ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Customs union — Customs territory of the Community — Gibraltar — Not included — Consequence — Inapplicability of the Treaty provisions and secondary legislation on free movements of goods — Damage to the consistency of other Community policies — Not relevant — (Arts 94 EC and 95 EC; 1972 Act of Accession)

Summary

The exclusion of Gibraltar from the customs territory of the Community by virtue of the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland implies that neither the Treaty rules on free movement of goods nor the rules of secondary Community legislation intended, as regards free circulation of goods, to ensure approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States pursuant to Articles 94 EC and 95 EC are applicable to it.

That interpretation is not called into question by the rules applicable to Ceuta and Melilla, which contain an express provision that goods originating in those territories are exempt from customs duties following their release into free circulation in the customs territory of the Community. Rather, those rules confirm the soundness of that interpretation, to the effect that exclusion from the customs territory of the Community entails the inapplicability of the Treaty provisions and secondary legislation on trade in goods, unless otherwise expressly provided.

Of course, failure to apply the directives adopted under Articles 94 EC or 95 EC to Gibraltar may endanger the consistency of other Community policies, such as environmental protection, where the objectives of those policies are pursued as an ancillary aim by those directives. However, that fact cannot lead to the extension of the territorial scope of those directives beyond the limits imposed by the Treaty and by the Act of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

see paras 59-60, 63
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid — Definition — Payment of costs of disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste inherent in the economic activities of farmers and slaughterhouses — Included — (EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

2. State aid — Definition — Selective nature of the measure — (EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))

3. State aid — Effect on trade between Member States — Assessment criteria — (EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC))

Summary

1. The notion of State aid can encompass not only positive benefits such as subsidies, loans or direct investment in the capital of enterprises, but also interventions which, in various forms, such as the supply of goods or services on preferential terms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are of the same character and have the same effect. In that regard Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects.

Thus, since the financial cost incurred in the disposal of animal carcasses and slaughterhouse waste must be considered to be an inherent cost of the economic activities of farmers and slaughterhouses, intervention by the public authorities intended to relieve them of that financial burden appears to be an economic advantage liable to distort competition within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty.

see paras 28-29, 31, 33-34

2. Article 92(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) requires the determination of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods over others. If so, the measure satisfies the condition of selectivity which defines State aid as laid down by that provision.

The fact that the undertakings able to claim entitlement under that measure belong to different sectors of activity is not sufficient to call into question its selective nature and therefore, to rule out its classification as State aid.

see paras 35, 39

3. When aid granted by the State strengthens the position of an undertaking vis-à-vis other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.

see para. 41
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Trade mark with a reputation — Option of providing protection for extending to non-similar goods or services (Article 5(2) of the directive) — Obligation on Member States exercising this option to also provide that protection in case of use of a sign for goods or services which are identical or similar — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))

2. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection of the trade mark extended to non-similar goods or services (Article 5(2) of the directive) — Degree of similarity between the mark and the later sign — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))

3. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Trade mark with a reputation — Protection of the trade mark extended to non-similar goods or services (Article 5(2) of the directive) — Perception of the later sign by the relevant section of the public as an embellishment — Effect — (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))

Summary

1. A Member State, where it exercises the option provided by Article 5(2) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks, consisting of providing specific protection for trade marks with a reputation, is bound to grant that protection in cases of use by a third party of a later mark or sign which is identical with or similar to the registered mark with a reputation, both in relation to goods or services which are not similar and in relation to goods or services which are identical with or similar to those covered by that mark.

see para. 22, operative part 1

2. The specific protection conferred by Article 5(2) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks on trade marks with a reputation is not conditional on a finding of a degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the later sign such that there exists a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public. It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark.

see para. 31, operative part 2

3. The fact that a sign is viewed as an embellishment by the relevant section of the public is not in itself an obstacle to the specific protection conferred by Article 5(2) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks on trade marks with a reputation, where the degree of similarity between the trade mark with a reputation and the later sign is none the less such that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark. By contrast, where, according to a finding of fact by the national court, the relevant section of the public views the sign purely as an embellishment, it does not necessarily establish any link with a registered mark, with the result that one of the conditions of the protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 is then not satisfied.

