ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES - SERVICES - CONCEPT - PROVISION OF MANPOWER

( EEC TREATY , ART . 60 , FIRST PARAGRAPH )

2 . FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES - RESTRICTIONS - PROHIBITION - DIRECT EFFECT

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 59 AND 60 )

3 . FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES - RESTRICTIONS JUSTIFIED BY GENERAL GOOD - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 59 AND 60 )

4 . FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES - UNDERTAKINGS PROVIDING MANPOWER - PURSUIT OF ACTIVITY - LICENSING SYSTEM - LAWFULNESS - CONDITIONS

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 59 AND 60 )

Summary

1 . WHERE AN UNDERTAKING HIRES OUT , FOR REMUNERATION , STAFF WHO REMAIN IN THE EMPLOY OF THAT UNDERTAKING , NO CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BEING ENTERED INTO WITH THE USER , ITS ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTE AN OCCUPATION WHICH SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 60 OF THE EEC TREATY . ACCORDINGLY THEY MUST BE CONSIDERED A ' ' SERVICE ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION .

2 . THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 59 OF THE TREATY BECAME DIRECTLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY APPLICABLE ON THE EXPIRY OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD . THOSE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS ABOLISH ALL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PERSON PROVIDING THE SERVICE BY REASON OF HIS NATIONALITY OR THE FACT THAT HE IS ESTABLISHED IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE SERVICE IS TO BE PROVIDED .

3 . THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY AND MAY BE RESTRICTED ONLY BY PROVISIONS WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE GENERAL GOOD AND WHICH ARE IMPOSED ON ALL PERSONS OR UNDERTAKINGS OPERATING IN THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THE SERVICE IS TO BE PROVIDED IN SO FAR AS THAT INTEREST IS NOT SAFEGUARDED BY THE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THE PROVIDER OF THE SERVICE IS SUBJECT IN THE MEMBER STATE OF HIS ESTABLISHMENT .

4 . ARTICLE 59 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT PRECLUDE A MEMBER STATE WHICH REQUIRES AGENCIES FOR THE PROVISION OF MANPOWER TO HOLD A LICENCE FROM REQUIRING A PROVIDER OF SERVICES ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND PURSUING SUCH ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE FIRST MEMBER STATE TO COMPLY WITH THAT CONDITION EVEN IF HE HOLDS A LICENCE ISSUED BY THE STATE IN WHICH HE IS ESTABLISHED , PROVIDED , HOWEVER , THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES AND IN GRANTING THEM THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED MAKES NO DISTINCTION BASED ON THE NATIONALITY OF THE PROVIDER OF THE SERVICES OR HIS PLACE OF ESTABLISHMENT , AND IN THE SECOND PLACE THAT IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE EVIDENCE AND GUARANTEES ALREADY PRODUCED BY THE PROVIDER OF THE SERVICES FOR THE PURSUIT OF HIS ACTIVITIES IN THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE IS ESTABLISHED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - TARIFF HEADINGS - ' ' ELECTRONIC MICRO-CIRCUITS ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF HEADING 85.21 - NOTE 5 ( B ) TO CHAPTER 85 - INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPTS REFERRED TO THEREIN : ' ' MINIATURIZED DISCRETE COMPONENTS ' ' , ' ' MOULDED MODULES ' ' AND ' ' SIMILAR TYPES ' ' , ' ' HYBRID INTEGRATED CIRCUITS ' '

Summary

1 . THE EXPRESSION ' ' DISCRETE COMPONENTS ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF NOTE 5 ( B ) ( A ) TO CHAPTER 85 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF MUST BE INTERPRETED AS DENOTING PHYSICAL UNITS CONSISTING OF A SINGLE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT ELEMENT AND HAVING A SINGLE ELECTRICAL FUNCTION SUCH AS , FOR EXAMPLE , DIODES , TRANSISTORS OR RESISTORS .

