ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-233/02

French Republic

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Guidelines on regulatory cooperation and transparency concluded with the United States of America – Non-binding character)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Acts of the institutions – Guidelines on regulatory cooperation and transparency agreed upon with the United States of America – Institution competent to adopt such a measure – Account to be taken of the division of powers and the institutional balance established by the Treaty in the field of the common commercial policy – Non-binding effect of the Guidelines – Irrelevant

(Arts 133 EC and 300 EC)

2. International agreements – Determination of binding character – Decisive criterion – Intention of the parties – Guidelines on regulatory cooperation and transparency agreed upon with the United States of America – Non-binding effect – Undermining of the Commission’s power of legislative initiative – Exclusion

(Art. 300 EC)

1. The fact that a measure, such as the Guidelines on regulatory cooperation and transparency agreed upon with the United States of America, is not binding is not sufficient to confer on the Commission the competence to adopt it. Determining the conditions under which such a measure may be adopted requires that the division of powers and the institutional balance established by the Treaty in the field of the common commercial policy be duly taken into account, since in this case the measure seeks to reduce the risk of conflict related to the existence of technical barriers to trade in goods.

(see para. 40)

2. For the purpose of determining whether or not a measure, such as the guidelines on regulatory cooperation and transparency agreed upon with the United States of America, is binding, the intention of the parties must in principle be the decisive criterion. In the present case, that intention is clearly expressed in the text of the Guidelines itself, paragraph 7 of which specifies that the purpose of the document is to establish guidelines which regulators of the United States Federal Government and the services of the Commission ‘intend to apply on a voluntary basis’. On the basis of that information, it is apparent that the parties had no intention of entering into legally binding commitments when they concluded those guidelines. Consequently, those guidelines do not constitute a binding agreement and therefore do not fall within the scope of Article 300 EC.

Since they are devoid of binding effect, those guidelines cannot impose obligations on the Commission in carrying out its role of initiating legislation in the context of the Community legislative process. Therefore, the mere fact that a measure such as those guidelines provides for the possibility of engaging in prior consultation and gathering all necessary information before submitting appropriate proposals cannot undermine the Commission’s power of initiative.

(see paras 42-43, 45, 50-51)
Case C-157/02





Rieser Internationale Transporte GmbH

v

Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs- AG (Asfinag)





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

«(Carriage of goods by road – Tolls – Brenner motorway – Prohibition of discrimination – Discrimination on grounds of the nationality of the haulier or of the origin or destination of the vehicle)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 9 September 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 5 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Direct effect – Possibility of relying on a directive against a legal person governed by private law, controlled by the State, and entrusted with the task of levying tolls for the use of public road networks

(Art. 249, third para., EC)

2.. Transport – Road transport – Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Directives 93/89 and 1999/62 – Tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures – Direct effect of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of the haulier's nationality or of the vehicle's origin or destination – Principle of the link between the toll charges and infrastructure costs having no direct effect

(Council Directives 93/89, Arts 7(b) and (h), 8(2)(e) and 9, and 1999/62, Arts 7(4) and 9)

3.. Transport – Road transport – Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Directive 93/89 – Tolls and charges levied for the use of certain infrastructures – Directives 93/89 and 1999/62 – Tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of the haulier's nationality or of the vehicle's origin or destination – Applicable to national hauliers

(Council Directives 93/89, Arts 7(b) and 1999/62, Art. 7(4))

4.. Transport – Road transport – Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Directive 93/89 – Taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and charges for the use of certain infrastructures – Judgment of the Court of Justice annulling that directive – Effect

(Art. 231, second para., EC; Council Directives 93/89 and 1999/62)

5.. Transport – Road transport – Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Directive 1999/62 – Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures – Effects of the directive before expiry of the period for transposition – Member States required not to adopt measures liable to compromise the result prescribed by the directive – Direct effect – None

(Art. 10, second para., EC and Art. 249, third para., EC; Council Directive 1999/62)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-373/02

Sakir Öztürk

v

Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

(Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Article 3 of Decision No 3/80 – Principle of equal treatment – Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Social security for migrant workers – Retirement pension – Early pension in the event of unemployment – Condition whereby the worker must have received unemployment benefits in the Member State concerned)

Summary of the Judgment

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Social security for migrant workers – Early old-age pension in the event of unemployment – National legislation making entitlement conditional on the worker’s having received benefits under national unemployment insurance over a certain period prior to his application – Not permissible

(Decision No 3/80 of the EC Turkey Association Council, Art. 3(1))

Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States to Turkish workers and members of their families must be interpreted as precluding the application of legislation of a Member State which makes entitlement to an early old-age pension in the event of unemployment conditional upon fulfilment of the requirement that the person concerned has received, within a certain period prior to his application for the pension, unemployment insurance benefits from that Member State alone.

