ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions - Directives - Implementation by the Member States - Need for full transposition - Non-existence in a Member State of an activity referred to in a directive - No effect - Exception - Reasons of geography

(Art. 249, third para., EC)

Summary

$$The fact that an activity referred to in a directive does not yet exist in a Member State cannot release that State from its obligation to adopt laws or regulations in order to ensure that all the provisions of the directive are properly transposed. It is only where transposition of a directive is pointless for reasons of geography that it is not mandatory.

( see paras 15, 17 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Preparation of decisions - Written communication to the Member States by the Commission of the results of its checks - Contents - Conditions - Non-observance - Effect

(Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 1663/95, Art. 8(1), first subpara.)

Summary

$$Under the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, when the Commission considers that expenditure was not effected according to Community rules, it must communicate its findings to the Member State concerned. That communication must state the corrective measures to be taken to ensure future compliance, include an evaluation of any expenditure which the Commission may propose to exclude and make reference to Regulation No 1663/95. The Member State must be given two months to reply to it. In that regard, the Commission is bound, in its relations with the Member States, to respect the conditions it has imposed on itself by implementing regulations. A failure to observe those conditions may, depending on its significance, deprive of its efficacy the procedural guarantee accorded to Member States by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70, which limits the period for which expenditure can be refused financing by the EAGGF.

A letter from the Commission, which contains no reference to the regulation nor any evaluation of the expenses which might be refused financing and provides for a period of six weeks for a reply, does not meet the conditions set out in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95. By those three irregularities the Commission has infringed, in a significant way, the rules laid down in the said Article 8(1) and prejudiced the procedural guarantee accorded to Member States by the fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70. Such a letter cannot therefore constitute a communication for the purposes of the said Article 8 and therefore the reference point for the period of 24 months referred to in Regulation No 729/70.

( see paras 23-24, 26-27 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Right to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed there — Right of residence of family members of a deceased worker — Requirement of the worker ' s continuous residence for at least two years — Period must immediately precede the death — (Commission Regulation No 1251/70, Art. 3(2), first indent)

Summary

The first indent of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1251/70 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, which provides that the members of the family of a worker who dies during his working life and before having acquired the right to remain in the territory of the host Member State shall be entitled to remain there permanently on condition that such worker, on the date of his decease, had resided continuously in the territory of that Member State for at least two years, is to be interpreted as meaning that the period of two years ' continuous residence must immediately precede the worker ' s death.

see para. 50, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Transaction value — Determination — Buying commission not deducted from the value declared and not shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the import declaration — Whether included — (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 29, 32 and 33)

2. Customs union — Customs declarations — Post-clearance verification — Incomplete import declaration as a result of inadvertent error by the declarant — Revision by customs authorities — Definitive — (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 78(3))

Summary

1. Articles 29, 32 and 33 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be construed as meaning that a buying commission which is included in the customs value declared and is not shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the import declaration must be considered to be part of the transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of the customs code and is, therefore, dutiable.

see paras 17, 25, operative part 1

2. In a situation where the customs authorities have agreed to undertake revision of an import declaration and have adopted a decision "regularising the situation" within the meaning of Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code taking account of the fact that the declaration was incomplete as a result of an inadvertent error by the declarant, those authorities may not go back on that decision.

see paras 24-25, operative part 2
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Directive 89/665 — Application by a tenderer for review of a contracting authority's decision excluding it from a tendering procedure — Plea alleging incompatibility with Community law of a notice of invitation to tender — Admissible notwithstanding the expiry of the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for review of that notice — Condition — Conduct of the contracting authority aimed at depriving the tenderer of the rights conferred by the Community legal order — (Council Directive 89/665)

Summary

Directive 89/665 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, must be interpreted as imposing on the competent national courts, where it is established that, by its conduct, a contracting authority has rendered impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred by the Community legal order on a national of the Union who has been harmed by a decision of that contracting authority to exclude him from a tendering procedure, an obligation to allow as admissible pleas in law alleging that the notice of invitation to tender is incompatible with Community law, which are put forward in support of an application for review of that decision, by availing itself, where appropriate, of the possibility afforded by national law of disapplying national rules on limitation periods, under which, when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for review of the notice of invitation to tender has expired, it is no longer possible to plead such incompatibility.

see para. 66, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Directive 79/112 — National legislation imposing a general prohibition of health-related information on the labelling of foodstuffs — National legislation subjecting such information to a prior authorisation procedure — Not permitted — (Council Directive 79/112, Arts 2(1)(a) and (b) and 15(1) and (2), as amended by Directive 97/4)

Summary

It follows from Articles 2(1)(a) and (b) and 15(1) of Directive 79/112 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer, as amended by Directive 97/4, that foodstuffs whose labelling contains non-misleading health-related information must be regarded as complying with the rules of that directive, since Member States may not prohibit their marketing on grounds of a possible irregularity of that labelling. The power retained by the Member States to lay down rules in addition to those of Directive 79/112 is limited by Article 15(2) of the directive, which lists exhaustively the grounds on which the application of non-harmonised national provisions prohibiting trade in foodstuffs which comply with the directive may be justified, those grounds including the protection of health and consumers.

