ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Commission — Powers — Implementation of the Community budget — Decision to effect set-off between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable by way of Community contributions — Preliminary obligation of the Commission to ascertain that the Community funds will be used for the purposes prescribed and that the activities which justified the granting of the funds will be completed in spite of the proposed set-off — None

2. Community law — General principles of law — Set-off — Out-of-court set-off between claims governed by separate legal orders — Obligation to satisfy the requirements of both legal orders concerned — Decision to effect set-off between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable by way of Community contributions — Failure to satisfy the requirements of the legal order governing one of the claims concerned — Illegality

Summary

1. On the assumption that it is actually authorised by Community law on certain conditions, out-of-court set-off, as a procedure for payment and a mechanism effecting the simultaneous extinction of two mutual claims, cannot be subject to a prior obligation on the part of the Commission, in the context of the implementation of the Community budget, to ascertain that the use of Community funds for the purposes prescribed and the completion of the activities which justified the granting of the funds concerned will remain assured in spite of the proposed set-off. Accordingly, a Commission decision to effect set-off between a debt owed to it and sums payable by way of Community contributions cannot be annulled on the ground that the Commission ignored that prior obligation.

see paras 29, 33

2. The Community rules may give rise, as between an authority and a trader, to reciprocal claims which are an appropriate subject for set-off. In so far as it extinguishes two obligations simultaneously, an out-of-court set-off between claims governed by two separate legal orders can take effect only in so far as it satisfies the requirements of both legal orders concerned. More specifically, any set-off of that nature makes it necessary to ensure, as regards each of the claims concerned, that the conditions relating to set-off provided for in the relevant legal order are not disregarded. In that regard, it is immaterial that one of the legal orders concerned is the Community legal order and the other the legal order of one of the Member States. In particular, the fact that both legal orders are equally competent to govern any set-off cannot be called in question on the basis of considerations linked with the primacy of Community law.

Accordingly, a Commission decision to effect a set-off between a debt owed to it and sums payable by way of Community contributions, which was adopted even though the rules of the legal order governing one of the claims concerned clearly precluded the extinction of that claim by way of the set-off effected, must be annulled as being legally unfounded, without there being any need to examine it from the aspect of the rules governing the other claim.

see paras 56, 61-62, 64
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Production of documentary evidence — Failure to meet the statutory deadline — Grant of extensions of time — Length within the discretion of the national authorities — (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 47(4) and 48(2))

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Production of documentary evidence — Failure to meet the statutory deadline — Power of the Member States to grant extensions of time — Right to a legal remedy of an operator who has been refused an extension — Application of national law — Limits — (Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Art. 47(4))

Summary

1. Since Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 1829/94, does not fix any limit to the length of the extensions of time which may be granted to exporters by virtue of Article 47(4) of that regulation for the production of documents relating to the completion of the export operation, it is for the competent national authorities to fix the length of those periods in relation to the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account, in particular, the diligence shown by the exporter seeking an extension of time, the nature of the objective difficulties confronting him and the period of time reasonably necessary to overcome those difficulties.

see para. 48, operative part 1

2. Article 47(4) of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 1829/94, does not confer on exporters the right to obtain an extension of time of a certain duration for the production of documents relating to the completion of the export operation, on which they can rely directly before national courts. None the less, the exercise of the discretion conferred on the competent national authorities to grant extensions of time cannot exceed the limits dictated by the purpose of that provision. The principle of effective judicial protection requires however that exporters have a legal remedy against decisions refusing them extensions of time taken by competent national authorities under the said Article 47(4) of the regulation. It is for each Member State's legal system to determine the conditions and detailed rules governing such legal remedies, in compliance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as defined by Community law.

see paras 58, 60, 63, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on health policy — Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73 — Fee levels — Reduction of amounts in connection with cutting operations in the establishment where the meat is obtained — Cutting plant and slaughterhouse situated in the same place but belonging to different persons — Included — (Council Directive 85/73, Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, second indent)

2. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on health policy — Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73 — Fee levels — Reduction of amounts in connection with cutting operations in the establishment where the meat is obtained — Criteria — (Council Directive 85/73, Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, second indent)

Summary

1. The second paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Directive 85/73 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662, 90/425, 90/675 and 91/496, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that the reduction it lays down of the amounts of the fees payable in respect of the health controls and inspections connected with cutting operations applies also where the cutting plant and the establishment where the meat is obtained, which are situated in the same place, belong to two different natural or legal persons.

see para. 25, operative part 1

2. The extent of the reduction to be granted under the second paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Directive 85/73 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662, 90/425, 90/675 and 91/496, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, depends on the savings made as regards the salary and social security costs of the inspection staff and the administrative costs incurred in carrying out the controls and inspections as a result of the fact that the cutting operations take place in the establishment where the meat is obtained.

