ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Common Customs Tariff ° Tariff headings ° Basic module for the assembly of a data-processing machine, consisting of a housing essentially containing two disk drives ° Classification under subheading No 8471 93 59 of the Combined Nomenclature

Summary

The Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version annexed to Regulation No 2502/92 amending Annexes I and II to Regulation No 2658/87, is to be interpreted as meaning that a basic module for the assembly of a data-processing machine, consisting of a housing essentially containing two disk drives, is to be classified, pursuant to General Rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, under subheading No 8471 93 59 as a "storage unit", on the basis of the drives it contains. The disk drives which give such a basic module for data processing its essential character fall within that subheading in view of their characteristics.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Acts of the institutions ° Directives ° Implementation by the Member States ° Mere administrative practices inadequate

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

Summary

Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of Member States' obligations under a directive in accordance with Article 189 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers ° Old-age and death insurance ° Award of benefits ° Concurrent award under the legislation of all the Member States in which the worker has been covered as soon as the claim for benefits is lodged ° Non-observance by the worker of the obligation to submit his claim to the institution in the Member State in which he resides ° No effect

(Council Regulations No 1408/71, Art. 44(2), and No 574/72, Art. 36(1) and (4))

Summary

Article 36(4) of Regulation No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, which, with regard to old-age benefits, expressly provides that a claim for benefits sent to an institution of one Member State automatically involves the concurrent award of benefits under the legislation of all the Member States in question, lays down an independent procedural rule which applies regardless of whether the provisions of Article 36(1) to (3) have been complied with, in particular that contained in the first sentence of Article 36(1) pursuant to which a migrant worker is to submit his claim to the institution located closest to him, that is to say that of his place of residence.

First, Regulation No 1408/71, of which Regulation No 574/72 is merely an implementing regulation, unambiguously lays down the principle of the concurrent award of benefits under the legislation of all the Member States where a claim is submitted to an institution of any Member State, the date of submission of the claim constituting the reference date for the award of the benefits for all the institutions concerned. Secondly, the first sentence of Article 36(1) of Regulation No 574/72, in requiring the claimant to send his claim to the institution of his place of residence, merely lays down a supplementary procedural rule intended to simplify the steps to be taken by the worker, and failure to comply with that rule cannot raise any obstacle to the concurrent award of the benefits as provided for both by Regulation No 1408/71 and by Article 36(4) of Regulation No 574/72.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision addressed to the Member States, granting financial assistance for measures to protect habitats and nature - Agriculturalists operating in one of the regions concerned and associations thereof - Right to be consulted prior to adoption of the decision - Non-existence of such a right - Action inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 1973/92)

Summary

A decision of the Commission addressed to certain Member States concerning the grant, pursuant to Regulation No 1973/92, of financial assistance for measures to protect habitats and nature cannot be regarded as an act of individual concern to agriculturalists operating in the regions concerned and the associations representing them on the ground that they should have been consulted prior to its adoption. First, there is nothing in the abovementioned regulation establishing any obligation to consult interested parties before granting financial assistance to Member States and, second, the Fifth Environment Action Programme, which is designed to provide a framework for defining and implementing Community policy in that field, does not lay down legal rules of a mandatory nature, so that its adoption does not have the effect of imposing any such obligation on the Commission.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Taxable persons - Bodies governed by public law - Activities in the exercise of public authority not taxable - Definition - Option for Member States to include activities exempted by virtue of Article 13 of the Sixth Directive, irrespective of the manner of their performance

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 4(5), fourth subpara.)

Summary

The fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as permitting Member States to consider that the activities listed in Article 13 of the directive are carried out by bodies governed by public law as public authorities, even if they are performed in a similar manner to those of a private trader. That provision does not draw any distinction as between the various activities exempted by virtue of Article 13 and which the Member States are authorized to treat as activities in the exercise of public authority where they are performed by a body governed by public law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Monetary compensatory amounts - Exemption from the charge - Relief clause - Scope - Borders crossed twice - Excluded - Import and export by different traders - No effect

(Commission Regulation No 926/80, Art. 8(2)(b))

Summary

Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 926/80 on exemption from the application of monetary compensatory amounts in certain cases where, as a result of changes to those amounts occurring between the conclusion of a contract and its performance, an additional charge is imposed on a trader, must be interpreted as meaning that the refusal of exemption under that provision applies equally to an exported product which is reimported within six months of its export and to an exported product which had previously been imported within the six months preceding its export.