(see para. 68, operative part)
Case C-321/02

Finanzamt Rendsbug

v

Detlev Harbs

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 25 – Common flat-rate scheme for farmers – Leasing of part of a farm)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Common flat-rate scheme for farmers – Scope – Leasing of part of a farm – Exclusion

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 25)

Article 25 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, which confers on the Member States the right to apply a common flat-rate scheme to farmers where the application to them of the normal VAT scheme or the simplified tax scheme would give rise to difficulties, is to be interpreted as meaning that a farmer who has leased and/or let on a long-term basis some of the material assets of his farming business but continues to farm with the rest of his assets and who, in respect of the continued farming activity, is subject to the common flat-rate scheme provided for in that article may not treat the income from such a lease and/or letting as being taxable under that scheme. The turnover from that arrangement must be taxed under the normal VAT scheme or, where appropriate, the simplified scheme.

Application of the scheme is not dependent on satisfaction of a sole criterion, namely the formal status of farmer, but is reserved to farmers whose situation is covered by all the provisions of Article 25 of the Sixth Directive.

Letting can be included in the services referred to in that provision only if it concerns equipment that the farmer normally uses in farming his own agricultural land. It follows that the letting, leasing or creation of a usufructuary right by which a farmer transfers exclusive enjoyment of immovable property to another farmer, with the result that the latter may enjoy the fruits of that property, does not fall within the scope of Article 25, because the transferring farmer can then no longer regularly use the assets concerned. For the same reason, this must also apply in the case of the long-term letting of other objects of the farm to which the lessee has exclusive rights of enjoyment.

(see paras 27, 31, 34, 37, operative part)
Case C-292/02

Meiland Azewijn BV

v

Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf)

(Excise duties – Mineral oils used in agricultural works – Directive 92/81/EEC – Article 8a – Marking in the Member State where released for consumption – Prohibition on marking in the Member State of use – Directive 95/60/EC)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of legislation – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81 – Mineral oils, marked or not, released for consumption in a Member State and contained in the standard tank of commercial motor vehicles, including agricultural machinery – Use as fuel for propulsion or other purposes, by those vehicles – Liable to excise duties in another Member State – Prohibition – Possibility for individuals to rely on Article 8a of Directive 92/81 before the national court

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8a(1))

Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, including agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State.

It is apparent from the wording of that article, which provides that mineral oils released for consumption in a Member State, contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and intended to be used as fuel by those same vehicles, are not to be subject to excise duty in another Member State, considered in the light of its objectives, namely to protect freedom of movement for individuals and goods and to prevent double taxation, that that article must be interpreted broadly. Furthermore, a Member State cannot, on the basis of its own rules, prohibit the use of mineral oil marked as fuel in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle from another Member State which allows such a practice.

That prohibition is, moreover, sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to be relied upon by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with it.

(see paras 41, 54-55, 61-62, operative part 1-2)
Case C-379/02

Skatteministeriet

v

Imexpo Trading A/S

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret)

(Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature – Chairmats)

Summary of the Judgment

Common customs tariff – Tariff headings – Chairmats – Classification in subheading 3918 10 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, concerning floor coverings and more specific than that concerning furniture

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulations Nos 1734/96, 2086/97, 2261/98 and 2204/99, must be construed as meaning that, in a dispute in which the parties disagree as to whether chairmats made of plastic of various shapes, specially designed to be placed on the floor beneath office chairs on wheels to facilitate their movement while also protecting the floor covering, come under subheading 3918 10 90 or subheading 9403 70 90, classification under the former subheading is to be preferred.

(see para. 26, operative part)
Case C-457/02

Criminal proceedings

against

Antonio Niselli

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Terni)

(Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Definition of ‘waste’ – Reusable production or consumption residues – Scrap metal)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 – Definition – Substance which is discarded – Subjection to disposal or recovery operations within the meaning of Annexes IIA and IIB – Insufficient

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a), first subpara., and Annexes IIA and IIB)

2. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 – Meaning – Possible inclusion of reused production or consumption residues

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a), first subpara.)

1. The definition of ‘waste’ in the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, cannot be construed as covering exclusively substances or objects intended for, or subjected to, the disposal or recovery operations mentioned in Annexes IIA and IIB to that directive or in the equivalent lists, or to which their holder intends or is required to subject them.

(see para. 40, operative part 1)

2. The concept of ‘waste’ for the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, is not to be interpreted as excluding all production or consumption residues which can be or are reused in a cycle of production or consumption, either without prior treatment and without harm to the environment, or after undergoing prior treatment without, however, requiring a recovery operation within the meaning of Annex IIB to that directive.

(see para. 53, operative part 2)
Case C-336/02

Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

v

Brangewitz GmbH

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf)

(Plant varieties – System of protection – Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 – Use by farmers of the product of the harvest – Suppliers of processing services – Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right)

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Uniform legislation – Protection of plant varieties – Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 – Possibility for the holder of a Community right to request information where there is some indication that a supplier of processing services is processing the protected product

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 14(2) and (3); Council Regulation No 1768/95, Art. 9)

The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 allows the holder of a Community plant variety right to request a supplier of processing services to provide the relevant information which he has obtained through ordinary performance of his tasks, without additional burden or costs, where the holder has some indication that the latter has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by farmers by planting propagating material of a variety belonging to the holder, 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, for planting.

