ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Wine - Description and presentation of wines - Sparkling wines - Use of brand names to supplement compulsory information - Limits - Prohibition on using brand names liable to be confused with the description of another wine - Scope - Criteria for assessing the risk of confusion

(Council Regulation No 2333/92, Art. 13(2)(b))

Summary

Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation No 2333/92 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of applying the prohibition laid down therein against using brand names liable to be confused with the description of another wine, it is not sufficient to determine that a brand name which contains a word appearing in the description of one of the products mentioned in that provision is, in itself, likely to be confused with that description.

By authorising in principle the use of brand names to supplement the description, presentation and advertising of sparkling wines, the Community legislature intended to strike a balance between the interests involved, that is to say, between the right of consumers not to be misled as to the intrinsic qualities of a product, and the legitimate interest of the owners of a brand name to use and exploit it for commercial purposes. That balance would be seriously undermined if a mere risk of confusion, found to exist without even taking the opinions and habits of the consumers concerned into consideration, were enough to prevent the use of an appellation protected as a brand name.

For that prohibition to apply, it is also necessary to establish that use of the brand name is in fact likely to mislead the consumers concerned and thus affect their economic behaviour. It is for the national court to take into account the presumed expectations in response to that information on the part of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Insurance relating to old age and death - Calculation of benefits - Situation where a worker does not simultaneously satisfy the conditions laid down for the provision of benefits in all the Member States to whose legislation he has been subject - Account taken by the national legislation whose conditions are fulfilled of periods of insurance completed under the legislation of another Member State for the purposes of granting higher benefit

(Council Regulations No 1408/71, Arts 46 and 49(1)(b)(ii), and No 3096/95)

Summary

Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, and Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version resulting from Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92 and Regulation No 3096/95, must be interpreted as requiring the competent institution, where the person concerned fulfils the conditions laid down by one legislation for payment of an old-age pension, albeit a limited one, without recourse being necessary to periods of insurance or residence completed under another legislation whose conditions are not fulfilled, nevertheless to take into account, in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71, periods completed under the latter legislation where, as a result, an old-age benefit of a higher amount may be awarded, up until such time as the conditions laid down under the latter legislation are also fulfilled.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State in which it has its registered office but in which it conducts no business - Establishment of a branch in another Member State - Registration refused - Not permissible - Member States free to adopt measures to combat fraud

(EC Treaty, Arts 52 and 58)

Summary

It is contrary to Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty for a Member State to refuse to register a branch of a company formed in accordance with the law of another Member State in which it has its registered office but in which it conducts no business where the branch is intended to enable the company in question to carry on its entire business in the State in which that branch is to be created, while avoiding the need to form a company there, thus evading application of the rules governing the formation of companies which, in that State, are more restrictive as regards the paying up of a minimum share capital. Given that the right to form a company in accordance with the law of a Member State and to set up branches in other Member States is inherent in the exercise, in a single market, of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty, the fact that a national of a Member State who wishes to set up a company chooses to form it in the Member State whose rules of company law seem to him the least restrictive and to set up branches in other Member States cannot, in itself, constitute an abuse of the right of establishment.

That interpretation does not, however, prevent the authorities of the Member State concerned from adopting any appropriate measure for preventing or penalising fraud, either in relation to the company itself, if need be in cooperation with the Member State in which it was formed, or in relation to its members, where it has been established that they are in fact attempting, by means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations towards private or public creditors established in the territory of the Member State concerned.
Keywords



Keywords

European Community public procurement contracts - Arbitration clause attributing jurisdiction to the Court - Unilateral termination pursuant to a contractual clause - Claim for reimbursement of funds advanced and for damages

(EC Treaty, Art. 181)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Proceedings brought before the Court of Justice on the basis of an arbitration clause - To be resolved in the light of the national law governing the contract - Contract to be interpreted in the light of its context - Contract granting Community funding in return for undertakings given by the recipient - Termination clause - Possible for either party to derogate from the usual format of contracts under the national law applicable

(EC Treaty, Art. 181; Council Regulation No 3640/85)

Summary

$$Where proceedings are brought before the Court of Justice pursuant to an arbitration clause, it must resolve the dispute on the basis of the national law applicable to the contract and in the light of the contract's context.

