ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area as regards its application in the States belonging to the European Free Trade Association - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC); EEA Agreement)

2 Social policy - Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987 - Insufficiently transposed into national law in a new Member State by the date of accession - Whether individuals may rely on the Directive or on attribution of liability to the State in relation to events prior to the date of accession - Not possible

(Council Directive 80/987)

Summary

1 Although the Court has jurisdiction in principle to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) when a question arises before one of the national courts, since the provisions of that Agreement form an integral part of the Community legal system, that jurisdiction applies solely with regard to the Community, so that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of the EEA Agreement as regards its application in the States belonging to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

The fact that the EFTA State in question subsequently became a Member State of the European Union, so that the question emanates from a court or tribunal of one of the Member States, cannot have the effect of attributing to the Court of Justice jurisdiction to interpret the EEA Agreement as regards its application to situations which do not come within the Community legal order. Thus, although the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice covers the interpretation of Community law, of which the EEA Agreement forms an integral part, as regards its application in the new Member States with effect from the date of their accession, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the effects of that Agreement within the national legal systems of the contracting States during the period prior to accession.

2 Community law does not entail that, upon the accession to the European Union of an EFTA State, individuals may rely before the courts or tribunals of that State, as of the date of entry into force of Directive 80/987 concerning the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, on rights derived directly therefrom, or on attribution of liability to that State for damage caused to them by failure to transpose Directive 80/987 correctly, where the events which give rise to the operation of the guarantee provided for in the Directive occurred prior to the date of accession.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Taxation by a Member State of loan agreements, including those entered into in another Member State - Justified by the need to prevent the infringement of national tax law and regulations

(EC Treaty, Arts 73b(1), 73d(1)(b) and (3) (now Arts 56(1) EC, 58(1)(b) and (3) EC))

2 Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Taxation by a Member State only of loans entered into in another Member State - Not permissible - Whether justifiable - No justification

(EC Treaty, Arts 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) (now Arts 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) EC))

Summary

1 Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) and (3) of the Treaty (now Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) and (3) EC) are to be interpreted as not precluding the levying of duty, under the legislation of a Member State, on loan agreements, including those entered into in another Member State, payable by all natural and legal persons resident in that State who enter into such a contract, irrespective of the nationality of the contracting parties or of the place where the loan is contracted.

Although, in depriving residents of a Member State of the possibility of benefiting from the absence of taxation which may be associated with loans obtained outside the national territory, such legislation is likely to deter them from obtaining loans from persons established in other Member States and therefore constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital, it is intended to ensure equality of tax treatment of borrowers by preventing taxable persons from evading the requirements of domestic tax legislation and is therefore essential in order to prevent infringements of national tax law and regulations.

2 Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty (now Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) EC) preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that, where a natural or legal person resident in that State concludes outside the national territory a loan agreement which is not set down in a written instrument and not recorded by an entry in the borrower's books and accounts, he is liable to pay stamp duty, whereas, in the case of a loan entered into in that Member State such duty is not payable even if the agreement is not set down in a written instrument.

Such legislation, which discriminates according to the place where the loan is contracted, is likely to deter residents from contracting loans with persons established in other Member States and therefore constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital. It cannot be justified by the need to ensure equal tax treatment of residents, since the discrimination entailed as between residents runs counter to that objective; nor can it be justified in terms of the objective of preventing fraud by borrowers who are resident in that State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 EC Treaty - Expiry of the period allowed for establishment of the internal market - Effects - Whether Member States are required to abolish controls of persons at the Community's internal frontiers - No such obligation in the absence of legislation from the Council

(EC Treaty, Art. 7a (now, after amendment, Art. 14 EC))

2 Citizenship of the European Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Exercise of that right subject, in the absence of common or harmonised laws, to establishing possession of the nationality of a Member State

(EC Treaty, Art 8a (now, after amendment, Art. 18 EC))

3 Citizenship of the European Union - Requirement that nationality be established when crossing the Community's internal frontiers - Whether permissible in the absence of common or harmonised laws on the crossing of external borders - Penalties for infringement - Conditions governing permissibility

(EC Treaty, Arts 7a and 8a (now, after amendment, Arts 14 EC and 18 EC))

Summary

1 Article 7a of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 14 EC), which provides that the Community is to adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market before 31 December 1992, cannot be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of measures adopted before that date by the Council requiring the Member States to abolish controls of persons at the internal frontiers of the Community, that obligation automatically arises upon the expiry of that deadline.

