ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-420/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Italian Republic





«(Failure to fulfil obligations – Free movement of goods – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Prohibition on the marketing of energy drinks containing caffeine in excess of a certain limit – Public health – Retention of a national provision incompatible with Community law)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 27 February 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 19 June 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-192/01





Commission of the European Communities

v

Kingdom of Denmark





«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Prohibition on marketing of foodstuffs to which vitamins and minerals have been added – Justification – Public health – Nutritional need)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 12 December 2002

Judgment of the Court, 23 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment
Case C-207/01





Altair Chimica SpA

v

ENEL Distribuzione SpA





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Firenze)

«(Competition – Dominant position – Supply of electricity – Imposition of a sovrapprezzo)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 13 March 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 11 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility of references – Need to provide the Court with sufficient details of the factual and legal context

(Art. 234 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23)

2.. Competition – Community rules – Scope ratione materiae – Anti-competitive conduct – Meaning – Conduct of an undertaking required by national law and limited to recovery procedures on behalf of the State of surcharges constituting tax measures – Excluded

(Arts 81 and 82 EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Recommendations – Direct effect – Excluded – Consideration by the national court – Obligation – Scope

(Art. 249, fifth subpara., EC)

4.. Industry – Tariff structures for electricity – Recommendation 81/924 – Scope ratione materiae – Surcharges on the supply of electricity – Excluded

(Council Recommendation 81/924)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-405/01





Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española

v

Administración del Estado





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Tribunal Supremo)

«(Freedom of movement for workers – Article 39(4) EC – Employment in the public service – Masters and chief mates of merchant navy ships – Conferment of powers of public authority on board – Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State – Posts open to nationals of other Member States on condition of reciprocity)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 12 June 2003

Judgment of the Court, 30 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Freedom of movement for persons – Derogations – Employment in the public service – Meaning – Master and chief mate of merchant navy ships – Inclusion – Conditions

(Art. 39(4) EC)

2.. Freedom of movement for persons – Derogations – Protection of public policy, public security and public health – General exclusion of nationals of other Member States from access to the posts of master and chief mate in the merchant navy – Not permissible

(Art. 39(3) EC)

3.. Member States – Obligations – Implementation of Community law – Condition of reciprocity – Not permissible

4.. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Access of nationals of other Member States, subject to a condition of reciprocity, to the posts of master and chief mate in the merchant navy – Not permissible

(Art. 39 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

2 October 2003

((Freedom of movement for workers – Vehicle leasing – Obligation to register vehicle in worker's Member State of residence))

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Danish Government, represented by J. Bering Liisberg, of the Finnish Government, represented by T. Pynnä, acting as Agent, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by P. Whipple, and of the Commission, represented by H. van Lier, at the hearing on 10 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 December 2002,
Case C-416/01





Sociedad Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR)

v

Administración General del Estado





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain))

«(Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector – Reallocation or transfer of quotas – Interpretation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81, (EEC) No 193/82 and (EC) No 1260/2001 – Decision of competent authorities of a Member State, when approving a merger of sugar undertakings, to reallocate sugar production quotas – Sale by public auction – Transfer of quotas for consideration)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 15 May 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 20 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Application of national competition law – Competence of national authorities – Restrictions

(Arts 32 EC to 38 EC; Council Regulation No 26)

2.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production quotas – Decision of national competent authority when approving a merger of sugar undertakings to require a reallocation of quotas – Reallocation for consideration – Not permissible

(Council Regulation No 1785/81, Art. 25(1), Regulation No 193/82, Art. 4, and Regulation No 1260/2001)

1.

