ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Freedom of movement for persons ° Workers ° Equal treatment ° Remuneration ° Taxes on income ° Repayment of excess tax in a system of retention at source ° Repayment of excess tax subject to a requirement that during the tax year the tax payer must have resided or occupied a salaried position within the national territory for a minimum period ° Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 48(2); Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(2))

2. Member States ° Obligations ° Failure to fulfil obligations ° Maintenance of a national provision incompatible with Community law ° Justification based on the existence of administrative practices ensuring that the Treaty is applied ° Not permissible

Summary

1. A Member State which maintains in force provisions under which excess amounts of tax deducted from the wages or salaries of nationals of a Member State who resided in that State or occupied a salaried position there for only part of the tax year are to remain the property of the Treasury and are not repayable fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 48(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.

Although the special situation of temporary residents may objectively justify the adoption of specific procedural arrangements to enable the competent tax authorities to determine the tax rate applicable to national income, it cannot justify the exclusion of that category of tax payer from entitlement, other than by means of a non-contentious procedure, to repayment of tax, where excess amounts of tax deducted are repayable as of right to permanent residents.

2. The incompatibility of national provisions with provisions of the Treaty, even those directly applicable, can be definitively eliminated only by means of binding domestic provisions having the same legal force as those which require to be amended.

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 the proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty, since they maintain, for the persons concerned, a state of uncertainty as regards the extent of their rights as guaranteed by the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social policy ° Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ° Directive 79/7 ° Article 4(1) ° Scheme of social assistance for older and/or partially incapacitated workers who are long-term unemployed subject to conditions relating to previous employment and age ° Scheme enabling many more men than women to avoid another, less favourable, scheme of social assistance ° Objective justification ° Permissibility

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))

Summary

Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that a national statutory scheme of social assistance for older or partially incapacitated workers who are also long-term unemployed which provides for a benefit designed to guarantee beneficiaries income at the level of the social minimum, irrespective as to whether the claimant has any resources but subject to conditions relating to his previous employment and age, does not involve discrimination on grounds of sex even if it is established that many more men than women find in that scheme a way of avoiding the means test which, in contrast, has to be satisfied in the case of another scheme which, albeit providing for a benefit of the same type, is less favourable, since the national legislature was reasonably entitled to consider that the scheme in question was necessary in order to attain a social policy aim unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

This is the case where the legislature seeks to protect unemployed persons who are still unemployed after the maximum period for the payment of individual, solely earnings-related, benefits has run out, from the risk of their having to break into the assets saved out of their earnings over their whole working life, having regard to the very small likelihood of their rebuilding their assets by resuming gainful employment, where the conditions for the grant of the relevant benefits are formulated in such a way that only that class of employed person can qualify for them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question obviously irrelevant — (EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2. Approximation of laws — Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles — Directive 72/166 — Extent of cover for third parties under the compulsory insurance — Exclusion of damage caused by intoxicated drivers — Not permissible — Insurer having a right of recovery against the insured — Permissible — (Council Directives 72/166, Art. 3(1), and 84/5, Art. 2(1))

Summary

1. In the preliminary-ruling procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine, having regard to the particular features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they refer to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or the subject-matter of the main action.

2. Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, is to be interpreted as meaning that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2(1) of Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, a compulsory insurance contract may not provide that in certain cases, in particular where the driver of the vehicle was intoxicated, the insurer is not obliged to pay compensation for the damage to property and personal injuries caused to third parties by the insured vehicle.

In view of the aim of ensuring protection, stated repeatedly in all the relevant directives, Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166, as developed and supplemented by the later directives, must be interpreted as meaning that compulsory motor insurance must enable third-party victims of accidents caused by vehicles to be compensated for all the damage to property and personal injuries sustained by them, without the insurer being able to rely on statutory provisions or contractual clauses to refuse such compensation. Any other interpretation would deprive that provision of its effectiveness, since it would have the effect of allowing Member States to limit payment of compensation to third-party victims of a road-traffic accident to certain types of damage, thus bringing about disparities in the treatment of victims depending on where the accident occurred, which is precisely what the directives are intended to avoid.

The compulsory insurance contract may, on the other hand, provide that in such cases the insurer is to have a right of recovery against the insured.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings — Questions submitted to the Court — Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions submitted — Determination by the national court — Possibility for the parties to alter the wording of the questions — Not possible — (EC Treaty, Art. 177)

2. Approximation of laws — Veterinary medicinal products — Prohibitions laid down by Directive 81/851 — Scope — Parallel application of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty — Not permissible — (EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36; Council Directive 81/851, Art. 4, and Council Directives 90/676 and 93/40)

Summary

1. In proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is solely for the national courts before which actions are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular facts of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court, without the parties being able to alter the wording of those questions.