Such an obligation presupposes harmonisation of the laws of the Member States governing the crossing of the Community's external borders, immigration, the grant of visas, asylum and the exchange of information on those questions.

2 As long as Community provisions have not been adopted concerning controls at the Community's external borders - which would also entail common or harmonised rules on the conditions governing entry, visas and asylum - the exercise of the rights conferred upon citizens of the Union by Article 8a of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) presupposes that the person concerned is able to establish that he or she has the nationality of a Member State.

3 In the absence of common rules or harmonisation of the legislation of the Member States concerning controls at the Community's external borders, immigration policy, visas and asylum, neither Article 7a nor Article 8a of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 14 EC and 18 EC) precludes a Member State from requiring a person, whether or not a citizen of the European Union, to establish, on pain of criminal penalties, his nationality upon entering the territory of that Member State over one of the Community's internal frontiers, provided that the penalties applicable are comparable to those which apply to similar infringements of domestic law and are not disproportionate, thus creating an obstacle to the free movement of persons.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision concerning freedom of movement for workers - Reuniting of family - Access of members of the family of a Turkish worker belonging to the labour force in a Member State to paid employment of their choice in that Member State - Corresponding right to extension of residence permit

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 7, first para.)

Summary

$$A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter a Member State for the purpose of re-uniting the family of a Turkish worker belonging to the legal labour force of that State, has been legally resident there for more than five years and has been in legal employment of various kinds, with interruptions, does not lose the benefit of the rights conferred on him by the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council and, in particular, the right to extend his residence permit in the host Member State, where his residence permit had expired before the date on which he lodged an application to extend it which was refused by the competent national authorities.

( see para. 67 and operative part )
Keywords



Keywords

ECSC - Investments and financial aid - Industrial loan coupled with an interest rebate - Application by the Commission for the recovery of a sum corresponding to the interest rebate - Arbitration clause attributing jurisdiction to the Court of Justice - Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the contract
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture EAGGF Clearance of accounts Definitive refusal to charge certain expenditure to the EAGGF Need for a prior procedure giving effect to the audi alteram partem rule

2. 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 (now Art. 253 EC))

3. Agriculture Common agricultural policy EAGGF financing Principles Conformity of expenditure with the Community rules Obligation to supervise incumbent on the Member States

(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 8(1))

4. Agriculture EAGGF Clearance of accounts Principle of legal certainty Commission's interpretation of the applicable rules Interpretation which departs from the normal meaning of the words used Not binding

Summary

1. The final and conclusive decision on the clearance of accounts must be taken at the conclusion of a specific procedure giving effect to the audi alteram partem rule, during which the Member States concerned must be provided with all the guarantees necessary for them to present their point of view.

( see para. 47 )

2. A decision concerning the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF and refusing to charge part of the declared expenditure to the EAGGF does not require detailed reasons where the government concerned has been closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF.

( see para. 48 )

3. Article 8(1) of Regulation 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures.

( see para. 62 )

4. The need to ensure legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them. The Commission thus cannot choose, at the time of the clearance of EAGGF accounts, an interpretation which departs from and consequently is not dictated by the normal meaning of the words used.

It follows that, where particular Community rules already establish a system that adequately ensures sound financial management and the cost-effective use of the expenditure incurred, specific additional requirements that are not set out in the particular rules and that impose supplementary obligations on the competent bodies and their contractors cannot be inferred from the general rules applicable in the area in question.

( see paras 72 to 73 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Registration of aircraft in a Member State - Minimum period of residence or establishment required in the case of nationals of other Member States - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 6 and 52 (now, after amendment, Arts 12 EC and 43 EC))

2 Member States - Obligations - Failure to fulfil obligations - Maintenance in force of national legislation incompatible with Community law - Administrative practice ensuring the application of the Treaty pleaded in justification - Not permissible

Summary

1 National legislation making natural or legal persons from other Member States subject to special rules for the registration of aircraft, under which it is necessary to have been resident or established in that Member State for at least one year in order to have an aircraft registered there, constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to Article 6 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC), which impedes the exercise of the freedom of establishment of those persons, in infringement of Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC).