see para. 32, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law — Multilingual texts — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — Purpose and general scheme of the rules in question to be taken as the basis for reference

2. Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Transaction value — Determination — Interest payable under a financing agreement — Excluded — Conditions — Interest distinguished from the price actually paid or payable — Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid — (Commission Regulation No 1495/80, Art. 3(2)(a))

Summary

1. All the language versions of a Community provision must, in principle, be recognised as having the same weight and this cannot vary according to the size of the population of the Member States using the language in question. In order to maintain a uniform interpretation of Community law, in the case of divergence between those versions, the provision in question must therefore be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.

see paras 32-33

2. Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 1495/80 implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes, as amended by Regulation No 220/85, which provides that the exclusion of interest from the customs value under a financing arrangement is subject to the requirement that charges for interest must be distinguished from the price paid or payable for the imported goods, is to be interpreted as meaning that payments of interest are distinguished from the price of the goods even if, at the time when the customs declaration is accepted, the customs authorities are in possession only of the invoice for the net price of the goods and neither that invoice nor the declaration of customs value reveal expressly or by implication that the buyer paid or must pay interest to the seller in the context of the import transaction in question.

see paras 30, 43, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalty, the collection of bets without a licence or authorisation — Not permissible — Justification in the public interest — Compliance with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination — Investigation by the national courts — (Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)

Summary

National legislation which prohibits on pain of criminal penalties the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular on sporting events, without a licence or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively, which, to be justified, must be based on imperative requirements in the general interest, be suitable for achieving the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it and be applied without discrimination.

In that connection, it is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, taking account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes are disproportionate in the light of those objectives.

In particular, in so far as the authorities of a Member State incite and encourage consumers to participate in lotteries, games of chance and betting to the financial benefit of the public purse, the authorities of that State cannot invoke public order concerns relating to the need to reduce opportunities for betting in order to justify measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings. Furthermore, where a criminal penalty was imposed on any person who from his home in a Member State connects by internet to a bookmaker established in another Member State the national court must consider whether this constitutes a disproportionate penalty.

see paras 65, 69, 72, 76, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition — Public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights — Telecommunications sector — Directives 90/388 and 96/19 — Tariff rebalancing by traditional telecommunications organisations — Obligation of Member States to remove obstacles to rebalancing — National rules fixing or limiting variation in tariffs — Not permissible — (Commission Directives 90/388, Art. 4c, and 96/19, Art. 1(6))

Summary

Although Article 4c of Directive 90/388 on competition in the markets for telecommunications does not lay down a period within which the obligation to rebalance tariffs must be carried out by the telecommunications organisations, the fact remains that several elements of Directive 96/19, amending Directive 90/388, state that the rebalancing of tariffs must be carried out at a sustained rate in order to facilitate the opening of the telecommunications market to competition. Thus, it is clear from reading the 20th and 5th recitals in the preamble to Directive 96/19 together with Article 4c of Directive 90/388 that the Member States were bound to phase out the restrictions on tariff rebalancing as soon as possible after the entry into force of Directive 96/19 and at the latest by 1 January 1998.

Therefore, a Member State fails to fulfil that obligation to remove obstacles to tariff rebalancing where the tariff imbalances persisting for several years after the expiry of that period cannot be attributed exclusively to the traditional telecommunications organisation, but also to the national authorities. Such is the case both where that organisation has no discretion in fixing tariffs and where its power to fix tariffs is limited by a regulatory ceiling on price variations for telecommunications services detrimental to the development of competition with regard to the traditional operator and, therefore, contrary to the objectives of Directive 90/388.

see paras 32, 36-37, operative part 1
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Sound signs — Obligation to regard them as capable of being a trade mark — Conditions — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 2)

2. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Signs not capable of being perceived visually — Inclusion — Condition — Signs capable of being represented graphically — Sound signs — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 2)

Summary

1. Article 2 of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that sound signs must be capable of being regarded as trade marks provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings and are capable of being represented graphically.

see para. 41, operative part 1

2. Article 2 of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of being perceived visually, provided that it can be represented graphically, particularly by means of images, lines or characters, and that its representation is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.

