ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7, Article 4(1) - Increases in social security benefits in respect of persons deemed to be dependants automatically granted to married men - Obligation to ensure equal treatment for married women even if in some cases that will result in double payment of the increases to the same family

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))

2. Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7, Article 4(1) - Compensatory payments for married men replacing increases in social security benefits - Obligation to ensure equal treatment for married women notwithstanding the prohibition on unjust enrichment laid down by national law

(Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))

Summary

1. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC, on the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security, must be interpreted as meaning that if, after the expiry of the period allowed for implementation of the directive, married men have automatically received increases in social security benefits in respect of a spouse and children deemed to be dependants without having to prove actual dependency, married women without actual dependants are entitled to the same increases even if in some circumstances that will result in double payment of the increases to the same family.

2. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7 must be interpreted as meaning that where a Member State has included in the legislation intended to implement that article, adopted after the expiry of the period allowed by the directive, a transitional provision providing for compensatory payments to married men who have lost their entitlement to an increase in their social security benefits in respect of a spouse deemed to be dependent because actual dependency cannot be shown to exist, married women in the same family circumstances are entitled to the same payments even if that infringes the prohibition on unjust enrichment laid down by national law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Tax provisions - Domestic taxes - Discrimination - Prohibition - Levying of VAT on goods imported from another Member State by a non-taxable person - Obligation on Member States to adopt measures allowing account to be taken of the residual tax still contained in the value of the imported goods

(EEC Treaty, Art. 95)

Summary

A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 95 of the EEC Treaty if it does not adopt the measures necessary to permit persons not subject to VAT who import into its national territory goods on which VAT has already been charged in another Member State, without the possibility of obtaining a refund of that tax, to deduct from the VAT due on importation the amount of VAT paid in the Member State of exportation which is still contained in the value of the goods at the time of their importation, when the supply of similar goods by non-taxable persons within the national territory is not subject to VAT.

The full and complete application of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 95 cannot be ensured solely by the fact that that provision, being directly effective, may be relied on before national courts, since that is no more than a minimum guarantee and cannot resolve the difficulties, regarding the requirements of legal certainty, created by the retention in domestic legislation of provisions which do not provide for account to be taken of the residual amount of tax.

Defence submissions based on the absence at present of a common system applicable to the imports in question and on arguments relating to the nature of VAT and the apportionment of tax revenue between Member States can be of no avail in denying the failure to fulfil obligations. In the first place, the deduction in the Member State of importation of the amount of VAT paid in the Member State of exportation and still contained in the value of the goods at the time of their importation does not call in question the inherent nature of VAT as a tax on consumption, in so far as such a description is independent of the apportionment of the tax charge between the Member State of exportation and that of importation. Secondly, whilst the establishment of a common system of VAT entailing complete neutrality in the field of competition, the full remission in the State of exportation of VAT in respect of the goods in question, as well as the fair and equitable apportionment of tax revenue between Member States are all matters for the Community legislature, so long as such a system is not established, Article 95 precludes a Member State from applying its system of VAT to imported products in a manner contrary to the principle of non-discrimination in matters of taxation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Tax provisions - Harmonization of legislation - Taxes other than turnover taxes on the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 5 of Directive 72/464 - Scope - Fixing by the public authorities of selling prices without regard to Article 30 of the Treaty - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30; Council Directive 72/464)

2. Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Price schemes - Minimum selling prices for manufactured tobacco imposed by means of tax measures without consideration of the cost prices of importers - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

Summary

1. Although Article 5(1) of Directive 72/464 specifies that the right given to manufacturers and importers of manufactured tobacco freely to determine the maximum retail selling prices for their products may not hinder implementation of the national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices, it does not follow that Member States are authorized to fix prices for tobacco without regard to the rule that such prices may be freely determined by manufacturers or importers. Firstly, the expression "control of price levels" cannot refer to anything other than national laws of a general nature, designed to check price increases, and, secondly, the expression "observance of imposed prices" must be understood as referring to a price which, once determined by the manufacturer or importer and approved by the public authorities, is binding as a maximum price and must be observed as such at all stages of the distribution chain, up to the sale to the consumer.