Those provisions consequently preclude national legislation of a Member State which lays down a general prohibition, subject to prior authorisation intended to prevent misleading statements relating to health, of all health-related information on the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs. Such national legislation laying down a procedure of prior authorisation for all health-related information on the labelling of foodstuffs, including those which are manufactured lawfully in other Member States and are in free circulation there, has the consequence in practice that foodstuffs bearing health-related information may not be marketed freely, even if the information is not liable to mislead the consumer, and thus cannot be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued.

see paras 37-38, 48, 51-52, 54-55, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Exhaustion of the right conferred by a trade mark — Rule placing the burden of proof on the third party relying on exhaustion — Whether permissible — Limits — (Arts 28 and 30 EC; Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(1))

Summary

A rule of evidence according to which exhaustion of the trade mark right constitutes a plea in defence for a third party against whom the trade mark proprietor brings an action, so that the existence of the conditions for such exhaustion must, as a rule, be proved by the third party who relies on it, is consistent with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 5 and 7 of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

However, the requirements deriving from the protection of the free movement of goods enshrined, inter alia , in Articles 28 EC and 30 EC may mean that this rule of evidence needs to be qualified.

Accordingly, where a third party succeeds in establishing that there is a real risk of partitioning of national markets if he himself bears that burden of proof, particularly where the trade mark proprietor markets his products in the EEA using an exclusive distribution system, it is for the proprietor of the trade mark to establish that the products were initially placed on the market outside the EEA by him or with his consent. If such evidence is adduced, it is for the third party to prove the consent of the trade mark proprietor to subsequent marketing of the products in the EEA.

see para. 42, operative part
Case C-178/00





Italian Republic

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Financial year 1995 – Cereals – Durum wheat – Common wheat, barley and maize)»

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 26 September 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Statement of the subject-matter of the proceedings – Summary of the pleas in law relied upon

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 38(1)(c))

2.. Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of the Community rules – Not possible to establish conclusive factual data except by impartial checks – Conditions under which other evidence may be allowed

3.. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Durum wheat – System of securities – Conditions governing release of the security – All the primary requirements must be fulfilled – Possibility of derogating explicitly and on special grounds from that principle

(Commission Regulations No 2220/85, Art. 21, and No 2668/94, Art. 11(2), second para., and (4))

1.

2.

3.
Case C-379/00





Overland Footwear Ltd

v

Commissioners of Customs & Excise





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London)

«(Community Customs Code – Customs value of imported goods – Price of goods and buying commission – Reimbursement of duty payable on full amount)»

Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 12 March 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 5 December 2002 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Common Customs Tariff – Customs value – Transaction value – Determination – Buying commission not deducted from the value declared and not shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the import declaration – Whether included

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 29, 32 and 33)

2.. Customs union – Customs declarations – Post-clearance verification – Incomplete import declaration as a result of inadvertent error by the declarant – Revision by customs authorities – Definitive

(Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 78(3))

1.

2.
Case C-326/00





Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA)

v

Vasilios Ioannidis





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis)

«(Social security – Hospital treatment of a pensioner during a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he resides – Conditions for funding – Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles 31 and 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 15 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 25 February 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Entitlement to benefits in the event of a stay outside the competent Member State – Pensioners staying outside their Member State of residence – Provisions applicable

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 22(1)(a) and 31)

2.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Entitlement to benefits in the event of a stay outside the competent Member State – Pensioners staying outside their Member State of residence – Entitlement to benefits in kind – Conditions

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 31)

3.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Entitlement to benefits in the event of a stay outside the competent Member State – Pensioners staying outside their Member State of Residence – Obligation of cooperation on the institution of the place of stay and that of the place of residence

(Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 84)

4.. Social security for migrant workers – Sickness insurance – Entitlement to benefits in the event of a stay outside the competent Member State – Pensioners staying outside their Member State of residence – Refusal wrongly interposed by the institution of the place of stay – Obligations resulting for the institution of the place of residence

(Council Regulations No 1408/71, Art. 31, and No 574/72, Art. 31)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case C-378/00