2.
Case C-4/01





Serene Martin and Others

v

South Bank University





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Croydon (United Kingdom))

«(Directive 77/187/EEC – Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses – Early retirement and associated benefits)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 17 June 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 6 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 3 – Rights contingent upon dismissal or the grant of early retirement by agreement with the employer – Included

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3(1))

2.. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Exceptions – Supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes – Old-age benefits – Definition – Early retirement benefits and benefits intended to enhance the conditions of such retirement – Excluded

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3(3))

3.. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Transfer of obligations applicable in the event of the dismissal of an employee – Conditions and limitations – Obligations deriving from or implemented by statutory instruments – Not relevant

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3)

4.. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Less favourable early retirement terms – Acceptance by employees – Excluded – Exception – More favourable terms arising from a collective agreement which is no longer binding

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3)

5.. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees' rights – Directive 77/187 – Less favourable early retirement terms offered in breach of the public policy obligations imposed by Article 3 – Transferee's obligation to make good

(Council Directive 77/187, Art. 3)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-408/01





Adidas-Salomon AG, formerly Adidas AG

and

Adidas Benelux BV



v

Fitnessworld Trading Ltd





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

«(Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 5(2) – Trade marks with a reputation – Protection against use of a sign in relation to identical or similar goods or services – Degree of similarity between the mark and the sign – Effect on the public – Sign viewed as an embellishment)»

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 10 July 2003 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 23 October 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Trade mark with a reputation – Option of providing protection for extending to non-similar goods or services (Article 5(2) of the directive) – Obligation on Member States exercising this option to also provide that protection in case of use of a sign for goods or services which are identical or similar

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))

2.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Trade mark with a reputation – Protection of the trade mark extended to non-similar goods or services (Article 5(2) of the directive) – Degree of similarity between the mark and the later sign

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))

3.. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Trade mark with a reputation – Protection of the trade mark extended to non-similar goods or services (Article 5(2) of the directive) – Perception of the later sign by the relevant section of the public as an embellishment – Effect

(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-8/01





Assurandør-Societetet, acting on behalf of Taksatorringen

v

Skatteministeriet





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark))

«(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) – Exemption for services performed by independent groups not likely to give rise to distortions of competition – Exemption for insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents – Assessments of damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that association)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 3 October 2002

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 20 November 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents – Concept – Assessment of damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that association – Excluded

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

2.. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions provided for by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the provision of services by independent groups of persons performing an exempted activity with a view to providing services to their members – Conditions – No risk that competition may be distorted – National legislation providing for a temporary exemption – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13A(1)(f))

1.

2.
Case C-182/01

Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

v

Werner Jäger

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf)

(Plant varieties – System of protection – Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Articles 3(2) and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 – Organisation of holders – Meaning – Organisation’s obligation to act only for its members – Use by farmers of the product of the harvest – Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Agriculture – Uniform laws – Protection of plant variety rights –Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1768/95 – Meaning of organisation of holders – Limited liability company – Whether covered

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

2. Agriculture – Uniform laws – Protection of plant variety rights – Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation No 1768/95 – Holder not able to request the information specified in the provisions in question from a farmer where there is no indication of use by the latter, for propagating purposes, of the product of the harvest obtained from seeds of a protected variety

(Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 14(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 1768/95, Art. 8)

1. Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights is intended to allow holders of Community plant variety rights to organise themselves appropriately in order to enforce the rights which they derive from Article 14 of Regulation No 2100/94, leaving the choice of which legal form the organisation is to take to those holders; the organisation may thus take the form of a limited company.

Such an organisation may invoke the rights of holders who are members of another organisation where the other organisation is itself a member of the first organisation. However, it may not invoke the rights of holders who, although not members of the first organisation or of another organisation which is, have appointed it to safeguard their interests in return for a consideration.

(see paras 51, 58, operative part 1)

2. The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1768/95 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be construed as meaning that the holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a variety 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.

(see para. 62, operative part 2)
Case C-330/01 P





Hortiplant SAT

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Agriculture – EAGGF – Cancellation and request for repayment of financial assistance – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Article 24(1) and (2) – Obligation on the Commission to request the Member State concerned to submit observations before cancelling financial assistance)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 3 April 2003

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 12 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community funding – Procedure for cancelling financial assistance – Commission's obligations – Obligation to request the Member State concerned to submit its observations within a specified period of time – Obligation does not extend to a duty to wait for those observations before adopting a decision to cancel assistance

(Council Regulations No 2052/88, Art. 4(1), and No 4253/88, Art. 24(1) and (2))

2.. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect appraisal of the facts – Inadmissible – Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

1.