Similarly, Article 5(2) of the directive, which authorizes the Member States to fix a scale of retail selling prices for each group of manufactured tobacco, has neither the object nor the effect of allowing the Member States to impose on traders a minimum retail selling price in conditions which disregard Article 30 of the Treaty, the object of the provision being solely to facilitate the levying of excise duty on tobacco.

2. The imposition by a Member State of minimum retail selling prices on an undertaking importing manufactured tobacco by means of a refusal to supply tax stamps showing selling prices lower that those envisaged by the national scale, without taking any account of the cost prices of the undertaking and the possibility for it to reflect the resultant competitive advantage in its selling prices, constitutes a measure having effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports, prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Aid granted by States - Concept - Aid granted through the intermediary of a state-controlled body - Inclusion (EEC Treaty, Art. 92(1))

2. Aid granted by States - Concept - Financial assistance granted to an undertaking by a Member State - Assessment criterion - Reasonable nature of the operation for a private investor pursuing a medium or long-term policy (EEC Treaty, Art. 92(1))

3. Aid granted by States - Effect on trade between Member States - Impairment of competition - Aid granted to an undertaking operating in a sector where there is surplus production capacity and effective competition (EEC Treaty, Art. 92(1))

4. Aid granted by States - Recovery of unlawful aid - Obligation flowing from the unlawful nature of the aid (EEC Treaty, Art. 93(2))

Summary

1. In order to determine whether aid may be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, no distinction should be drawn between cases where aid is granted directly by the State and cases where it is granted by public or private bodies established or appointed by the State to administer the aid.

2. In order to determine whether intervention by the public authorities in the capital of an undertaking, in whatever form, may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, it is necessary to consider whether in similar circumstances a private investor of a size comparable to that of the bodies administering the public sector might have provided capital of such an amount.

Although the conduct of a private investor with which the intervention of the public investor pursuing economic policy aims must be compared need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realizing a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the conduct of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy - whether general or sectoral - and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term.

3. Where an undertaking operates in a sector in which there is surplus production capacity and producers from various Member States compete, any aid which it may receive from the public authorities is liable to affect trade between the Member States and impair competition, inasmuch as its continuing presence on the market prevents competitors from other Member States from increasing their market share and reduces their chances of increasing their exports to that Member State.

4. The obligation to recover State aid declared unlawful is the logical consequence of a finding by the Commission that it is unlawful.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of goods - Community transit - Community external transit - T 1 document - Notification of non-discharge - Competent authority

(Second paragraph of Article 35 of Regulation No 222/77 as in force before its amendment by Regulation No 3813/81)

Summary

The second paragraph of Article 35 of Regulation No 222/77 on Community transit, as in force before its amendment by Regulation No 3813/81, provided that the person standing as guarantor for the regularity of transit operations is to be released from his obligations when, on the expiry of a specific period, he has not been notified by the office of departure of the non-discharge of the T 1 document. That version of the provision must be interpreted as meaning that responsibility for notifying the guarantor of the non-discharge of the T 1 document rested exclusively with the office of departure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Social security for migrant workers - Invalidity insurance - Person in receipt of benefits residing in a Member State other than the competent State - Medical examinations - Requirement that the recipient travel to the territory of the competent Member State at the request of the institution responsible for payment - Conditions - Journey not harmful to the health of recipient and expenses paid - Unfitness to travel certified by the institution of the place of stay - Verification on the spot of unfitness to travel by the institution responsible for payment - Permissibility

(Council Regulation No 574/72, Article 51(1) )

Summary

Where an institution responsible for payment of an invalidity benefit exercises the power provided for in Article 51(1) of Regulation No 574/72 of having a recipient of the benefit residing in another Member State examined by a doctor of its own choice, the person concerned may be required to go to the Member State in which the competent institution is situated, provided that the travel and accommodation expenses thereby incurred are borne by the competent institution and the person concerned is fit enough to make the journey without impairment of his health.