In the latter situation, in order to refuse exemption from payment of monetary compensatory amounts, it is sufficient for the same product to be exported within six months of its importation, irrespective of whether it was imported by the same or another trader. Since the system of monetary compensatory amounts is designed to influence the formation of prices of agricultural products and not to prevent traders from making unusual profits or losses, the objective of Regulation No 926/80 is not to provide traders engaged in the performance of contracts containing predetermined conditions with full protection against the application of those monetary compensatory amounts following a monetary measure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy - Approximation of laws - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Directive 77/187 - Scope - Termination by an employer of a cleaning contract with an independent contractor in order to conclude a contract with another - No transfer of significant assets or taking over by the new employer of a major part of the workforce - Excluded

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 1(1))

Summary

Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the directive does not apply to a situation in which a person who had entrusted the cleaning of his premises to a first undertaking terminates his contract with the latter and, for the performance of similar work, enters into a new contract with a second undertaking, if there is no concomitant transfer from one undertaking to the other of significant tangible or intangible assets or taking over by the new employer of a major part of the workforce, in terms of their numbers and skills, assigned by his predecessor to the performance of the contract.

The concept of transfer within the meaning of the directive relates to cases in which an economic entity - that is to say an organized grouping of persons and assets facilitating the exercise of an economic activity which pursues an objective specific to it - retains its identity following the transaction in question. In those circumstances, the mere loss of a service contract to a competitor cannot by itself indicate the existence of such a transfer. Furthermore, whilst it is conceivable that, in certain sectors in which the business is based essentially on the workforce, an economic entity is able to function without any significant tangible or intangible assets and may be constituted by a group of workers engaged in a joint activity on a permanent basis, it is necessary in addition, for there to be a transfer within the meaning of the directive, for that group to continue to exist after the taking over of an essential part of the workforce by the new awardee of the contract.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Prohibition - Block exemption - Regulation No 123/85 - Subject-matter - Exemption permitting certain restrictions on competition agreed between vehicle manufacturers and concessionaires - Prohibition preventing a trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor vehicle nor an authorized intermediary from undertaking parallel imports and operating as an independent reseller of new vehicles - None

(Commission Regulation No 123/85)

Summary

Regulation No 123/85 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements concerns only contractual relations between suppliers and their approved distributors, and, whilst it lays down what the parties may or may not undertake to do in relations with third parties, it is not designed to regulate the activities of such third parties who may operate on the market outside the framework of distribution agreements.

Consequently, Regulation No 123/85 is to be interpreted as not preventing a trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that regulation from undertaking parallel imports and operating as an independent reseller of new vehicles of that make.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Delay in payment of social security benefits owing to discrimination prohibited by Directive 79/7 - Right to payment of interest on the amounts ultimately paid - None

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 6)

2 Community law - Rights conferred on individuals - Infringement by a Member State - Obligation to make reparation for the loss and damage caused to individuals - Conditions - Rules for compensation - Application of national law - Limits

Summary

3 Article 6 of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security does not require that an individual should be able to obtain interest on arrears of a social security benefit, when the delay in payment of the benefit is the result of discrimination prohibited by Directive 79/7.

The amounts due by way of social security benefits and paid to the persons concerned by the competent bodies, which must, in particular, examine whether the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation are fulfilled, in no way constitute reparation for loss or damage sustained and the reasoning of the Court in its judgment of 2 August 1993 in Case C-271/91 Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority according to which the award of interest, in accordance with the applicable national rules, must be regarded as an essential component of such compensation, cannot be applied. Accordingly, although Article 6 of Directive 79/7 requires the Member States to adopt the measures necessary to enable all persons who consider themselves to have been wronged by discrimination prohibited under the directive in the context of the award of social security benefits to establish the unlawfulness of such discrimination and to obtain the benefits to which they would have been entitled in the absence of discrimination, the payment of interest on arrears of benefits cannot be regarded as an essential component of the right as so defined.

4 A Member State is obliged to make reparation for the loss and damage caused to an individual as a result of breaches of Community law for which it can be held responsible. That obligation exists where three conditions are fulfilled, namely that the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured parties.

While the right to reparation is founded directly on Community law where those three conditions are fulfilled, the national law on liability provides the framework within which the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss and damage caused, provided always that the conditions laid down by national law relating to reparation of loss and damage must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims and must not be so framed as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions on exports - Measures having equivalent effect - Systematic inspections of the composition and quality of skimmed-milk powder intended for denaturing or processing in another Member State and giving rise to entitlement to aid - Inspections which can be based neither on the relevant Community rules nor on the requirements recognized by Article 36 of the Treaty - Not permissible - Inspections carried out at the frontier or within the territory of the State of dispatch - Irrelevant - Inspections by spot checks - Whether permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 34 and 36; Commission Regulation No 1624/76, Art. 2(1) and (4), as amended by Regulations Nos 1726/79 and 1725/79, Art. 10)

2 Free movement of goods - Customs duties - Charges having equivalent effect - Levying of a charge in respect of systematic inspections not in conformity with the Community rules and carried out on the occasion of the export of skimmed-milk powder to another Member State - Not permissible - Inspections carried out at the frontier or within the territory of the State of dispatch - Irrelevant