2 . THE CONDITION OF ' ' MINIATURIZATION ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF NOTE 5 ( B ) MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THAT , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES IN EXISTENCE IN THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY AT THE TIME OF IMPORTATION , THE APPEARANCE OF THE MODULES REVEALS THE MANUFACTURER ' S EFFORT TO SAVE SPACE BY UTILIZING COMPONENTS OF SMALL DIMENSIONS AND BY GROUPING THEM IN A CERTAIN DENSITY .

3 . THE CONCEPT OF ' ' MOULDED MODULES ' ' AND ' ' SIMILAR TYPES ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF NOTE 5 ( B ) ( A ) MUST BE INTERPRETED AS REFERRING TO PROCESSES RESULTING IN THE MANUFACTURE OF MODULES CONSTITUTING A UNIT THE COMPONENTS OF WHICH CANNOT , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES IN EXISTENCE IN THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY AT THE TIME OF IMPORTATION , BE SEPARATED , IN PARTICULAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIR , EXCEPT BY MEANS THE COST OF WHICH IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE VALUE OF THE MODULE . THE CONCEPT OF ' ' MOULDED MODULE ' ' RELATES TO ANY PROCESS WHICH CONSISTS IN INCORPORATING THE ELEMENTS OF THE MODULE IN A CAST IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CREATE AN INDIVISIBLE PHYSICAL ENTITY , IN THE SENSE DESCRIBED ABOVE , IN THE FORM OF A BLOCK .

4 . NOTE 5 ( B ) ( C ) MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT HYBRID INTEGRATED CIRCUITS INCLUDE MODULES COMPRISING ALL KINDS OF ELEMENTS OBTAINED BY SEMI-CONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY , AS WELL AS MODULES CONSISTING , APART FROM THEIR COMPONENTS MANUFACTURED BY THIN- OR THICK-FILM TECHNOLOGY , EXCLUSIVELY OF DISCRETE COMPONENTS IN THE SENSE DESCRIBED ABOVE . THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF A HYBRID INTEGRATED CIRCUIT MUST BE COMBINED IN SUCH A WAY THAT , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE NORMAL TECHNICAL POSSIBILITIES IN EXISTENCE IN THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY AT THE TIME OF IMPORTATION , THEY CANNOT BE SEPARATED , IN PARTICULAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIR , EXCEPT BY MEANS THE COST OF WHICH IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE VALUE OF THE MODULE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

AGRICULTURE - WINE-BASED APERITIFS - COMMUNITY DEFINITION - NONE - POWER OF MEMBER STATES TO ENACT RULES AS TO QUALITY - REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM PROPORTION OF ALCOHOL - PERMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS

( COUNCIL REGULATIONS NO 816/70 , ANNEX II , POINT 10 , AND NO 337/79 , ANNEX II , POINT 11 )

Summary

THE APPELLATION ' ' WINE-BASED APERITIFS ' ' IS NOT AT PRESENT GOVERNED BY COMMUNITY REGULATIONS WHICH EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATES .

SINCE THERE ARE NO APPLICABLE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS THE MEMBER STATES CONTINUE TO HAVE THE POWER TO DEFINE THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE MANUFACTURE AND MARKETING OF NATIONAL PRODUCTS CALLED WINE-BASED APERITIFS . THEREFORE A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT BE PREVENTED FROM SUBJECTING THE MANUFACTURER OF WINE-BASED APERITIFS TO SPECIAL QUALITY RULES , DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT KIND OF BEVERAGE . IF A REQUIREMENT OF A MINIMUM PROPORTION OF ALCOHOL IS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY LIMITS , IT MEETS THAT CRITERION OF QUALITY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - OLD-AGE AND DEATH INSURANCE - PENSION SUPPLEMENT - GUARANTEE OF MINIMUM INCOME - MINIMUM BENEFIT - CONCEPT

( REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 50 )