Where the institution of the place where the person concerning is staying or residing has determined that that person is not fit enought to undertake the journey, there is nothing to prevent the institution responsible for payment or the body responsible for medical examinations from verifying that circumstance on the spot.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Free movement of persons - Freedom of establishment - Companies - Directive 77/91 - Alteration of the capital of a public limited company - Direct effect of Articles 25(1) and 29(1) of the directive - National rules providing for an increase, by administrative measure, of the capital of a company in financial difficulties - Not permitted

(Council Directive 77/91, Arts 25(1) and 29(1) )

Summary

Articles 25(1) and 29(1) of the Second Directive (77/91/EEC), which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are intended to coordinate the safeguards required by the Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, may be relied upon by individuals against the public authorities before the national courts.

Those provisions are to be interpreted as precluding the application of rules which, being designed to ensure the rationalization and continued trading of undertakings that are of particular importance to the economy of a Member State and are in an exceptional situation because of their debts, allow an increase of capital to be decided upon by administrative measure, without any resolution being passed by the general meeting, and enable a decision to be taken, by administrative measure, that new shares are to be allotted without being offered on a pre-emptive basis to the shareholders in proportion to the capital represented by their shares.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Financing by the EAGGF - System of monthly advances paid to the Member States - Establishment of irregularities in the application by national bodies of the mechanisms of a common organization of the market - Commission' s power to reduce the amounts paid by way of advance

(Regulation No 729/70 of the Council, as amended by Regulations No 3183/87 and No 2048/88)

2. Community law - Principles - Right to a fair hearing - Observance of that right when the Commission adopts temporary decisions connected with the management of the EAGGF - Limits

Summary

1. The obligation on the Commission, in the management of the EAGGF, to commit funds only for expenditure effected in accordance with Community rules exists not only at the time of the annual clearance of the national accounts but also when, during the year, it makes the monthly payments provided for by Regulation No 729/70, as amended by Regulations No 3183/87 and No 2048/88. It follows that the Commission has power, while awaiting the final decision on the clearance of the annual accounts, to reduce the payment of amounts due under monthly advances according to the state of the account of each Member State with the EAGGF when it establishes breaches of Community law by the competent national body either at the level of collection of payments earmarked for the EAGGF or at the level of expenditure for the financing of which the EAGGF is responsible.

2. The principle of the observance of the right to a fair hearing does not require, for the adoption of decisions concerning the monthly advances against expenditure financed by the EAGGF, that the complex procedure, ensuring that the audi alteram partem rule is observed, applied during the annual clearance of national accounts must be complied with; it is sufficient, in order to satisfy the requirements of that principle, that the decisions are not taken until after the Member State concerned has been able to present its point of view. Those decisions are merely interim and temporary in nature and remain subject to review until the adoption of the decision on the annual clearance of the accounts, which alone may determine conclusively the Member State' s financial position in relation to the EAGGF.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations ° Subject-matter ° Determined by the reasoned opinion ° Time-limit prescribed for the Member State ° Default subsequently remedied ° Interest in pursuing the action ° Possible liability of the Member State

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

2. Fisheries ° Common structural policy ° Waters coming under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of the Member States ° Equal access for Community fishermen ° Certain vessels flying the flag of one Member State banned by another Member State from fishing within its exclusive fishery limits ° Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 101/76, Art. 2(1))

3. Free movement of goods ° Quantitative restrictions ° Certain vessels flying the flag of one Member State banned by another Member State from trans-shipping fish within its exclusive fishery limits and landing fish in its territory ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 30)

Summary

1. The subject-matter of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty is determined by the Commission' s reasoned opinion, and even when the default has been remedied after the expiry of the time-limit prescribed by the second paragraph of that article, there is still an interest in pursuing the action in order to establish the basis of liability which a Member State may incur as a result of its default towards other Member States, the Community or private parties.