Commission of the European Communities

v

European Parliament and Council of the European Union





«(Comitology – Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission – Criteria for choosing between the different procedures for adopting implementing measures – Effects – Obligation to state reasons – Annulment in part of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE))»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 3 October 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 21 January 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Actions for annulment – Commission's right to bring proceedings – Position taken by the Commission at the time the contested measure was adopted – Not relevant

(Art. 230 EC)

2.. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Absence or inadequacy of reasons stated – Plea distinct from that relating to substantive legality

(Art. 230 EC)

3.. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Basic regulations and implementing regulations – Implementing powers conferred by the Council – Principles and rules for the exercise of implementing powers laid down in the second comitology decision – Non-binding nature of the criteria relating to the choice of procedures under the decision

(Art. 202 EC; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 2)

4.. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Measure departing from an indicative rule of conduct

(Art. 253 EC; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 2)

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

(Art. 253 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Case C-469/00





Ravil SARL

v

Bellon import SARL and Biraghi SpA





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

«(Protected designations of origin – Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 – Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 – Grana Padano freshly grated – Specification – Convention between two Member States – Condition that the cheese is grated and packaged in the region of production – Articles 29 EC and 30 EC – Justification – Whether the condition may be relied on against third parties – Legal certainty – Publicity)»

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 25 April 2002 I - 0000

Judgment of the Court, 20 May 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions of exports – Measures having equivalent effect – Convention between two Member States applying the condition that cheese covered by a designation of origin is grated and packaged in the region of production – Justification – Protection of industrial and commercial property – Measure that is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the reputation of the designation of origin

(Arts 29 EC and 30 EC)

2.. Agriculture – Uniform laws – Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs – Use of a protected designation of origin subject to the condition that operations such as grating and packaging the product take place in the region of production – Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 2081/92)

3.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions of exports – Measures having equivalent effect – Use of the protected designation of origin Grana Padano subject, under a Community measure, to the condition that the product is grated and packaged in the region of production – Justification – Protection of industrial and commercial property – Measure that is necessary and proportionate and capable of upholding the reputation of the designation of origin – Whether condition may be relied on against economic operators – Not in the absence of adequate publicity – Exception

(Arts 29 EC and 30 EC; Commission Regulation No 1107/96)

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

10 April 2003

((Plant varieties – System of protection – Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 – Use by farmers of the product of the harvest – Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right))

and

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 Mr Schulin, represented by M. Miersch, Rechtsanwalt, and R. Wilhelms, Patentanwalt, of Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, represented by E. Krieger and K. von Gierke, Rechtsanwalt, and of the Commission, represented by G. Braun, at the hearing on 21 February 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 March 2002,
Case C-416/00





Tommaso Morellato

v

Comune di Padova





(Reference for a preliminary ruling fromthe Tribunale Civile di Padova)

«(Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) – Selling arrangements – National legislation requiring prior packaging and specific labelling for the marketing of deep-frozen bread lawfully produced in a Member State and placed on the market in another Member State after further baking)»

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 June 2002

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 18 September 2003

Summary of the Judgment

1.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Obstacles resulting from national provisions regulating selling arrangements in a non-discriminatory way – Concept – Requirement of specific packaging in respect of a given product – Not included

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC))

2.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Legislation requiring, prior to its sale, packaging of imported pre-baked bread after completion of final baking in the Member State of import – Whether permissible – Condition – Measure which applies without distinction and which does not constitute discrimination against imported products – Assessment by the national court – Possible justification – Protection of public health – Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 28 EC and 30 EC))

3.. Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Treaty provisions – Direct effect – Obligations of national courts – Non-application of national provisions which are incompatible with those provisions

(EC Treaty, Art. 30 (now, after amendment, Art. 28 EC))

1.

2.

3.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

10 July 2003

((Directive 93/53/EEC – Destruction of fish stocks infected by viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) – Compensation – Obligations of the Member State – Protection of fundamental rights, particularly of the right to property – Validity of Directive 93/53))

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Booker Aquaculture Ltd, represented by P.S. Hodge QC and J. Mure, Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd, represented by A. O'Neill QC and E. Creally, The Scottish Ministers, represented by N. Paines QC and L. Dunlop, the United Kingdom Government, represented by G. Amodeo, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Paines QC, the Italian Government, represented by F. Quadri, the Council, represented by J. Carbery, and the Commission, represented by K. Fitch, at the hearing on 15 May 2001,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 September 2001,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

13 January 2004

((Social policy – Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 94/45/EC – European Works Councils – Informing and consulting employees in Community-scale undertakings – Group of undertakings whose central management is not located in a Member State))

and

THE COURT,,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

─

─

─

─

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG, of Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG and of the Commission at the hearing on 15 January 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 July 2002,