Summary

ARTICLE 50 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A ' ' MINIMUM BENEFIT ' ' EXISTS ONLY WHERE THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF RESIDENCE INCLUDES A SPECIFIC GUARANTEE THE OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO ENSURE FOR RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS A MINIMUM INCOME WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT WHICH THEY MAY CLAIM SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERIODS OF INSURANCE AND THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . SOCIAL POLICY - MEN AND WOMEN - ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS - EQUAL TREATMENT - CONDITIONS FOR ACCESS TO A VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY SCHEME - DIFFERENT AGE FOR MEN AND WOMEN - PERMISSIBILITY

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 76/207 , ART . 5 )

2 . SOCIAL POLICY - MEN AND WOMEN - EQUAL TREATMENT - SOCIAL SECURITY - DIFFERENT MINIMUM PENSIONABLE AGE - PERMISSIBILITY

( COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/7 , ART . 7 )

Summary

1 . THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 5 OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 76/207 APPLIES TO THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESS TO VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY BENEFIT PAID BY AN EMPLOYER TO A WORKER WISHING TO LEAVE HIS EMPLOYMENT .

THE FACT THAT ACCESS TO VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY IS AVAILABLE ONLY DURING THE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE MINIMUM PENSIONABLE AGE FIXED BY NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AND THAT THAT AGE IS NOT THE SAME FOR MEN AS FOR WOMEN CANNOT IN ITSELF BE REGARDED AS DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5 OF DIRECTIVE 76/207 .

2 . THE DETERMINATION OF A MINIMUM PENSIONABLE AGE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES WHICH IS NOT THE SAME FOR MEN AS FOR WOMEN DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED BY COMMUNITY LAW .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - SCOPE - APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES RELATING TO A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE PROPRIETARY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPOUSES - EXCLUSION - CONDITIONS

( CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ART . 1 )

2 . CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - SCOPE - PROVISIONAL OR PROTECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO EXCLUDED MATTERS - INCLUSION - NONE

( CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ARTS 1 AND 24 )

3 . CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS - PROROGATION OF JURISDICTION - APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT SEISED - APPEARANCE NOT ONLY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTION BUT ALSO TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS ON THE SUBSTANCE - APPEARANCE NOT CONFERRING JURISDICTION

( CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 , ART . 18 )

Summary

1 . AN APPLICATION FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES TO SECURE THE DELIVERY UP OF A DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING USED AS EVIDENCE IN AN ACTION CONCERNING A HUSBAND ' S MANAGEMENT OF HIS WIFE ' S PROPERTY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS IF SUCH MANAGEMENT IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE RELATIONSHIP RESULTING DIRECTLY FROM THE MARRIAGE BOND .

2 . ARTICLE 24 OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 MAY NOT BE RELIED ON TO BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION PROVISIONAL OR PROTECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO MATTERS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM IT .

3.ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT NOT ONLY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTION BUT TO SUBMIT AT THE SAME TIME IN THE ALTERNATIVE A DEFENCE ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ACTION WITHOUT HOWEVER LOSING THE RIGHT TO RAISE AN OBJECTION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - TARIFF HEADINGS - RESIDUES RESULTING FROM THE EXTRACTION OF VEGETABLE OILS WITHIN THE MEANING OF HEADING 23.04 - FLOUR EXTRACTED FROM SOYA - PRODUCT COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN OILS AND FATS

( REGULATION NO 136/66/EEC OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 1 ( 2 ))

Summary

FLOUR EXTRACTED FROM SOYA MUST BE CLASSIFIED IN HEADING EX 23.04 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND IS THEREFORE INCLUDED AMONG THE PRODUCTS LISTED IN ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 136/66 ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN OILS AND FATS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF MARKETS - SUGAR - EXPORT LEVY - PAYABLE AT THE LATEST AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF THE CUSTOMS FORMALITIES - COLLECTION AT A LATER DATE - FORFEITURE OF THE DEBT - NONE

( REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1076/72 OF THE COMMISSION , ART . 3 ( 2 ))

