic market .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - CEREALS - IMPORT LEVIES - CHARGED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE REAL PURCHASE PRICE

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2727/75 )

2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - CEREALS - IMPORT LEVIES - NO EXEMPTION FOR IMPORTS OF MAIZE TO REUNION - DISCRIMINATION - NONE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 40 ( 3 ), SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH; COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2727/75 )

3 . OWN RESOURCES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REPAYMENT OR REMISSION OF IMPORT DUTIES - ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 1430/79 - "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" - MEANING OF TERM

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1430/79, ART . 13 )

Summary

1 . THE PURPOSE OF THE IMPORT LEVY PROVIDED FOR IN REGULATION NO 2727/75 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS IS TO ENSURE THAT COMMUNITY PREFERENCE IS OBSERVED AND THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY ARE ATTAINED . IT IS APPLICABLE EVEN WHERE THE REAL PURCHASE PRICE DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE FICTITIOUS REFERENCE PRICE AND EXCEEDS NOT ONLY THE LATTER BUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY PRICE .

2 . IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE SITUATION OF REUNION IS NOT OBJECTIVELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AND DOES NOT JUSTIFY EXEMPTION FROM LEVIES IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS OF MAIZE INTO THAT TERRITORY THE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION . THE APPLICATION OF THE LEVY INSTITUTED BY REGULATION NO 2727/75 TO MAIZE IMPORTED INTO REUNION THEREFORE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION SET OUT IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY .

3 . SINCE THE GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION OF REUNION IS OF AN OBJECTIVE NATURE AND AFFECTS AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF TRADERS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH MAIZE IS IMPORTED INTO REUNION DO NOT CONSTITUTE "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 1430/79 SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE REPAYMENT OF LEVIES CHARGED ON THOSE IMPORTS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . MEMBER STATES - OBLIGATIONS - FAILURE TO FULFIL THEM - JUSTIFICATION - NOT ACCEPTABLE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 169 )

2 . ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS - JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DECLARING A MEMBER STATE IN BREACH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS - PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 171 )

Summary

1 . A MEMBER STATE CANNOT RELY ON PROVISIONS, PRACTICES OR SITUATIONS IN ITS INTERNAL LEGAL ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER COMMUNITY LAW .

2 . THE ACTION REQUIRED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A JUDGMENT DECLARING A MEMBER STATE IN BREACH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS MUST BE SET IN MOTION IMMEDIATELY AND BE COMPLETED IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE PERIOD .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

AGRICULTURE - PROCESSED PRODUCTS NOT COVERED BY ANNEX II TO THE TREATY - EXPORT REFUNDS - REFUNDS FIXED IN ADVANCE - DEDUCTION OF THE PRODUCTION REFUND FOR THE BASIC PRODUCT - RATE APPLICABLE - REFERENCE DATE - MONTH OF EXPORTATION

( REGULATION NO*2682/72 OF THE COUNCIL, ART.*4 ( 3 ) AND ART.*5 ( 2 )*)

Summary

ARTICLE 5 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO*2682/72 LAYING DOWN GENERAL RULES FOR GRANTING EXPORT REFUNDS ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS EXPORTED IN THE FORM OF GOODS NOT COVERED BY ANNEX II TO THE TREATY, AND THE CRITERIA FOR FIXING THE AMOUNT OF SUCH REFUNDS MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE FIXING IN ADVANCE OF THE EXPORT REFUND PROVIDED FOR THEREIN CONCERNS ONLY THE UNADJUSTED RATE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF THE RATE OF PRODUCTION REFUND FOR THE BASIC PRODUCT . FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT DEDUCTION, REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF THE SAID REGULATION, THE RATE IN FORCE DURING THE MONTH OF EXPORTATION MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - DIFFERENCES IN NATIONAL RULES ON THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF VEHICLES AND TRAILERS - OBSTACLE TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE - DIRECTIVE 85/3 - APPLICATION OF NATIONAL RULES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIVE - WHETHER PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 30; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 85/3 )

TRANSPORT - TRANSPORT BY ROAD - DIRECTIVE 85/3 - NATIONAL RULES ON THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF VEHICLES AND TRAILERS - RULES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIVE - NO RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES

( EEC TREATY, ARTS 61 AND 75; COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 85/3 )

Summary

THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THEY DO NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION TO VEHICLES REGISTERED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH LAYS DOWN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIRECTIVE 85/3 ON THE WEIGHTS, DIMENSIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CERTAIN ROAD VEHICLES, A MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF FOUR METRES FOR ALL VEHICLES OR TRAILERS ALLOWED INTO CIRCULATION ON NATIONAL TERRITORY, WHEN THE SAME LIMIT IS NOT LAID DOWN BY THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH A VEHICLE IS REGISTERED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . COMMUNITY LAW - PRINCIPLES - FORCE MAJEURE - CONCEPT

2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - EXPORT LICENCES - SYSTEM OF SECURITIES - NON-PERFORMANCE OF AN EXPORT SALE CONTRACT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PURCHASER - FORFEITURE OF THE SECURITY - NOT CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE

( COMMISSION REGULATION NO 3183/80, ARTS 36 AND 37 )

Summary

1 . WHILST THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, IT NEVERTHELESS REQUIRES THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT IN QUESTION TO BE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERSON CLAIMING FORCE MAJEURE WHICH ARE ABNORMAL AND UNFORESEEABLE AND OF WHICH THE CONSEQUENCES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF ALL DUE CARE .