(EC Treaty, Arts 9 and 12; Commission Regulations Nos 1624/76 and 1725/79)

Summary

3 Since inspections carried out systematically by the Member State of dispatch and intended to verify the composition and quality of skimmed-milk powder which is to be denatured or processed into compound feedingstuffs on the territory of another Member State and which, as such, is eligible for the grant of aid, are not provided for by the relevant Community legislation, namely Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1624/76, in the version set out in Regulation No 1726/79, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1725/79, they constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports in trade between Member States which are prohibited by Article 34 of the Treaty. In this respect, it is of no account whether those inspections are carried out at the frontier or within the territory of the State of dispatch, provided that they are carried out with a view to the future exportation of the same goods. Nor are the inspections justified by one the requirements recognized by Article 36 of the Treaty. Such inspections are, on the other hand, permissible if they are carried out only by way of spot checks.

4 A charge levied by a Member State in respect of inspections which are carried out on the occasion of the export of skimmed-milk powder intended for the preparation of animal feedingstuffs in another Member State, but which, by reason of their systematic nature, can find no basis in Regulation No 1624/76 and Regulation No 1725/79, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on exports which is prohibited by Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty, even if it corresponds to the actual cost of each inspection, and this is so whether the inspections are carried out at the frontier or within the territory of the State of dispatch with a view to the future exportation of the inspected goods.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Liability for defective products - Directive 85/374 - Defence to liability - Condition - State of scientific and technical knowledge not such as to enable the defect to be discovered - Concept - National implementing provision - Infringement not made out

(Council Directive 85/374, Article 7(e))

Summary

In order for a producer to incur liability for defective products under Directive 85/374, the victim does not have to prove that the producer was at fault; however, in accordance with the principle of fair apportionment of risk between the injured person and the producer set forth in the seventh recital in the preamble to the directive, the producer has a defence if he can prove certain facts exonerating him from liability, including `that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered'. Whilst the producer has to prove that the objective state of scientific and technical knowledge, including the most advanced level of such knowledge, without any restriction as to the industrial sector concerned, was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered, in order for the relevant knowledge to be successfully pleaded as against the producer, that knowledge must have been accessible at the time when the product in question was put into circulation.

A national implementing provision to the effect that the producer has a defence if he can prove that the state of such knowledge was `not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they were under his control' is not manifestly contrary to that Community rule. The argument that such national provision permits account to be taken of the subjective knowledge of a producer taking reasonable care, having regard to the standard precautions taken in the industrial sector in question, selectively stresses particular terms used in the provision without demonstrating that the general legal context of the provision at issue fails effectively to secure full application of the directive.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Transport - Inland waterway transport - Structural improvements - Scrapping system - Whether appropriate within the meaning of the relevant Treaty provisions - Principles of equal treatment and proportionality - Rights to property and to pursue a trade or business - Infringement - None

(EEC Treaty, Art. 75(1)(c); Council Regulation No 1101/89)

2 Preliminary rulings - Assessment of validity of a measure - Situation to be taken into account as it existed at the time the measure was adopted

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

3 In giving the Council the task of adopting a common transport policy, the Treaty has conferred wide legislative powers upon it as regards the adoption of appropriate common rules. In reviewing the exercise of such powers, the Community judicature cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Community legislature, but must confine itself to examining whether that latter assessment contains a manifest error or constitutes a misuse of powers, or whether the authority in question did not clearly exceed the bounds of its discretion. Where implementation by the Council of a common policy requires it to assess a complex economic situation, its discretion is exercisable not only in relation to the nature and scope of the provisions which are to be adopted but also, to a certain extent, to the findings as to the basic facts, especially in the sense that it is free to base its assessment on findings of a general nature.

In the light of those principles, it does not appear that, by adopting Regulation No 1101/89 on structural improvements in inland waterway transport, the Council clearly exceeded the bounds of its discretion. The method it chose to deal with the undeniably serious economic and social situation in the sector, which aims at reducing structural overcapacity by introducing a scrapping scheme coordinated at Community level but financed by the sector itself, would appear to be an appropriate contribution to the structural improvement of the sector, and thus to alleviating its problems. The line of argument that the scrapping programme was not `appropriate' within the meaning of Article 75(1)(c) of the Treaty, as it stood at the time the programme was adopted, must therefore be rejected.

Nor are the rules in question vitiated by defects capable of rendering them invalid. More particularly, the obligation on vessel owners to pay contributions to a scrapping fund does not infringe the principles of equal treatment or proportionality, the fundamental right to property or the freedom to pursue a trade or business.

4 The assessment of the validity of a measure which the Court is called upon to undertake on a reference for a preliminary ruling must normally be based on the situation which existed at the time that measure was adopted. Even if the validity of a measure might, in certain cases, be assessed by reference to new factors which arose subsequently to its adoption, the documents before the Court do not permit the conclusion that any such factors exist in this case.