In the case of a sound sign, those requirements are not satisfied when the sign is represented graphically by means of a description using the written language, such as an indication that the sign consists of the notes going to make up a musical work, or the indication that it is the cry of an animal, or by means of a simple onomatopoeia, without more, or by means of a sequence of musical notes, without more. On the other hand, those requirements are satisfied where the sign is represented by a stave divided into measures and showing, in particular, a clef, musical notes and rests whose form indicates the relative value and, where necessary, accidentals.

see para. 64, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Free movement of goods — Community transit — External Community transit — Offences or irregularities — Member States’ obligations — Non-compliance with time-limits fixed for the procedures for collecting import duties — Failure to fulfil obligations

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 218(3) and 221(1); Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 379(2))

2. European Communities’ own resources — Establishment and making available by the Member States — Credit entry in the Commission’s account — Late entry — Failure to fulfil obligations — Obligation to pay default interest

(Council Regulations Nos 1552/89, Arts 2 and 11, and 2913/92, Arts 218(3) and 221(1))

Summary

1. Under the Community transit system, when the principal of an external Community transit operation has not, within three months of being notified by the office of departure that the consignment has not been presented on time at the office of destination, provided proof of the regularity of the transit operation in question, a Member State which fails to proceed with the entry in the accounts of the customs debt and other relevant duties and communicate the amount thereof to the debtor within three days of the time‑limit fixed in Articles 218(3) and 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code fails to fulfil its obligations under the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92.

It is clear from the very wording of that provision that the Member States are obliged to instigate the recovery procedure upon expiry of the three-month time-limit referred to therein. That interpretation is also necessary in order to guarantee diligent and uniform application by the competent authorities of the provisions governing recovery of customs debts, with a view to making Community own resources available efficiently and speedily.

(see paras 69, 94, operative part)

2. Under the Community transit system, late communication by a Member State of the amount of the import duties to the debtor of the customs debt, in violation of Articles 218(3) and 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, necessarily implies a delay in the establishment of the Community’s entitlement to the own resources referred to in Article 2 of Regulation No 1552/89 implementing Decision 88/376 on the system of the Communities’ own resources and, under Article 11 of that regulation, any delay in making the entry of own resources in the Commission’s account gives rise to the payment of default interest by the Member State concerned at the interest rate applicable to the entire period of delay. That interest is payable in respect of any delay, regardless of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the Commission’s account.

(see paras 85, 91, 94, operative part)
Case C-439/01





Libor Cipra



andVlastimil Kvasnicka

v

Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich)

«(Road transport – Social legislation – Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 – Breaks and rest periods – Crew consisting of more than one driver – Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret the AETR Agreement – Principle of legal certainty)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 10 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Interpretation of an international agreement concluded by the Member States acting in the interest and on behalf of the Community – European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR)

(Art. 234 EC; European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR); Council Regulation No 2829/77)

2.. Transport – Road transport – Social legislation – Rest periods in the case of transport by more than one driver – Application of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 3820/85 as a lex specialis that prevails over paragraph 1 of that article – Interpretation applicable to Article 8(1) and (2) of the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR)

(European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR), Art. 8(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 8(1) and (2))

3.. Transport – Road transport – Social legislation – Rest periods in the case of transport by more than one driver – Assessment of the validity of Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 3820/85 in the light of the principle of legal certainty – Analogous interpretation of Article 8(1) and (2) of the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR)

(European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR), Art. 8(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 8(1) and (2))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-186/01





Alexander Dory

v

Bundesrepublik Deutschland





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart)

«(Inapplicability of Community law to compulsory military service – Equal treatment of men and women – Article 2 of Directive 76/207/EEC – Compulsory military service in Germany limited to men only – Directive not applicable)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 28 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 11 March 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Community law – Scope – National measures concerning the organisation of the armed forces – No general exception for measures taken for reasons of public security

2.. Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Directive 76/207 – Scope – Access to posts in the armed forces – Included – Discretion of the Member States – Scope – Judicial review

(Council Directive 76/207)

3.. Community law – Scope – Member States' choices of military organisation for the defence of their territory or of their essential interests – Compulsory military service for men only – Excluded

1.

2.

3.
Case C-320/01





Wiebke Busch

v

Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck)

«(Equal treatment for men and women – Article 2(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC – Protection of pregnant women)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 21 November 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Return to work by a pregnant woman before the end of parental leave – Obligation to inform her employer of her pregnancy – None

(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 2(1) and (3), and Council Directive 92/85, Arts 4(1) and (5))

2.. Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Return to work by a pregnant woman before the end of parental leave – National legislation allowing the employer to rescind its consent on the ground that it was unaware of the employee's pregnancy – Not permitted

(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 2(1))

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

15 May 2003

((Appeal – Decision 93/731/EC – Access to Council documents – Decision 1999/284/EC – Access to documentation and archives of the European Central Bank – Basle/Nyborg Agreement on the reinforcement of the European Monetary System – Refusal of access – Application out of time against that decision – Excusable error))

appellant,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,