Where a contract is concluded pursuant to Regulation No 3640/85 on the promotion, by financial support, of demonstration projects and industrial pilot projects in the energy field, under which funding is granted in return for undertakings given by the recipients, and where the law governing that contract recognises as forming part of the principle of freedom of contract the parties' right freely to determine the terms of the contract within the limits set by the law, the parties may insert therein a termination clause which is not subject to the condition that the contractor must be responsible for non-performance, by way of derogation from the usual format of contracts under the national law in question and having regard, inter alia, to the particular nature of relations between the Community and the company in receipt of funding under the Regulation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for failure to fulfil obligations - Where the Commission decides to issue a reasoned opinion - Application of the principle of collegiality - Scope

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

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

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

1 The decision of the Commission to issue a reasoned opinion in the context of the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty is subject to the principle of collegiality but the formal requirements for effective compliance with that principle vary according to the nature and legal effects of the acts adopted by that institution. Since it is part of a preliminary procedure which does not have any binding legal effect for the addressee and since it is merely a pre-litigation stage of a procedure which may lead to an action before the Court, such a decision must be the subject of collective deliberation by the college of Commissioners, which implies that the information on which it is based must be available to the members of the college. It is not necessary, however, for the college itself formally to decide on the wording of the act which gives effect to such a decision and to put it in final form.

2 A Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or situations arising in its own internal legal order to justify its failure to respect the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Prohibition on the levying of other domestic charges which can be characterised as turnover taxes - Objective - Concept of `turnover taxes' - Scope - Charges akin to the tourism taxes introduced by Austrian Bundesländer - Not covered

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 33)

Summary

$$Sixth Council Directive (77/388) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and, in particular, Article 33 thereof does not preclude a charge akin to the tourism tax introduced by the Steiermärkische Tourismusgesetz (Tourism Law of the Land of Styria), the Tiroler Tourismusgesetz (Tourism Law of the Land of Tyrol), or the Kärntner Fremdenverkehrsabgabegesetz (Law of the Land of Carinthia on the charge to promote tourism), payable by traders who have an economic interest in tourism and calculated in principle on the basis of annual turnover and from which input tax is not deductible. Such charges are not levied on the movement of goods and services or on commercial transactions in a way comparable to VAT. There is no provision for deduction of amounts paid as input tax; the charges are not passed on to the final consumer in a manner characteristic of VAT; and the amount is not proportional to the price to be paid by the customer when each sale is effected or each service supplied.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Applicable legislation - Rules concerning diplomatic and consular staff - Persons employed in consular posts - Exercise of the right to opt for application of the legislation of the `sending State' - Implications for the advantages conferred by the Member State of residence on the members of the worker's family, irrespective of his social cover - No effect - Limits

(Council Regulations No 1408/71, Art. 16(2), and No 574/72, Art. 10(1)(a))

Summary

$$The decision by a person employed in a consular post to opt, in accordance with Article 16(2), first sentence, of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, to be subject to the social security legislation of the sending Member State of which he is a national does not have the effect that his spouse may no longer claim a social security advantage which, irrespective of the social cover of her spouse, is guaranteed to her by the legislation of the Member State in which she resides.

Although the exercise of the right of option has direct consequences for the extent of the rights which the members of the worker's family can, as such, derive from his social cover, the position is different as regards the social security advantages conferred upon them, irrespective of the social cover of the worker himself, by the legislation of the Member State in which they reside. In that context, the members of the worker's family must be allowed the benefit of the social security legislation of the Member State in which they reside under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, subject to the application of the rules designed to prevent the overlapping of benefits, which are set out, in particular, in Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Disposal of waste oils - Directive 75/439 - Member States obliged to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration - Limits - Technical, economic or organisational constraints - Meaning

(Council Directive 75/439, Art. 3(1))

Summary

$$It is clear from Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Directive 87/101, that, by the reference to `technical, economic and organisational constraints', the Community legislature did not intend to provide limited exceptions to a rule having general application, but rather to define the scope and content of a positive obligation to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration.

That provision must be understood as an expression of the principle of proportionality, in accordance with which Member States must take measures which are appropriate and proportionate to the objective of giving priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration; that is to say, the limit to that positive obligation is the existence of the aforementioned constraints, the definition of which, moreover, cannot be left to the exclusive discretion of the Member States.

A Member State fails to fulfil that obligation when, notwithstanding the existence of a number of measures which could further the objective pursued by Directive 75/439, as amended, and the adoption of which would be technically, economically and organisationally possible, it does not adopt any such measure but, on the contrary, it stops applying one of them and takes no other appropriate steps with a view to attaining the objective pursued.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the national courts - Application of provisions interpreted by the Court

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC))

2 Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 89/104 - Right for the owner of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use - Sign used for identical or similar products - Mere aural similarity between a trade mark and a sign does not preclude the likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Criteria - Determination whether a trade mark has a distinctive character - Criteria

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b))

Summary

1 In accordance with the division of functions provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the role of the Court of Justice is limited to providing the national court with the guidance on interpretation necessary to resolve the case before it, while it is for the national court to apply the rules of Community law, as interpreted by the Court, to the facts of the case under consideration.

