ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Treaty provisions - Scope - Capital holding of a Member State national conferring a definite influence on the management of a company established in another Member State - Inclusion

(EC Treaty, Art.52 (now, after amendment, Art.43 EC))

2. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Exemption from wealth tax in respect of assets invested in shares restricted to holdings in companies established in the taxing Member State - not permissible - Whether justified - No such justification

(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC))

Summary

1. It is clear from the second paragraph of Article 52 of the Treaty that freedom of establishment includes the right to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms, in a Member State by a national of another Member State. So, a national of a Member State who has a holding in the capital of a company established in another Member State which gives him definite influence over the company's decisions and allows him to determine its activities is exercising his right of establishment.

( see paras 22 )

2. Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes a Member State's tax legislation, which, in circumstances where a holding in the capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence over the company's decisions and allows him to determine its activities,

- allows nationals of Member States resident on its territory an exemption, in whole or in part, from wealth tax in respect of the assets invested in shares in the company,

- but makes that exemption subject to the condition that the holding be held in a company established in the Member State concerned, thus denying it to holders of shares in companies established in other Member States.

Such legislation provides for a difference in treatment between taxpayers by adopting as its criterion the seat of the companies of which those taxpayers are shareholders and cannot be justified by the need to preserve the coherence of the tax system.

( see paras 30, 37-38, 41 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 89/104 - Right for the owner of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use - Particularly distinctive character per se or because of the reputation the mark enjoys - Sign used for identical or similar products - Likelihood of association, in the strict sense, between the sign and the mark - Likelihood not giving grounds for presuming a likelihood of confusion - Necessity of evidence of the existence of a likelihood of confusion

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

Summary

$$Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 on trade marks cannot be interpreted as meaning that where

- a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and

- a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark, uses, in the course of trade in goods or services which are identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is registered, a sign which so closely corresponds to the mark as to give rise to the possibility of its being associated with that mark,

the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to confusion cannot be ruled out.

The reputation of a mark does not give grounds for presuming the existence of a likelihood of confusion simply because of the existence of a likelihood of association in the strict sense. A positive finding of the existence of a likelihood of confusion, which constitutes the matter to be proved, is necessary.

( see paras 39, 41-42 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition - Public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights - Rules of the Treaty - Direct effect

(EC Treaty, Arts 86 and 90 (now Arts 82 EC and 86 EC))

2. Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Undertaking with a statutory monopoly - Public placement offices - Criteria for assessment

(EC Treaty, Arts 86 and 90(1) and (2) (now Arts 82 EC and 86(1) and (2) EC))

3. Community law - Directly applicable provisions - Conflict between Community law and a subsequent statute - Obligations and powers of the national court dealing with the matter - Non-application of the national provision, even if adopted subsequently - Incompatibility with the Treaty of any constitutional practice entrusting the resolution of the dispute to an authority other than the court dealing with the matter

Summary

1. Even within the framework of Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC), Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) has direct effect and confers on individuals rights which the national courts must protect.

( see paras 11, 17 and operative part )

2. Public placement offices are subject to the prohibition contained in Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC), so long as the application of that provision does not obstruct the particular task conferred on them. A Member State which prohibits any activity as intermediary between supply and demand on the employment market, unless it is carried on by those offices, is in breach of Article 90(1) of the Treaty where it creates a situation in which those offices cannot avoid infringing Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case, in particular, in the following circumstances:

- the public placement offices are manifestly unable to satisfy demand on the market for all types of activity; and

- the actual placement of employees by private companies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in force of statutory provisions under which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of that prohibition gives rise to penal and administrative sanctions; and

- the placement activities in question could extend to the nationals or to the territory of other Member States.