Summary

THE EXPRESSION ' ' PAYABLE AT THE LATEST ' ' AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF THE CUSTOMS FORMALITIES , CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1076/72 OF THE COMMISSION LAYING DOWN DETAILED RULES FOR APPLYING EXPORT LEVIES ON SUGAR , MUST BE UNDERSTOOD NOT AS INVOLVING FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS BUT RATHER AS APPLYING WHERE THE DEBT IS DETERMINED , AND CONSEQUENTLY BECOMES PAYABLE , BEFORE THE DAY OF COMPLETION OF THE CUSTOMS FORMALITIES . ACCORDINGLY , THE CALCULATION AND ACTUAL COLLECTION OF THE LEVY , THAT IS TO SAY PAYMENT THEREOF , MAY BE MADE AT A LATER STAGE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - PRODUCTS PROCESSED FROM FRUIT AND VEGETABLES - PROTECTIVE MEASURES APPLICABLE TO IMPORTS OF PRESERVED MUSHROOMS - COMMISSION ' S DISCRETION - REGULATIONS NOS 1412/76 AND 2284/76 - VALIDITY

( COMMISSION REGULATIONS NOS 1412/76 AND 2284/76 )

Summary

IN VIEW OF THE SITUATION ON THE MARKET IN QUESTION , IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE COMMISSION KEPT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETION IN CONSIDERING , WHEN IT ADOPTED REGULATIONS NOS 1412/76 AND 2284/76 LAYING DOWN DETAILED RULES FOR APPLYING PROTECTIVE MEASURES APPLICABLE TO IMPORTS OF PRESERVED MUSHROOMS , THAT THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES INTRODUCED IN 1974 SHOULD NOT BE ABOLISHED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

OFFICIALS - APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT - ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL - CONCEPT - TRANSFER TO A POST IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY OF AN OFFICIAL ALREADY ASSIGNED IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY TO ANOTHER POST OF THE SAME GRADE - TRANSFER PERMISSIBLE

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 91 )

Summary

A DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ASSIGNING TO A POST IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY AN OFFICIAL WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSIGNED IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY TO ANOTHER POST OF THE SAME GRADE DOES NOT ALTER THE POSITION OF THE PERSON CONCERNED UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT HIM .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - CLAIMS , DECLARATIONS OR APPEALS - SUBMISSION IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE COMPETENT STATE - EFFECTS - IRREGULAR RESIDENCE OF THE PERSON CONCERNED IN THE STATE WHERE THE CLAIM WAS SUBMITTED - NO EFFECT

( REGULATION NO 4 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 83 )

2 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - BENEFITS - RESIDENCE CLAUSES - WAIVER - APPLICATION TO INVALIDITY BENEFITS

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 10 ( 1 ))

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 83 OF REGULATION NO 4 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE SUBMISSION OF A CLAIM TO AN AUTHORITY , INSTITUTION OR AGENCY OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE MEMBER STATE CALLED UPON TO PAY THE BENEFIT HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS IF THAT CLAIM HAD BEEN SUBMITTED DIRECT TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE LATTER STATE . MOREOVER , SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE SCHEME OF REGULATION NO 4 , WHICH ON THAT POINT SEEKS SIMPLY TO AVOID THE LOSS OF RIGHTS BY MIGRANT WORKERS OWING TO MERE ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES . IT FOLLOWS THAT ARTICLE 83 OF REGULATION NO 4 DOES NOT CONCERN THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE IN THE MATTER . THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENCE OF THE PERSON CONCERNED IN THE STATE WHERE SHE SUBMITTED HER CLAIM WAS IRREGULAR UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN NO WAY AFFECTS THAT INTERPRETATION .