2 It is possible that mere aural similarity between a trade mark and a sign, used for identical or similar products, may create a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks. The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion.

In order to determine the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, to assess whether it is highly distinctive, it is necessary to make a global assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings. In making that assessment, account should be taken of all relevant factors and, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered. It is not possible to state in general terms, for example by referring to given percentages relating to the degree of recognition attained by the mark within the relevant section of the public, when a mark has a strong distinctive character.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Officials - Remuneration - Weighting coefficients - Purpose - Equivalence of purchasing power

(Staff Regulations, Arts 64 and 65)

2 Officials - Remuneration - Weighting coefficients - Specific weighting to be introduced for a particular place of employment where there are appreciable differences in the cost of living as between various parts of the same country - Obligation incumbent upon the Council

(Staff Regulations, Art. 65(2))

Summary

1 The purpose of applying weighting coefficients to the remuneration of officials, as provided for under Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, is to ensure that all officials have equivalent purchasing power, wherever their place of employment, in accordance with the principle of equality of treatment.

2 It is for the Council, pursuant to Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations, to determine whether there is an appreciable difference in the cost of living between the various places of employment and, if so, to draw the appropriate conclusions. The Council does not have any margin of discretion as to the need to introduce a specific weighting for a place of employment if the cost of living there is appreciably lower than in the capital.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Remuneration - Income tax - National legislation making tax benefits granted to resident married couples subject, in the case of non-resident couples, to a condition concerning income level - Whether permissible - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 48(2) (now, after amendment, Art. 39(2) EC))

Summary

$$Article 48(2) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC) is to be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation under which resident married couples are granted tax benefits while, in the case of non-resident couples, such benefits are subject to the condition that at least 90% of total income be subject to tax in that Member State, failing which, if that percentage is not reached, income from foreign sources and not subject to tax in that State must not exceed a certain ceiling, the possibility being thus maintained for account to be taken of the couple's personal and family circumstances in the State of residence.

The fact that a Member State does not grant to a non-resident certain tax benefits which it grants to a resident is not, as a rule, discriminatory since, as regards direct taxation, those two categories of taxpayer are not in a comparable situation. Specifically, a non-resident married couple - one of whom works in the State of taxation in question and who may, owing to the existence of a sufficient tax base in the State of residence, have personal and family circumstances taken into account by its tax authorities - is not in a situation comparable to that of a resident married couple, even if one of the spouses works in another Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Right of Turkish workers to renewal of residence permits - Conditions - Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Worker detained pending trial and subsequently sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment - Covered

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 6(1))

2. International agreements - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for persons - Derogations - Public policy grounds - Expulsion of a Turkish worker as a general deterrent - Not permissible

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 14(1))

Summary

$$1. A Turkish national who has been in legal employment in a Member State for an uninterrupted period of more than four years but is subsequently detained pending trial for more than a year in connection with an offence for which he is ultimately sentenced to a term of imprisonment suspended in full has not ceased, because he was not in employment while detained pending trial, to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State if he finds a job again within a reasonable period after his release, and may claim there an extension of his residence permit for the purposes of continuing to exercise his right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council.

( see para. 49, and operative part, para. 1 )

2. Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council - under which the provisions of that decision relating to employment and freedom of movement for Turkish workers are to be applied subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health - is to be interpreted as precluding the expulsion of a Turkish national who enjoys a right granted directly by that decision when such expulsion is ordered, following a criminal conviction, as a deterrent to other aliens without the personal conduct of the person concerned giving reason to consider that he will commit other serious offences prejudicial to the requirements of public policy in the host Member State.

( see para. 64 and operative part, para. 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Special jurisdiction - Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation - Determination of the place of performance of the obligation in accordance with the law applicable under the conflict rules of the court seised

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1))

Summary

$$On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, the place of performance of the obligation, within the meaning of that provision, is to be determined in accordance with the law governing the obligation in question according to the conflict rules of the court seised.

The principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the Convention, requires, in particular, that the jurisdictional rules which derogate from the basic principle of the Convention, such as Article 5(1), should be interpreted in such a way as to enable a normally well-informed defendant reasonably to foresee before which courts, other than those of the State in which he is domiciled, he may be sued. Determination of the place of performance by reference to the nature of the relationship of obligation and the circumstances of the case would, as Article 5(1) stands at present, be insufficient to resolve all questions linked to application of that provision. Moreover there is no risk that the law applicable to the determination of the place of performance will vary depending on the court seised, since the conflict rules enabling the law applicable to the contract to be determined have been standardised in the Contracting States by the Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations