ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case C-147/02

Michelle K. Alabaster

v

Woolwich plc and Secretary of State for Social Security

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division))

(Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Pay during maternity leave – Calculation of the amount of pay – Pay rise taken into account)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Maternity leave – Determining the pay received during maternity leave – Criteria – Obligation to include a pay rise awarded between the beginning of the period covered by the reference pay and the end of the maternity leave – Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 119 (Arts 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Arts 136 EC to 143 EC))

2. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Directive 92/85 – Pay received during maternity leave – Obligation on the Member States to determine how any pay rise is to be included

(Council Directive 92/85)

1. Article 119 of the Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 to 143 EC) must be interpreted as requiring that, in so far as the pay received by the worker during her maternity leave is determined at least in part on the basis of the pay she earned before her maternity leave began, any pay rise awarded between the beginning of the period covered by the reference pay and the end of the maternity leave must be included in the elements of pay taken into account in calculating the amount of such pay. This requirement is not limited to cases where the pay rise is back-dated to the period covered by the reference pay.

(see para. 50, operative part 1)

2. Absent any Community legislation in this sphere, it is for the competent national authorities to determine how, in compliance with all the provisions of Community law, and in particular Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, any pay rise awarded before or during maternity leave must be included in the elements of pay used to calculate the pay due to a worker during maternity leave.

(see para. 56, operative part 2)
Case C-112/02

Kohlpharma GmbH

v

Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen)

(Free movement of goods – Medicinal products – Importation – Application for marketing authorisation under a simplified procedure – Common origin)

Summary of the Judgment

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect – Medicinal products – Application for a marketing authorisation with reference to a medicinal product that has already been authorised – Possibility of transposing the safety and efficacy assessment carried out for that medicinal product without any risk to public health – Rejection of the application because the medicinal products do not have a common origin – Not permissible – Justification – None

(Arts 28 EC and 30 EC)

In the case where

– an application for a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product is submitted with reference to a medicinal product that has already been authorised,

– the medicinal product which is the subject of the application is imported from a Member State in which it has obtained a marketing authorisation,

– the assessment of safety and efficacy carried out for the medicinal product which is already authorised can be used in the application for a marketing authorisation for the second medicinal product without any risk to public health,

Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude the application being rejected solely on the ground that the two medicinal products do not have a common origin, that is, that their manufacturers are not part of the same group of undertakings and they do not produce those medicinal products under agreement with the same licensor.

In such circumstances, the restriction on the free movement of goods between Member States which results from the refusal to issue a marketing authorisation to the second medicinal product cannot be justified on grounds of protecting public health if that refusal is based solely on the fact that the two medicinal products do not have the same origin. A common origin may indeed constitute an important element in establishing that the assessment of safety and efficacy carried out for the medicinal product which is already authorised can be used in the application for a marketing authorisation for the second medicinal product without any risk to public health. The absence of a common origin for the two medicinal products does not, however, in itself constitute a ground for refusing a marketing authorisation to the second medicinal product.

(see paras 15-18, 21, operative part)
Case C-160/02

Friedrich Skalka

v

Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))

(Social security for migrant workers – Austrian rules on compensatory supplements to retirement pensions – Classification of benefits and lawfulness of the residence requirement under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

Summary of the Judgment

Social security for migrant workers – Special non-contributory benefits – Coordination scheme laid down in Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 – Scope – Compensatory supplement to retirement or invalidity pensions granted on the basis of objective criteria and not financed by contributions from insured persons – Benefit mentioned in Annex IIa to that regulation – Included

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 4(2a) and 10a and Annex IIa)

The provisions of Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, and those of Annex IIa to that regulation are to be interpreted as meaning that a compensatory supplement, such as the Austrian compensatory supplement, mentioned in Annex IIa, which tops up a retirement pension or an invalidity pension and is intended to ensure a minimum means of subsistence for its recipient where the pension is insufficient, the granting of which is dependent on objective criteria defined by law and which is never financed from contributions made by the insured persons, falls within the scope of that regulation and therefore constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation. Accordingly the situation of a person who, after 1 June 1992, the date of entry into force of Regulation No 1247/92 which inserted Articles 4(2a) and 10a into Regulation No 1408/71, fulfils the conditions for the grant of that benefit is governed with effect from 1 January 1995, the date of the Republic of Austria’s accession to the European Union, solely by the coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a.

(see paras 26, 29, 31, operative part)
Case C-275/02

Engin Ayaz

v

Land Baden-Württemberg

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart)

(EEC-Turkey Association – Freedom of movement for workers – First paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council – Personal scope – Concept of ‘member of the family’ of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State – Stepson of such a worker)

Summary of the Judgment

International agreements – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Decision on the freedom of movement of workers – Family unity – Members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State – Concept – Stepson under 21 years of age or dependant – Covered

(Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, Art. 7, first para.)

The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council is to be interpreted as meaning that a stepson who is under the age of 21 years or is a dependant of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State is a member of the family of that worker, for the purposes of that provision, and enjoys the rights conferred on him by that decision, provided that he has been duly authorised to join that worker in the host Member State.

(see para. 48, operative part)
Case C-382/02

Cimber Air A/S

v

Skatteministeriet

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret)

(Sixth VAT Directive – Article 15(6), (7) and (9) – Exemption of exports outside the Community – Meaning of aircraft used by airlines operating chiefly on international routes – Exemption for fuelling and provisioning of domestic flights)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for certain transactions relating to aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes – Scope – Transactions relating to aircraft operating domestic routes – Included – Concept of airlines operating chiefly on international routes – Assessment by the national courts

(Council Directive 77/388, Art. 15(6), (7) and (9))

The provisions of Article 15(6), (7) and (9) of Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes regarding the exemption from value added tax for certain transactions relating to aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes must be interpreted as meaning that the supplies of goods and services referred to in those provisions to aircraft which operate on domestic routes but are used by those airlines are exempt from value added tax.