In such a case, the processor is required to provide the holder with the relevant information relating not only to the farmers for whom the holder has some indication that the processor has provided or intends to provide such services but also to all other farmers for whom he has processed or intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by planting propagating material of the variety concerned, where that variety has been declared or is otherwise known to him.

(see paras 54, 66, operative part 1-2)
Case C-420/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Hellenic Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Unlawful deposit of waste at the ‘Pera Galini’ site – Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC – Articles 4 and 9)

Summary of the Judgment

Environment – Waste disposal – Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 – First subparagraph of Article 4 – Obligation on Member States to ensure disposal of waste – Scope – Need for the measures to be adopted – Discretion – Limits

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 4, first subpara.)

Whilst the first subparagraph of Article 4 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, does not specify the actual content of the measures which must be taken in order to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, it is none the less true that it is binding on the Member States as to the objective to be achieved, whilst leaving to them a margin of discretion in assessing the need for such measures.

From the fact that a situation is not in conformity with the objectives laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4 of Directive 74/442, as amended, then, the direct inference may not in principle be drawn that the Member State concerned has necessarily failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision. However, if that situation persists and leads in particular to a significant deterioration in the environment over a protracted period without any action being taken by the competent authorities, it may be an indication that the Member States have exceeded the discretion conferred on them by that provision.

(see paras 21-22)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19 – Not invalid

Summary

The Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature are a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff provided that their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and do not alter the meaning of its provisions. Such is the case with the Explanatory Notes to subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19. They are contrary neither to the terms of the headings and subheadings at issue nor to the applicable notes nor to the rule mentioned in paragraph 6 of the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, according to which the classification of goods is to be determined according to the terms of subheadings. In particular, those Explanatory Notes are an extension of Additional Note 1 to Chapter 42 of the Combined Nomenclature, in that they specify that where the outer layer visible to the naked eye is sheeting of plastic, the process by which that sheeting was obtained is irrelevant for the purposes of tariff classification. In addition, in considering equivalent two technical processes which result in an identical product, namely an outer surface of plastic, they comply with the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods which lies in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the relevant heading of the Common Customs Tariff and in the notes to the relevant sections or chapters. It follows that there is no information such as to affect the validity of the Explanatory Notes in question.

(see paras 16, 19, 21, 27, 29, 32, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Delivery pursuant to the transitional provision of Article 19 of Regulation No 1768/92 – Conditions – Obtaining of a first marketing authorisation before the date specified in that article for a veterinary medicinal product – Grant precluded of a supplementary certificate for that product on the basis of a medicinal product for human use

(Council Regulation No 1768/92, Art. 19(1))

Summary

Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1768/92, concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, which provides that that certificate may be delivered provided that, inter alia, the product has obtained in a Member State, after a particular date, a first marketing authorisation as a medicinal product, precludes the grant of the said certificate in another Member State on the basis of a medicinal product for human use authorised in that Member State, when that product has obtained in the first Member State, before the date specified in Article 19(1), a marketing authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product.

(see para. 23, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 89/655 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work – Compliance with the minimum requirements – Work equipment in use – Grant of an additional adjustment period – Conditions

(Council Directive 89/655, as amended by Art. 4(1)(b) of Directive 95/63, and Annex I, point 1, para. (2))

Summary

The second paragraph of point 1 of Annex I to Directive 89/655 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work, as amended by Directive 95/63, according to which the minimum requirements laid down in that directive, inasmuch as they apply to work equipment in use, do not necessarily call for the same measures as the essential requirements concerning new work equipment, must be understood as meaning that it also amends to some extent the scope of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/655 in its original version, which obliges the employer to obtain and/or use work equipment which, if already provided to workers in the undertaking and/or establishment by 31 December 1992, complies with the minimum requirements laid down in the Annex to the directive no later than four years after that date.

Thus, the concession in relation to work equipment in use after 31 December 1996 must be understood in the light of the minimum requirements laid down in Annex I to Directive 89/655, as amended, which, according to the second paragraph of point 1 thereof, continue to apply to that equipment. Inasmuch as the lastmentioned provision states that, as regards such equipment, the minimum requirements do not necessarily call for the same measures as the essential requirements concerning new work equipment, it must be interpreted as increasing the opportunities for choice in the field of technical solutions if the measures taken are capable of securing the protection which those provisions are intended to achieve.

The transposition of Directive 89/655, as amended, is not carried out with the necessary clarity and precision by national provisions which make no reference to the rules contained in Annex I to the directive and which, for that reason, grant an additional adjustment period for work equipment already provided to workers in the undertaking and/or establishment before 27 August 1997.

(see paras 33-38)