2. A Member State is in breach of its obligations under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 101/76 laying down the principle of equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in the waters coming under its sovereignty or within its jurisdiction for all fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State and registered in Community territory if it enacts a fishing ban on certain vessels flying the flag of another Member State within its exclusive fishery limits. That breach cannot be justified by the fact that the exclusion by the other Member State of those same vessels from fishing against its national quotas is not contrary to Community law.

3. A ban by a Member State on the trans-shipment of fish within its exclusive fishery limits and landing of fish in its territory imposed on certain vessels flying the flag of another Member State constitutes a barrier to the free movement of goods which is prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty.
Judgment of the Court of 25 July 1991. - Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Containers of liquids for human consumption - Failure to transpose a directive and to communicate programmes. - Case C-252/89.



European Court reports 1991 Page I-03973

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations - Justification - Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

As the Court has consistently held (see in particular the judgment in Case C-374/89 Commission v Belgium [1991] ECR I-367), a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances of its own legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits resulting from Community law. This same case-law establishes that practical difficulties which appear at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect cannot permit a Member State unilaterally to opt out of fulfilling its obligations.

Parties

In Case C-252/89,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou-Durande, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Guido Berardis, also a member of the Commission' s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by Claude Franck, Attaché de Gouvernement Premier en Rang in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and of the Environment, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at that ministry, 5A Rue de Prague,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to draw up and communicate to the Commission the programmes and to adopt and communicate the laws, regulations and administrative measures needed to comply with Council Directive 85/339/EEC of 27 June 1985 on containers of liquids for human consumption (Official Journal 1985 L 176, p. 18), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty,

THE COURT,

composed of: O. Due, President, G.F. Mancini, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, M. Díez de Velasco (Presidents of Chambers), Sir Gordon Slynn, C.N. Kakouris, R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges,

(The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced.)

hereby rules:

Operative part

1. By failing to draw up and communicate to the Commission the programmes and to adopt and communicate the laws, regulations and administrative measures needed to comply with Council Directive 85/339/EEC of 27 June 1985 on containers of liquids for human consumption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

2. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition - Community rules - To whom addressed - Undertakings - Concept - Public employment agency engaged in employment procurement - Included

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85 and 86)

2. Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Undertaking with a statutory monopoly - Public employment agency engaged in employment procurement - Criteria for assessment

(EEC Treaty, Arts 86 and 90(1) and (2))

3. Freedom to provide services - Treaty provisions - Situations internal to a Member State - Not applicable

(EEC Treaty, Arts 7 and 59)

Summary

1. A public employment agency engaged in the business of employment procurement may be classified as an undertaking for the purpose of applying the Community competition rules since, in the context of competition law, that classification applies to every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.

2. As an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, a public employment agency engaged in employment procurement activities is, pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Treaty, subject to the prohibition contained in Article 86 of the Treaty, so long as the application of that provision does not obstruct the performance of the particular task assigned to it. A Member State which has granted it an exclusive right to carry on that activity is in breach of Article 90(1) of the Treaty where it creates a situation in which that agency cannot avoid infringing Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case, in particular, where the following conditions are satisfied:

- the exclusive right extends to executive recruitment activities;

- the public employment agency is manifestly incapable of satisfying demand prevailing on the market for such activities;

- the actual pursuit of those activities by private recruitment consultants is rendered impossible by the maintenance in force of a statutory provision under which such activities are prohibited and non-observance of that prohibition renders the contracts concerned void;

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

3. The provisions of the Treaty on freedom of movement cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State and therefore a recruitment consultant in a Member State may not rely on Articles 7 and 59 of the Treaty regarding the procurement of nationals of that Member State for posts in undertakings in the same State.