see para. 41, operative part 3
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Agriculture – Uniform laws – Protection of plant variety rights –Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1768/95 – Meaning of organisation of holders – Limited liability company – Whether covered

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 14; Commission Regulation No 1768/95, Art. 3(2))

2. Agriculture – Uniform laws – Protection of plant variety rights – Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation No 1768/95 – Holder not able to request the information specified in the provisions in question from a farmer where there is no indication of use by the latter, for propagating purposes, of the product of the harvest obtained from seeds of a protected variety

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 14(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 1768/95, Art. 8)

Summary

1. Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights is intended to allow holders of Community plant variety rights to organise themselves appropriately in order to enforce the rights which they derive from Article 14 of Regulation No 2100/94, leaving the choice of which legal form the organisation is to take to those holders; the organisation may thus take the form of a limited company.

Such an organisation may invoke the rights of holders who are members of another organisation where the other organisation is itself a member of the first organisation. However, it may not invoke the rights of holders who, although not members of the first organisation or of another organisation which is, have appointed it to safeguard their interests in return for a consideration.

(see paras 51, 58, operative part 1)

2. The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be construed as meaning that the holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a variety other than a hybrid or synthetic variety which is covered by that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94.

(see para. 62, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Prohibition on marketing, without prior authorisation, foodstuffs enriched with nutrients — Justification — Protection of public health — Conditions — (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

Summary

Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the marketing without prior authorisation of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State, where nutrients such as vitamins or minerals have been added thereto other than those whose use has been declared lawful in the first Member State, provided that certain conditions are satisfied.

First, the prior authorisation procedure must be readily accessible and capable of being completed within a reasonable time and, if it leads to a refusal, the decision of refusal must be open to challenge before the courts. Secondly, refusal to authorise marketing must be based on a detailed assessment of the risk to public health, based on the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research.

see para. 50, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Deductions made under a right to opt for taxation granted by the Member State concerned in respect of lettings of immovable property acquired as capital goods – Withdrawal of the option and reintroduction of the exemption entailing the adjustment of deductions previously made – Whether permissible – Condition – Account to be taken of the legitimate expectation of taxpayers

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 13(B) and (C), 17 and 20)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Taxable transactions – Application of goods for the purposes of a business – Scope – Legislative amendment withdrawing the right to opt for taxation of a financial transaction which is generally exempt – Not included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 5(7)(a))

Summary

1. Articles 17 and 20 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, interpreted in accordance with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, do not preclude the withdrawal by a Member State of the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable property which it has granted to its taxpayers under Article 13(C) of the Sixth Directive and the consequent reintroduction of the exemption for such lettings under Article 13(B)(b) which results in the adjustment of deductions made in respect of the immovable property acquired as capital goods which is let pursuant to Article 20 of that Directive.

In such circumstances, the Member State concerned must take account of the legitimate expectation of its taxable persons when determining the arrangements for implementing the legislative amendment. The repeal of legislation from which a person liable to pay value added tax has derived an advantage in paying less tax, without there being any abuse, cannot however, as such, breach a legitimate expectation based on Community law.

(see paras 48, 82, operative part 1)

2. A legislative amendment by which a Member State withdraws the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable property entailing payment of amounts equivalent to deductions made previously does not constitute a situation which falls within the terms of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. That provision is intended to cover the application of goods, by a taxable person, for the purposes of his business, and not a legislative amendment withdrawing the right to opt for taxation of a financial transaction which is generally exempt.

(see paras 92, 95, operative part 2)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Driving licence issued without the residence requirement being complied with – Exclusive competence of the State which issues a licence to adopt appropriate measures

(Council Directive 91/439, Arts 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 9)

2. Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Driving licences – Directive 91/439 – Mutual recognition of driving licences – Refusal of a Member State to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State

(Council Directive 91/439, Arts 1(2) and 8(4))

Summary

1. The principle of mutual recognition of driving licences introduced by Directive 91/439 means that when a host Member State is carrying out a traffic check within its territory, it is precluded from refusing to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State to the driver of a vehicle on the ground that, according to the information available to the first Member State, the holder of the licence in question had, at the date of its issue, established his normal residence in that Member State and not in the issuing Member State.