2. The prohibition, set out in Article 4 of Directive 81/851 relating to veterinary medicinal products, in its original version and as amended by Directive 90/676, of both the marketing and administration of a medicinal product within the territory of a Member State without prior issue of authorization by the competent authority of that State implies that it is prohibited to import that product for one of those purposes. Consequently, the importation, by a pharmacist in a Member State, of a medicinal product prescribed in that State by a veterinarian in order to cater for a specific need is also covered by the provision in question.

In this regard, although Directive 81/851 describes itself, according to the 11th recital in its preamble, as " one stage in the achievement of the aim of freedom of movement of veterinary medicinal products" , it cannot be inferred from this that, for medicinal products coming within its scope, the directive leaves room for the application of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty. The legislature intended by that wording only to signify that the system of multiple national authorizations for the marketing of products, first introduced by Directive 81/851, was destined to be replaced by a system under which account was to be taken of authorizations granted by other Member States (Directive 90/676) and subsequently by a system for the mutual recognition in principle of such authorizations (Directive 93/40).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Freedom of movement for persons ° Derogations ° Employment in the public service ° Water, gas and electricity distribution sectors ° Nationality requirement for posts not involving participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law or the safeguarding of the general interests of the State ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 48; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 1)

Summary

A Member State which, in the case of posts in the public legal entities responsible for the distribution of water, gas and electricity, does not restrict the requirement of possession of its nationality to posts involving direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities acts in breach of its obligations under Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 1 of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. Since the generality of the posts in those sectors are remote from the specific activities of the public service, the fact that some posts in those sectors may, in certain circumstances, be covered by Article 48(4) of the Treaty cannot justify a Member State' s making all those posts in general subject to a nationality condition.
Case C-25/94





Commission of the European Communities

v

Council of the European Union





«(FAO – Fishery agreement – Right to vote – Member States – Community)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 26 October 1995

Judgment of the Court, 19 March 1996

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Council – Permanent Representatives Committee – Own powers – None – Implementing powers – Scope

(EC Treaty, Arts 145 and 151(1))

2.. Actions for annulment of measures – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures having binding legal effects – Council decision giving the Member States the right to vote in the Food and Agriculture Organization for the adoption of an international agreement

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

3.. Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions – Statement of the Council entered in its minutes – Whether to be taken into consideration – Not permissible in the absence of any reference to it in the act itself

4.. International agreements – Agreement falling partly within the competence of the Community and partly within that of the Member States – Need for close cooperation between the Member States and the Community institutions – Arrangement between the Council and the Commission concerning the right to vote in an international organization – Arrangement providing for voting rights to be exercised by the Commission in areas essentially within the exclusive competence of the Community – Council decision giving the Member States the right to vote for the adoption of an agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas – Breach of the arrangement – Unlawful

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

28 March 1996

((Employer's contributions – Loyalty stamps – Bad-weather stamps – Freedom to provide services))

In Case C-272/94,

THE COURT (First Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Mr Guiot and Climatec SA, represented by André Bosseler, of the Arlon Bar; the Belgian Government, represented by Jan Devadder; the Luxembourg Government, represented by Luc Frieden, Avocat-Avoué, of the Luxembourg Bar; and the Commission, represented by Marie-José Jonczy and Hélène Michard, at the hearing on 28 September 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 October 1995,
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Member States ° Obligations ° Implementation of directives ° Failure to fulfil obligations ° Justification ° Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Right of persons affected to rely on directives in the absence of adequate implementing measures ° Effect not releasing Member States from their obligation to implement directives

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

Summary

1. 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.

2. The effect of the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty is that Community directives must be implemented by appropriate implementing measures taken by the Member States. Only in specific circumstances, in particular where a Member State has failed to take the implementing measures required or has adopted measures which do not conform to a directive, has the Court recognized the right of persons affected thereby to rely in law on a directive as against a defaulting Member State. This minimum guarantee, arising from the binding nature of the obligation imposed on the Member States by the effect of the directives under the third paragraph of Article 189, cannot justify a Member State' s absolving itself from taking in due time implementing measures sufficient to meet the purpose of each directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by Member States ° Need for full and exact application

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

Summary

Member States are obliged to ensure that the provisions of directives are applied exactly and in full.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

International agreements ° EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement ° Moroccan workers employed in a Member State ° Social security ° Equal treatment ° Refusal, on account of her nationality, to grant to a member of the family of a Moroccan worker who is living with that worker transitional benefits of the Netherlands general old-age insurance scheme ° Not permissible

(EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1408/71)

Summary

Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and Morocco is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing, on the ground that the person concerned is of Moroccan nationality, to grant benefits such as the transitional benefits of the Netherlands general old-age insurance scheme, provided for by its legislation in the case of nationals who satisfy certain residence conditions in that State, to the spouse of a Moroccan worker who fulfils them. First, those transitional benefits, which are regarded as additional to the old-age pension, constitute a social security benefit which falls within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 and, in consequence, within that of the principle of equal treatment laid down in the abovementioned article on which the members of the family of a Moroccan worker residing with him in the Member State of employment may rely. Second, there is no need, in applying Article 41(1) to members of the family of a Moroccan worker, to draw a distinction between personal rights and derived rights and, irrespective of the specific features of the transitional scheme of the Netherlands general old-age insurance scheme, which are the result of taking account of periods of residence rather than of contributions, a benefit cannot be refused on the sole ground that a nationality requirement or a condition which is not imposed in the same terms on nationals has not been fulfilled.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law - Principles - Equal treatment - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Road transport - Punishment of infringements of social provisions - National implementing legislation giving the offender the option between allowing criminal proceedings to take their course or paying a sum of money immediately - Obligation imposed only on non-residents to lodge a deposit, demanded separately in respect of each infringement, in default of which the vehicle is impounded - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 6; Council Regulations Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85)

Summary

Article 6 of the Treaty precludes national legislation adopted in implementation of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and of Regulation No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport which, in cases of infringement, imposes only on non-residents who opt for continuation of normal criminal proceedings against them rather than for immediate payment of the prescribed fine the obligation to lodge in respect of each offence by way of security for payment of the fine and any legal costs a fixed sum higher than that provided for in the case of immediate payment, in default of which their vehicle is impounded.

Although, in the absence of a convention to ensure the enforcement of court decisions in criminal matters between Member States, a difference in treatment between resident and non-resident offenders is objectively justified, the obligation imposed on the latter to pay a sum by way of security being appropriate to prevent them from avoiding an effective penalty, the penalties chosen by a Member State in the event of infringement of a Community regulation must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the aim pursued. That will be so where, in respect of various infringements which are simultaneously found to exist and are mentioned in the same document, the sum payable by way of security is demanded separately for each infringement with which a non-resident offender is charged, in default of which the vehicle is impounded, even though the infringements all give rise to a single set of proceedings against him.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Import arrangements - Tariff quota - Power to undertake adaptations conferred on the Commission by Article 16(3) of Regulation No 404/93 - Infringement of the fourth indent of Article 155 of the Treaty - None - Use in order to increase, without applying the allocation formula laid down by Article 19(1) of the regulation, the quantity allocated to operators who have been victims of a natural disaster - Permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 155; Council Regulation No 404/93, Arts 16(3), 19(1) and 27; Commission Regulations Nos 2791/94 and 510/95)

2 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

3 When it adopted Regulations Nos 2791/94 and 510/95 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas, in 1994 and during the first quarter of 1995 respectively, as a result of tropical storm Debbie, the Commission legitimately based itself on Article 16(3) of Regulation No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in bananas, which empowers it, in general terms, to adapt, in accordance with the management committee procedure laid down in Article 27, the tariff quota in the course of a marketing year on grounds of necessity and in particular to take account of exceptional circumstances affecting production or import conditions. The provision in question enabled it, in particular, to derogate from the allocation formula set out in Article 19(1) of the Regulation No 404/93 in respect of the fraction of the quota which is adjusted since application of that formula would have resulted in additional import rights being allocated to economic operators who had not been victims of exceptional circumstances and would have failed to respond to the specific situation of operators who were victims of such events.

The powers thus conferred upon the Commission by Article 16(3) of the abovementioned regulation do not, moreover, go beyond those which may be given it under the fourth indent of Article 155 of the Treaty. In this regard, so far as concerns agriculture, the Commission is authorized to adopt all the measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to such legislation or to the implementing legislation adopted by the Council, which they were not in the present case.

4 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must be appropriate to the nature of the measure in question. It must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which enacted the measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review. It cannot however be required that the statement of reasons for a measure should specify the matters of fact or of law dealt with, provided that the measure falls within the general scheme of the body of measures of which it forms part.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Esterified potato starch - Classification under heading 11.08 A IV (subheading 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature) or 39.06 B I (subheading 3505 10 50 of the Combined Nomenclature) - Criterion - Acetyl content - Maximum acetyl content of between 0.61% and 0.74% by weight - Classification under heading 11.08 A IV subject to verification of the maintenance of the quality of the native starch in question

Summary

The classification of esterified potato starch under heading 11.08 A IV of the Common Customs Tariff, and under subheading 11 08 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, or under heading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs Tariff, and under subheading 3505 10 50 of the Combined Nomenclature, depends primarily on its acetyl content and therefore on its degree of esterification, since the mere chemical process of esterification occurring in the manufacture of the product is not sufficient in itself to enable it to be decided that the potato starch should be classified under one or other of those headings.

A maximum acetyl content of between 0.61% and 0.74% by weight of esterified potato starch does not preclude that product from being classified under heading 11.08 A IV.

It is however for the national court to determine whether the nature of the esterification does not amount to an alteration of the potato starch such that it no longer corresponds qualitatively to native potato starch.