2 . THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 36 AND 37 OF REGULATION NO 3183/80, WHICH PROVIDE THAT THE SECURITY FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUE OF AN EXPORT LICENCE IS TO BE RELEASED WHERE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CANCELS THE OBLIGATION TO EXPORT BECAUSE THE GOODS CANNOT BE EXPORTED DURING THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE LICENCE AS A RESULT OF FORCE MAJEURE, DOES NOT, PROPERLY CONSTRUED, EXTEND TO A CASE WHERE THE GOODS WERE NOT EXPORTED BECAUSE THE PURCHASER, CONTRARY TO HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, FAILED TO TAKE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS SOLD FOR EXPORT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . EEC TREATY - OBJECTIVES - ACCELERATED RAISING OF THE STANDARD OF LIVING - DIRECT EFFECT - NONE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 2 )

2 . SOCIAL POLICY - OBJECTIVES - IN THE NATURE OF A PROGRAMME - POWERS OF THE MEMBER STATES NOT ENCROACHED UPON - NATIONAL MEASURES OF SOCIAL POLICY - REVIEW BY THE COURT - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY, ARTS 117 AND 118 ).

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 2 OF THE TREATY DESCRIBES THE TASK OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY . THE AIMS LAID DOWN IN THAT PROVISION ARE CONCERNED WITH THE EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMUNITY; THEY ARE TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMON MARKET AND THE PROGRESSIVE APPROXIMATION OF THE ECONOMIC POLICIES OF MEMBER STATES, WHICH ARE ALSO AIMS WHOSE IMPLEMENTATION IS THE ESSENTIAL OBJECT OF THE TREATY .

THE PROMOTION OF AN ACCELERATED RAISING OF THE STANDARD OF LIVING, IN PARTICULAR, WAS ONE OF THE AIMS WHICH INSPIRED THE CREATION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND WHICH, OWING TO ITS GENERAL TERMS AND ITS SYSTEMATIC DEPENDENCE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMON MARKET AND PROGRESSIVE APPROXIMATION OF ECONOMIC POLICIES, CANNOT IMPOSE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ON MEMBER STATES OR CONFER RIGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS .

2 . THE FACT THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF SOCIAL POLICY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 117 ARE IN THE NATURE OF A PROGRAMME DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF ANY LEGAL EFFECT . THEY CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT AID FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND OF SECONDARY COMMUNITY LEGISLATION IN THE SOCIAL FIELD . THE ATTAINMENT OF THOSE OBJECTIVES MUST NEVERTHELESS BE THE RESULT OF A SOCIAL POLICY WHICH MUST BE DEFINED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES .

ARTICLE 118 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT ENCROACH UPON THE MEMBER STATES' POWERS IN THE SOCIAL FIELD; IT NEVERTHELESS PROVIDES THAT THOSE POWERS MUST BE EXERCISED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, WHICH IS TO BE ORGANIZED BY THE COMMISSION .

CONSEQUENTLY, NEITHER THE GENERAL GUIDELINES OF SOCIAL POLICY DEFINED BY EACH MEMBER STATE NOR SPECIFIC MEASURES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SUCH GUIDELINES CAN BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SOCIAL OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 117 OF THE TREATY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - OLD-AGE PENSION - CALCULATION OF BENEFITS - COMMUNITY ANTI-OVERLAPPING RULE - APPLICATION WHERE THE THEORETICAL AMOUNT IS EXCEEDED OTHERWISE THAN BY REASON OF THE DUPLICATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1408/71, ART . 46 ( 3 ) )

2 SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - OLD-AGE PENSION - CALCULATION OF BENEFITS - COMMUNITY ANTI-OVERLAPPING RULE - METHOD FOR REDUCTION OF BENEFITS - CASE WHERE ONLY ONE INSTITUTION PAYS AN INDEPENDENT BENEFIT - REDUCTION ONLY OF THE INDEPENDENT BENEFIT

( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1408/71, ART . 46 ( 3 ) )

Summary

1 . THE ANTI-OVERLAPPING RULE IN ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 APPLIES IN ALL CASES IN WHICH THE TOTAL SUM OF THE BENEFITS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) EXCEEDS THE LIMIT OF THE HIGHEST THEORETICAL AMOUNT OF PENSION, EVEN IF THE EXCEEDING OF THAT LIMIT IS NOT DUE TO THE DUPLICATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS .

2 . WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE INSTITUTION PROVIDING AN INDEPENDENT BENEFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71, THAT INSTITUTION ALONE MUST REDUCE ITS BENEFIT PURSUANT TO THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ) AND MUST REDUCE IT BY THE FULL AMOUNT BY WHICH THE TOTAL SUM OF THE BENEFITS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) EXCEEDS THE LIMIT REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 46 ( 3 ).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS - SPECIAL JURISDICTION - DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE "OPERATIONS OF A BRANCH, AGENCY OR OTHER ESTABLISHMENT" - CONCEPT - BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY A COMPANY THROUGH ANOTHER COMPANY WITH THE SAME NAME AND IDENTICAL MANAGEMENT - INCLUDED

( CONVENTION OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1968, ART . 5 ( 5 ) )

Summary

ARTICLE 5 ( 5 ) OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS MUST BE INTERPRETED AS APPLYING TO A CASE IN WHICH A LEGAL ENTITY ESTABLISHED IN A CONTRACTING STATE MAINTAINS NO DEPENDENT BRANCH, AGENCY OR OTHER ESTABLISHMENT IN ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE BUT NEVERTHELESS PURSUES ITS ACTIVITIES THERE THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT COMPANY WITH THE SAME NAME AND IDENTICAL MANAGEMENT WHICH NEGOTIATES AND CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN ITS NAME AND WHICH IT USES AS AN EXTENSION OF ITSELF .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES - EXEMPTION FROM NATIONAL TAXES ON SALARIES PAID BY THE COMMUNITIES - SCOPE - TAX ON INCOME FROM IMMOVABLE ASSETS BORNE BY TENANTS - REDUCTIONS REFUSED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE TENANT IS AN OFFICIAL OR OTHER SERVANT - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ART . 13, SECOND PARAGRAPH )

Summary

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IS INTENDED TO LAY DOWN AN EXEMPTION FROM ALL DIRECT OR INDIRECT NATIONAL TAXES ON SALARIES, WAGES AND EMOLUMENTS PAID BY THE COMMUNITIES TO THEIR OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS AND PRECLUDES ANY NATIONAL TAX, REGARDLESS OF ITS NATURE AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS LEVIED, WHICH IS IMPOSED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ON OFFICIALS AND OTHER SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION PAID BY THE COMMUNITIES, EVEN IF THE TAX IN QUESTION IS NOT CALCULATED BY REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF THAT REMUNERATION .

CONSEQUENTLY, THE FACT THAT A MEMBER STATE DOES NOT APPLY, WITH REGARD TO A TAX ON INCOME FROM IMMOVABLE ASSETS WHICH IS IN PRACTICE BORNE BY TENANTS, A REDUCED RATE OF TAX WHERE THE TENANT OR THE TENANT' S SPOUSE, AS AN OFFICIAL OR OTHER SERVANT OF THE COMMUNITIES, IS EXEMPT FROM NATIONAL TAXES IN RESPECT OF REMUNERATION PAID BY THE COMMUNITIES, CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . TAX PROVISIONS - HARMONIZATION OF LAWS - INDIRECT TAXES ON THE RAISING OF CAPITAL - CAPITAL DUTY CHARGED ON CAPITAL COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS - CHARGING OF TAXES AND DUTIES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME TRANSACTIONS OTHERWISE THAN UNDER THE DEROGATIONS LAID DOWN IN DIRECTIVE 69/335 - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 69/335, ARTS 10, 11 AND 12 )

2 . TAX PROVISIONS - HARMONIZATION OF LAWS - INDIRECT TAXES ON THE RAISING OF CAPITAL - CAPITAL DUTY CHARGED ON CAPITAL COMPANIES - EVENTS GIVING RISE - SIMPLE INCREASE IN NOMINAL CAPITAL - NOT INCLUDED

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 69/335, ART . 4 ( 2 ) ( A ))

Summary

1 . ARTICLES 10 AND 11 OF DIRECTIVE 69/335 CONCERNING INDIRECT TAXES ON THE RAISING OF CAPITAL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT, IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN THOSE ARTICLES, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR A MEMBER STATE TO SUBJECT CAPITAL COMPANIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE DIRECTIVE TO TAXES OR DUTIES OTHER THAN CAPITAL DUTY AND THE DUTIES MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 12 .

2 . ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF DIRECTIVE 69/335 AUTHORIZES MEMBER STATES TO CHARGE CAPITAL DUTY IN THE EVENT OF AN INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL OF A CAPITAL COMPANY BY THE CAPITALIZATION OF PROFITS OR OF PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY RESERVES, TRANSACTIONS WHICH ASSUME THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER FOR VALUES LEADING TO AN INCREASE IN CAPITAL CONTRIBUTING TO A STRENGTHENING OF THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE COMPANY . ON THE OTHER HAND, A MEMBER STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CHARGE CAPITAL DUTY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AN INCREASE IN THE NOMINAL CAPITAL WHICH DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SUCH STRENGTHENING .