2 . ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE INSURANCE INSTITUTION OF THE COMPETENT MEMBER STATE IS NOT PERMITTED TO APPLY TO INVALIDITY BENEFITS THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES - RESTRICTIONS - ARTISTIC AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EXISTENCE AND THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - APPLICATION OF THAT DISTINCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES

( EEC TREATY , ARTS . 36 AND 59 )

2 . COMPETITION - AGREEMENTS AND CONCERTED PRACTICES - COPYRIGHT IN A FILM - EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT - CONDITIONS OF PROHIBITION - CONTRACT GRANTING THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT A FILM - EXERCISE OF THE EXCLUSIVE EXHIBITION RIGHT - CONDITIONS OF PROHIBITION - CRITERIA OF APPRAISAL

( EEC TREATY , ART . 85 ( 1 ))

Summary

1 . THE DISTINCTION , IMPLICIT IN ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY , BETWEEN THE EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE IN REGARD TO THE PROTECTION OF ARTISTIC AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY , WHICH CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY , AND THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT , WHICH MIGHT CONSTITUTE A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , ALSO APPLIES WHERE THAT RIGHT IS EXERCISED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES .

2 . ALTHOUGH COPYRIGHT IN A FILM AND THE RIGHT DERIVING FROM IT , NAMELY THAT OF EXHIBITING THE FILM , ARE NOT AS SUCH SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 , THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS MAY , NONE THE LESS , COME WITHIN THE SAID PROHIBITIONS WHERE THERE ARE ECONOMIC OR LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO RESTRICT FILM DISTRIBUTION TO AN APPRECIABLE DEGREE OR TO DISTORT COMPETITION ON THE CINEMATOGRAPHIC MARKET , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT MARKET .

AS REGARDS , IN PARTICULAR , A CONTRACT WHEREBY THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT IN A FILM GRANTS AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT THAT FILM FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE , IT IS FOR NATIONAL COURTS TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES AS ARE NECESSARY AND IN PARTICULAR TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THE EXERCISE OF THE EXCLUSIVE EXHIBITION RIGHT CREATES BARRIERS WHICH ARE ARTIFICIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE IN TERMS OF THE NEEDS OF THE CINEMATOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY , OR THE POSSIBILITY OF CHARGING FEES WHICH EXCEED A FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT , OR AN EXCLUSIVITY THE DURATION OF WHICH IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS , AND WHETHER OR NOT , FROM A GENERAL POINT OF VIEW , SUCH EXERCISE WITHIN A GIVEN GEOGRAPHIC AREA IS SUCH AS TO PREVENT , RESTRICT OR DISTORT COMPETITION WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - LEGISLATION APPLICABLE - DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY LAW - WORKER WORKING IN TWO MEMBER STATES AND RESIDING IN THE TERRITORY OF ONE OF THEM - NATIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE STATE OF RESIDENCE EXCLUDING THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AN OLD-AGE PENSION BECAUSE OF THE WORKER ' S AFFILIATION IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATE - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 13 ( C ); REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 14 ( 1 ) ( C ) ( I ))

Summary

IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE II OF REGULATIONS NO 3/58 AND NO 1408/71 THAT THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION IS DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO CRITERIA DRAWN FROM THE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW . ALTHOUGH IT IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO LAY DOWN THE CONDITIONS CREATING THE RIGHT OR THE OBLIGATION TO BECOME AFFILIATED TO A SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME OR TO A PARTICULAR BRANCH UNDER THAT SCHEME THE MEMBER STATES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR OWN LEGISLATION OR THAT OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS APPLICABLE .

ARTICLE 13 ( C ) OF REGULATION NO 3 AND ARTICLE 14 ( 1 ) ( C ) ( I ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A NATIONAL PROVISION OF A MEMBER STATE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOSE PROVISIONS IF ITS EFFECT IS SUCH THAT A WORKER RESIDING IN THAT MEMBER STATE IS NOT INSURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN OLD-AGE PENSION BECAUSE HE IS INSURED FOR SUCH PURPOSES UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , EVEN IF HE RESIDED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE FIRST-MENTIONED MEMBER STATE AND IS THERE ENGAGED IN GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT CONCURRENTLY WITH HIS ACTIVITIES IN THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATE . THAT ANSWER IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE OF RESIDENCE IS SECONDARY TO THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE PERSON CONCERNED WHICH IS PURSUED IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS - AID FOR THE PROCESSING OF SKIMMED MILK INTO CASEINS AND CASEINATES - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT AS TO MAXIMUM WATER CONTENT - LOSS OF THE AID IN ITS ENTIRETY - PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY - BREACH - NONE