( see paras 13-14, 17 and operative part )

3. A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provisions by legislative or other constitutional means.

( see paras 16-17 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Approximation of laws - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 79/112 - Prohibition of labelling likely to mislead consumers - National legislation repeating that prohibition - Whether permissible

(Council Directive 79/112, Art. 2(1)(i))

2. Approximation of laws - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Directive 79/112 - Obligation of the Member States to prohibit sale of products displaying no information in a language easily understood by the purchaser - Scope - Rules going beyond that obligation - Not permissible - Infringement of Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC); Council Directive 79/112, Art. 14)

Summary

1. Community law does not preclude a national provision from requiring that the labelling of foodstuffs and the labelling methods used must not mislead the purchaser or consumer, particularly as to the characteristics of those foodstuffs, where that legislation substantially reproduces the wording of Article 2(1)(i) of Directive 79/112 on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

( see paras 17, 29 and operative part 1 )

2. Article 14 of Directive 79/112 on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer precludes a national provision from requiring the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility for another language easily understood by purchasers to be used or for the purchaser to be informed by other means. Such an obligation would constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).

( see paras 25, 28 to 29 and operative part 2 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws - Protection of plant health - Directive 77/93 - Introduction into the Community of plants from a non-member country and subject to special requirements - Lack of phytosanitary certificate issued by the competent authorities in the country of origin - Issue of phytosanitary certificate by the authorities of the exporting country empowered for that purpose - Whether permissible - Conditions

(Council Directive 77/93, as amended by Directives 91/683 and 92/103, Art. 12(1))

Summary

$$Directive 77/93 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, as amended by Directives 91/683 and 92/103, permits Member States to admit into their territory plants originating in a non-member country, which are subject to the issue of a phytosanitary certificate showing in particular compliance with special requirements, where, in the absence of a certificate issued by the authorities empowered to issue certificates in the plants' country of origin, the plants are accompanied by a certificate issued in a non-member country from which they do not originate, provided that: the plants have been imported into the territory of the country where checks have taken place before being exported from there to the Community; the plants have remained in that country for such time and under such conditions as to enable the proper checks to be completed; and, lastly, the plants are not subject to special requirements that can only be satisfied in their place of origin.

It is not for the Member State concerned to take account of the reasons for which a phytosanitary certificate has not been issued in the country of origin of the plants in determining whether the certificate complies with the requirements of the Directive.

( see paras 38, 42, and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Admissibility - Points of law - Application by the Court of First Instance of the principles of the rights of the defence - Included

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2. Social policy - European Social Fund - Financial assistance for vocational training - Decision reducing assistance initially granted - Rights of defence of the undertakings concerned - Scope

Summary

1. The question whether the Court of First Instance correctly applied the principles governing the rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard constitutes a question of law which it falls to the Court of Justice to examine on appeal.

( see para. 35 )

2. Respect for the rights of defence is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the proceedings in question. That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views.

In the absence of an invitation to an appellant by or on behalf of the Commission to submit its observations after a reasonable period on the documents recording the actions for which it was criticised and on the basis of which the Commission adopted its decisions reducing financial assistance from the European Social Fund, it must be concluded that the appellant was not placed in a position effectively to make known its views on the accusations made against it.

( see paras 36, 43 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause - Parties' consent - Criteria - Need to formulate the clause so that the court having jurisdiction can be determined on its wording alone - No such need

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17)

2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Scope of the first paragraph of Article 17 - Clause entered into by at least one party domiciled in a Contracting State conferring jurisdiction on a court in a Contracting State

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17)

3. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading - Enforceability as against third party bearer - Conditions

(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 17)

Summary

1. The words have agreed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary for a jurisdiction clause to be formulated in such a way that the competent court can be determined on its wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of the case.

( see para. 15 and operative part 1 )

2. Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters only applies if, first, at least one of the parties to the original contract is domiciled in a Contracting State and, secondly, the parties agree to submit any disputes to a court or the courts of a Contracting State.

A court situated in a Contracting State must, if it is seised notwithstanding a jurisdiction clause designating a court in a third country, assess the validity of the clause according to the applicable law, including conflict of laws rules, where it sits.

( see paras 19, 21 and operative part 2 )

3. The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper which appears in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third party bearer of the bill of lading if he succeeded to the rights and obligations of the shipper under the applicable national law when he acquired the bill of lading. If he did not, it must be ascertained whether he accepted that clause having regard to the requirements laid down in that provision.