2 Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting proper fulfilment of a Member State's obligations under the Treaty, and in no way alter the fact that, by maintaining legislation incompatible with Community law, it has failed to fulfil those obligations.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetables - Safeguard measures on the importation of sour cherries - Import price lower than fixed minimum price - Significant but unexpected deterioration of the fruit - Circumstance beyond the control of the importer and unconnected with the origin of the goods - Levy of a countervailing charge - Unlawful

(Commission Regulation No 1395/94, Art. 1)

Summary

$$Article 1 of Regulation No 1395/94 establishing a minimum import price for sour cherries must be interpreted as meaning that the countervailing charge it prescribes where the minimum import price is not observed may not be levied in respect of sour cherries released for free circulation within the Community at a low price, where their low price is attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the importer and unconnected with the origin of the goods, such as a significant but unexpected deterioration of the fruit. Once the objective of Regulation No 1395/94, which consists in protecting the Community market against the influx of goods imported at low prices, is attained, the levying of a countervailing charge is illegal.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not permissible

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

Summary

$$A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system as justification for failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not permissible

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

Summary

$$A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Agreement concluded between certain Member States on charges for the use of roads - Not covered - Community directive authorising conclusion of the agreement - Irrelevant - Reference in the agreement to definitions given in the directive - Implications for a reference seeking interpretation of a term included in those definitions - Jurisdiction to rule on that interpretation

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC); Council Directive 93/89)

2 Transport - Road transport - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and charges for the use of certain infrastructures - Directive 93/89 - Motor vehicles or articulated vehicle combinations intended solely for the carriage of goods by road - `Intended exclusively' within the meaning of Article 2, fourth indent

(Council Directive 93/89, Art. 2, fourth indent)

Summary

1 The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 concluded between the governments of certain Member States on the levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles where the question referred concerns neither the interpretation of the Treaty nor the validity or interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community.

The fact that the preamble to the Agreement refers to Directive 93/89 concerning taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures, which authorises two or more Member States to cooperate in introducing a common system for user charges is not enough to justify the view that an agreement concluded for that purpose forms an integral part of Community law, whose interpretation falls within the jurisdiction of the Court.

However, the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling where the national court is not only seeking an interpretation of a provision of the Agreement, but is also requesting a ruling on the interpretation of the fourth indent of Article 2 of the Directive, to which Article 2(1) of the Agreement expressly refers.

2 In order to determine whether a motor vehicle or an articulated vehicle combination is intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by road, within the meaning of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Directive 93/89 concerning taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures, reference must be made to the general purpose for which the vehicle is intended, irrespective of the use to which it may be put in a particular instance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Economic activities within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive - Independent activity - Meaning - Where tangible property is let to a company or partnership by one of its members - Covered - Where such letting constitutes the lessor's sole economic activity - Irrelevant

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(1) and (4))

Summary

$$Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a person's sole economic activity, within the meaning of that provision, consists in the letting of an item of tangible property to a company or a partnership of which he is a member, that letting must be regarded as an independent activity within the meaning of that provision.

In so far as the activity at issue is concerned, there is between the partnership and the partner no relationship of employer and employee similar to that mentioned in the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive which would preclude the independence of the partner. On the contrary, the partner, in letting tangible property to the partnership, acts in his own name, on his own behalf and under his own responsibility, even if he is at the same time manager of the lessee partnership. The lease in question is granted neither by the management nor by the representatives of the partnership. In those circumstances, it is irrelevant that the partner confines his activity to letting an item of tangible property to the partnership of which he is a member. That circumstance is of no consequence for the purpose of determining whether the partner is acting independently, within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive, in carrying on the activity concerned but, may, at most, have a bearing on the question whether there can be said to be an economic activity at all, within the meaning of that article.

(see paras 18-19 and 22, and operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Consumer protection in respect of consumer credit - Directive 87/102 - Scope - Contract of guarantee for repayment of credit - Excluded

(Council Directive 87/102)

Summary

$$On a proper construction of Directive 87/102 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, it does not cover a contract of guarantee for repayment of credit where neither the guarantor nor the borrower was acting in the course of his trade or profession.

Thus, the fact that the Directive both refers to guarantees when listing the terms regarded as essential to a credit agreement from the point of view of the borrower and is silent as to the legal implications of guarantees or other forms of surety shows that, in contemplating guarantees for the repayment of credit solely in terms of consumer protection, the Directive intentionally excluded agreements to act as guarantor from its scope.

Furthermore, the scope of the Directive cannot be widened to cover contracts of guarantee solely on the ground that such agreements are ancillary to the principal agreement whose performance they underwrite, since there is no support for such an interpretation in the wording of the Directive, or in its scheme and aims.

( see paras 22, 26-27 and operative part )