2.
Case C-159/01

Kingdom of the Netherlands

v

Commission of the European Communities

(State aid – Partial exemption from mineral levies for crops grown under glass or on substrate)

Summary of the Judgment

1. State aid – Concept – Differentiation between undertakings in relation to charges – Excluded – Condition – Differentiation inherent in the system of levies in question – Burden of proof on the Member State concerned

(Art. 87(1) EC)

2. State aid – Concept – Exemption granted under a system involving the payment of levies but not intended to generate tax revenue – No bearing on classification as aid

(Art. 87(1) EC)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope

(Art. 253 EC)

1. Since the concept of State aid does not cover measures which differentiate between undertakings in relation to charges where that differentiation is the result of the nature and general scheme of the system of levies in question, it is for the Member State which has introduced such a differentiation to show that that is actually the case.

(see paras 42-43)

2. The fact that a State measure providing for the payment of levies by a category of undertakings is not intended to generate tax revenue does not suffice to exclude outright its attendant exemption in favour of certain undertakings from classification as aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Article 87(1) EC does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or their aims but defines them in relation to their effects.

(see para. 51)

3. The obligation to state reasons constitutes an essential procedural requirement which must be distinguished from the question of the merits of those reasons, which concern the substantive legality of the contested measure. The statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be adapted to the nature of the measure in question and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

(see para. 65)
Joined Cases C-199/01 P and C-200/01 P

IPK-München GmbH

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeals – Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeals – Admissibility – Party not unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49)

2. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para. (c))

3. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118)

1. A party which is neither partially nor wholly unsuccessful in its submissions before the Court of First Instance is not entitled to appeal against the judgment under appeal before the Court of Justice, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.

(see para. 42)

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1), first paragraph, (c), of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court, it fails to satisfy the requirements regarding the statement of grounds under those provisions.

However, provided that the applicant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in an appeal. If an applicant could not thus base his appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the Court of First Instance, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose.

An appeal which seeks specifically to contest the assessment by the Court of First Instance of several points of law which were referred to at first instance and which contains specific indications of the aspects of the judgment under appeal criticised and the pleas in law and the arguments on which it is based is, therefore, admissible.

(see paras 48-51)

3. Under Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Article 42(2) of those rules, which prohibits generally the introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the procedure, applies to the procedure before the Court of Justice on appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court’s jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it.

(see para. 52)
Case C-475/01

Commission of the European Communities

v

Hellenic Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC – Excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Application to ouzo of a lower rate than that applied to other alcoholic beverages – Compliance of that rate with a directive which was not challenged within the time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Acts of the institutions – Presumed lawful – Legally non-existent acts – Concept

(Art. 249 EC)

2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Excise duty – Directive 92/83 – Alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Reduced rate of excise duty applied to certain products – Absence of any infringement of Community law

(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 23)

1. Measures of the Community institutions are in principle presumed to be lawful and accordingly produce legal effects until such time as they are withdrawn, annulled in an action for annulment or declared invalid following a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality.

By way of exception to that principle, measures tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated by the Community legal order must be treated as having no legal effect, even provisional, that is to say they must be regarded as legally non-existent. The purpose of this exception is to maintain a balance between two fundamental, but sometimes conflicting, requirements with which a legal order must comply, namely stability of legal relations and respect for legality.

The gravity of the consequences attaching to a finding that a measure of a Community institution is non-existent means that, for reasons of legal certainty, such a finding is to be reserved for quite extreme situations.

(see paras 18-20)

2. Article 23 of Directive 92/83 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages allows a reduced rate of excise duty to be applied to certain types of product. A Member State which has done no more than maintain in force national rules adopted on the basis of that provision and which comply with that provision, which produces legal effects that are presumed to be lawful, has not failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.

(see paras 23-25)