( REGULATIONS ( EEC ) NOS 804/68 AND 987/68 OF THE COUNCIL ; REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 756/70 OF THE COMMISSION )

Summary

THE LOSS OF THE WHOLE OF THE AID FOR THE PROCESSING OF SKIMMED MILK INTO CASEINS AND CASEINATES IN THE EVENT OF A PRODUCER ' S FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT AS TO MAXIMUM WATER CONTENT FOR THOSE PRODUCTS LAID DOWN IN REGULATION NO 756/70 IS NECESSARY AND IS NOT OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE OBJECTIVE OF GUARANTEEING THE QUALITY OF THOSE PRODUCTS . THAT OBJECTIVE , THE ADOPTION OF WHICH IS FULLY JUSTIFIED , IS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION CONCERNED AND THE COMMISSION WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE SALE OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION THE MAINTENANCE OF HIGH QUALITY WAS NECESSARY AND THAT THE GRANT OF AID AT A REDUCED RATE FOR A PRODUCT OF SUBSTANDARD QUALITY WAS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THAT AIM . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 756/70 , WHICH MAKES THE GRANT OF AID CONDITIONAL UPON STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT AS TO MAXIMUM WATER CONTENT , ARE NOT CON- TRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY . IN CASE 273/81 ,

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF ( ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ), PARIS , FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . PROCEDURE - FRESH ISSUE RAISED IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS - FRESH ISSUE - CONCEPT

( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 42 ( 2 ))

2 . OFFICIALS - RECRUITMENT - SPECIAL RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE - APPLICATION OF THE COMPETITION PROCEDURE NOT MANDATORY

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS , ART . 29 ( 2 ); ANNEX III )

Summary

1 . WHILST ARTICLE 42 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT PROVIDES THAT NO FRESH ISSUE MAY BE RAISED IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNLESS IT IS BASED ON MATTERS OF LAW OR OF FACT WHICH COME TO LIGHT IN THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE , A SUBMISSION WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS AMPLIFYING A SUBMISSION MADE PREVIOUSLY , DIRECTLY OR BY IMPLICATION IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION , MUST HOWEVER BE CONSIDERED ADMISSIBLE .

2.WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SPECIAL RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 29 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF ANNEX III TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS RELATING TO NOTICES OF COMPETITION AND THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS REFERRED TO PART OF THOSE RULES CAN IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS CREATING AN OBLIGATION ON ITS PART .

IT MAY THEREFORE APPLY IN THE COURSE OF THAT SPECIAL PROCEDURE CRITERIA WHICH ARE NOT SET OUT IN THE VACANCY NOTICE AS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL . THAT APPLIES EQUALLY TO A SELECTION COMMITTEE TO WHICH THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS DELEGATED ITS RIGHT OF SELECTION .

THAT APPLIES IN PARTICULAR TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN AGE-LIMIT , IF THERE IS ONE , MUST BE INDICATED IN THE VACANCY NOTICE . CONSEQUENTLY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS NOT REQUIRED TO REFER EXPRESSLY TO THAT CONDITION IN THE VACANCY NOTICE , NOR IS IT REQUIRED TO FIX THE AGE-LIMIT ITSELF , BUT IS ENTITLED TO DELEGATE ITS POWER IN THAT RESPECT TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE .
Keywords



Keywords

PROCEDURE - REVISION OF A JUDGMENT - CONDITIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION FOR REVISION - NEW FACT

( PROTOCOLS ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC , THE EEC AND THE EAEC , ARTS 38 , 41 AND 42 RESPECTIVELY : RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 100 )