Given that Directive 91/439 confers exclusive competence on the Member State which issues a licence to ensure that driving licences are issued in compliance with the residence requirement set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 9 of that directive, it is for that Member State alone to take appropriate measures in relation to driving licences held by persons who are subsequently shown to have failed to satisfy that requirement. Where a host Member State has good reason to doubt the validity of one or more licences issued by another Member State, it must so inform the latter under the rules relating to mutual assistance and the exchange of information contained in Article 12(3) of that directive.

(see paras 47-48, operative part 1)

2. The provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(4) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, taken together, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State on the ground that its holder has, in the first Member State, been subject to a measure withdrawing or cancelling the driving licence issued by that Member State, where a temporary ban on obtaining a new licence, with which that measure is coupled, has expired before the date of issue of the licence issued by the other Member State.

(see para. 78, operative part 2)
Case C-362/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Ireland





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 98/5/EC – Reasoned opinion – Failure to take into account observations submitted by the Member State in response to the formal notice – Bearing on admissibility)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 17 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 10 December 2002 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Subject-matter – Delimitation of the subject-matter of the action

(Art. 226 EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Pre-litigation procedure – Reasoned opinion not taking into account information provided in response to a letter of formal notice – Bearing on admissibility – Limits

(Art. 226 EC)

1.

2.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

6 March 2003

((Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Scheme of aid for skimmed milk – Validity of Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 – Powers of the Commission (Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999) – Prohibition of discrimination (Article 34(2) EC) – Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission at the hearing on 21 March 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 June 2002,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

6 February 2003

((Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) – European citizenship – Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) – Freedom to provide services – Community air transport – Airport tax – Discrimination – Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 October 2002,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

8 May 2003

((Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC – Medicinal products – Withdrawal of parallel import licence in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that authorisation))

and

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Paranova Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, Net Pharma KG AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross Pharma AB and MedImport Scandinavia AB, represented by C. Bus, advokat, of the Läkemedelsverket and of the Swedish Government, represented by A. Kruse, of the Danish Government, represented by J. Molde, of the Netherlands Government, represented by J. van Bakel, acting as Agent, of the Norwegian Government, represented by T. Nordby, and of the Commission, represented by L. Ström, at the hearing on 10 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 December 2002,
Case C-217/01 P





Michel Hendrickx

v

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)





«(Appeal – Officials – Resettlement allowance – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)»

Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 19 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 10 April 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Procedure – Decision replacing, in the course of the proceedings, the contested decision – Replacement of a decision refusing the reinstallation allowance by a decision granting it but operating a set-off against allowances wrongly received by the applicant – Different subject-matter – Extension of the initial claims for relief and pleadings – Not permitted

2.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 42(1), first subpara.)

1.

2.
Case C-425/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Portuguese Republic





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC – Safety and health of workers)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 5 December 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 12 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

15 May 2003

((Brussels Convention – Article 1 – Scope – Concept of civil and commercial matters – Concept of customs matters – Action based on a guarantee contract between the State and an insurance company – Contract entered into in order to satisfy a condition imposed by the State on associations of carriers, principal debtors, under Article 6 of the TIR Convention))

and

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Préservatrice foncière TIARD SA, represented by R.S. Meijer, advocaat, of the Netherlands Government, represented by N.A.J. Bel, acting as Agent, and of the Commission, represented by A.-M. Rouchaud and H. van Vliet, at the hearing on 17 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 December 2002,
Case C-220/01





Joseph Lennox, trading as

R. Lennox & Son



v

Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from theHigh Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division(Commercial Court))

«(Agriculture – Animal health – Importation of ovine animals – Health certificate – National safeguard measures against Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 17 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 3 July 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Approximation of laws concerning animal health – Veterinary and zootechnical checks in intra-Community trade in live animals and products of animal origin – Importation of sheep for slaughter accompanied by a health certificate not corresponding to that use – Refusal by the Member State of destination to allow the importation to proceed despite the production of a certificate containing all information necessary for purposes of slaughter – Not permissible

(Council Directives 90/425, Art. 5(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 91/68, Annex E)

2.. Agriculture – Approximation of laws concerning animal health – Veterinary and zootechnical checks in intra-Community trade in live animals and products of animal origin – Importation of bovine and ovine animals originating in France, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom – National protective measures against Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy – Whether compatible with Community law

(Council Directives 90/425, Art. 10(1), fourth subparagraph, and 91/68)

1.

2.