( see para. 27 and operative part 3 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture Approximation of laws on health inspections Intra-Community trade in fresh meat Veterinary checks Directive 89/662 Postponement of the date on which Community protective measures to combat transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are to become applicable Adoption by Member States of interim protective measures Permissible

(Council Directive 89/662, Art. 9(1), subpara. 4; Commission Decision 97/534)

Summary

$$The adoption by the Commission of a decision which is not immediately applicable, such as Decision 97/534 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, cannot, as such, be regarded as precluding a Member State from itself taking interim protective measures pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 89/662 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market. The situation would only be different if the date on which the Community protective measure became applicable were to be postponed for the express reason that no measures were needed at all, at either national or Community level, before that date. In such circumstances, the deferral of the application of the Community legislation would have to be construed as precluding the adoption by Member States of protective measures pending the date on which the Community measure became applicable.

( see paras 58, 60 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Environment - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 92/43 - Sites of Community importance - Identification - Drawing up of the national list of sites - Taking account of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local characteristics - Not permitted

(Council Directive 92/43, Arts 2(3), 3(1), first subpara., and 4(1))

Summary

$$Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not take account of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community importance.

To produce a draft list of sites of Community importance, capable of leading to the creation of a coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation, the Commission must have available an exhaustive list of the sites which, at national level, have an ecological interest which is relevant from the point of view of the directive's objective of conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. Only in that way is it possible to realise the objective, in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 92/43, of maintaining or restoring the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, which may lie across one or more frontiers inside the Community. Having regard to the fact that, when a Member State draws up the national list of sites, it is not in a position to have precise detailed knowledge of the situation of habitats in the other Member States, it cannot of its own accord, whether because of economic, social or cultural requirements or because of regional or local characteristics, delete sites which at national level have an ecological interest relevant from the point of view of the objective of conservation without jeopardising the realisation of that objective at Community level.

( see paras 22-23, 25 and operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Transport Air transport Access of Community carriers to intra-Community routes Examination by the Commission of the distribution of traffic between the airports within an airport system Review of national measures in the light of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality Lawful

(Council Regulation No 2408/92, Art. 8(1) and(3))

2. Transport Air transport Access of Community carriers to intra-Community routes Examination by the Commission of the distribution of traffic between the airports within an airport system Observance by the Commission of the principle of proportionality Scope

(Council Regulation No 2408/92, Art. 8(3))

Summary

1. The Commission was fully entitled, within the framework of the power granted to it under Article 8(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, to examine, first, whether national measures imposing restrictions on the freedom to provide services are applicable without distinction and, second, whether those restrictions are such as to achieve the objective which they envisage, without going beyond what is necessary to achieve it.

( see para. 36 )

2. Under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, it is for the Commission merely to examine the national measure adopted by the Member State concerned and to decide, after consulting the committee referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, whether that State may continue to apply that measure. In those circumstances, since the Commission was not empowered to propose an amendment to the national measures enacted, it cannot be accused of infringing the principle of proportionality by having failed to suggest that the national authorities adopt less restrictive measures.

( see paras 72-73 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - Exemption for the letting of immovable property - Meaning - Payment of a sum of money by the landlord to the future tenant - Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive - Exemption for the letting of immovable property - Meaning - Option agreement in relation to leases of immovable property in return for a sum of money paid by the landlord - Excluded

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(b))

Summary

1. The letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes essentially involves the landlord of property assigning to the tenant, in return for rent and for an agreed period, the right to occupy his property and to exclude other persons from it. It is thus the landlord who makes a taxable supply of services and the tenant who, in return for the supply, pays consideration. Therefore, a person who does not initially have any interest in the immovable property and who enters into an agreement for lease of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the grant of a lease of the property in return for a sum of money paid by the landlord does not make a supply of services falling within Article 13B(b) cited above.

( see paras 31-32, 36 and operative part 1 )

2. A person who does not initially have any interest in the immovable property and who enters into an option agreement in relation to leases of that immovable property in return for a sum of money paid by the landlord, on terms that the money will remain in a special account as security for its obligations under the option agreement, and who subsequently exercises the options under the option agreement and accepts the grant of leases of the immovable property in return for the release of the money in its special account, at no time makes a supply of services falling within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

( see para. 39 and operative part 2 )