As regards the question whether an airline operates chiefly on international routes within the meaning of Article 15(6) that concept must be considered, in any event, as including a company whose operations on non-international routes are found to be considerably less extensive than its international activities. In that respect, it is for the national courts to assess the extent of the international business and the extent of the non-international business of that company. In doing so, they may take account of all information which indicates the relative importance of the type of operations concerned, in particular turnover.

(see paras 30, 39-40, operative part 1-2)
Case C-472/02

Siomab SA

v

Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l’environnement

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles)

(Environment – Waste – Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste – Competence of the authority of dispatch to verify the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment based on an incorrect classification – Objection procedure)

Summary of the Judgment

Environment – Waste – Regulation No 259/93 on shipments of waste – Shipments of waste for recovery – Incorrect classification of a planned shipment by the notifier – Not competent for the authority of dispatch to reclassify that shipment on its own initiative and to refuse to transmit the consignment note – Duty of that authority to inform the notifier of its objections to that classification

(Council Regulation No 259/93 Arts 6(8) and 7(2))

Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Decisions 98/368 and 1999/816, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has recourse, under Article 6(8) of that regulation, to the specific procedure whereby the competent authority of dispatch may transmit the consignment note for a shipment of waste for recovery itself, instead of the notifier, to the competent authority of destination, that competent authority of dispatch, if it considers it necessary to object to the shipment on the ground that it has been incorrectly classified by the notifier, may not reclassify the shipment on its own initiative. It is required to transmit that document to the other competent authorities and to the consignee and to inform the notifier and the other competent authorities concerned of its objection by any appropriate means before the end of the period laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation at the latest.

(see para. 35, operative part)
Case C-173/02

Kingdom of Spain

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 – Common organisation of the market for milk and milk products – Commission decision prohibiting aid to acquire milk quotas)

Summary of the Judgment

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulation No 3950/92 – Aid granted by a Member State although not authorised by the regulation – Prohibited – No effect on the functioning of the market – No impact

(Council Regulation No 3950/92, Arts 5 and 8)

Where the Community has established a common market organisation in a particular sector, it is for it to seek solutions to problems which may arise in the context of the common agricultural policy. Member States must therefore refrain from taking any unilateral measure in that area, even if that measure is likely to support the common policy of the Community.

In the context of the common organisation of the market for milk products, only State aid expressly authorised by Regulation No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, in particular Articles 5 and 8, is lawful. It follows that State aid granted by a Member State which consists of an interest-rate rebate on loans contracted to acquire reference quantities from other producers is not expressly authorised either by Article 5 or by Article 8 of that regulation, it must be regarded as incompatible with the common market. Furthermore, that aid is still unlawful, even if it is not such as to distort the functioning of that market for milk and milk products, since lawfulness does not depend on the possible effects that that aid may have on the functioning of that market.

(see paras 19-20, 22, 31)
Case C-338/02

Fixtures Marketing Ltd

v

Svenska Spel AB

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen)

(Directive 96/9/EC – Legal protection of databases – Sui generis right – Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database – Football fixture lists – Betting)

Summary of the Judgment

Approximation of laws – Legal protection of databases – Directive 96/9 – Definition of investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database – Resources used to draw up a football fixtures list – Not included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 96/9, Art. 7(1))

The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to investment in the creation of that database. It thus refers to the resources used to seek out existing materials and collect them in the database but does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database.

In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league do not constitute such investment. Moreover, finding the data which make up such a list does not require any particular effort on the part of the professional leagues, which participate directly in the creation of those data. Nor should the resources used for the verification or presentation of the data making up the list be considered to represent substantial investment independent of the investment in the creation of those data.

(see paras 23-24, 31, 33-35, 37, operative part)
Case C-225/02

Rosa García Blanco

v

Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social nº 3 de Orense)

(Social security of migrant workers – Old age – Unemployment – Minimum periods of insurance – Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits – Periods of unemployment – Aggregation)

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 28 October 2004

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 20 January 2005

Summary of the Judgment

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Case pending before the national court rendered devoid of purpose – No need to give a ruling

(Art. 234 EC)

It is clear from both the wording and the scheme of Article 234 EC that a national court or tribunal is not empowered to bring a matter before the Court of Justice by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling unless a case is pending before it, in which it is called upon to give a decision which is capable of taking account of the preliminary ruling.

The justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions to be delivered but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute.

Where the claims of the claimant in the main proceedings have been met in their entirety, an answer by the Court to the questions put by the national court would be of no use to that court.

(see paras 27-28, 30-31)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Access to higher education – Different conditions for holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States – Not permissible

(Arts 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC)

Summary

A Member State which fails to take the measures necessary to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States can gain access to higher education under the same conditions as holders of the Certificate of higher secondary education (CESS) awarded in the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 149 EC and 150 EC.

(see para. 31, operative part)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure — Proceedings brought before the Court on the basis of an arbitration clause — Contract granting Community funding for a project in the field of research and technological development, including demonstration — Total final contribution to the project less than the amount paid out by the Commission — Right to partial reimbursement of an advance payment together with default interest — (Art. 238 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers – Health insurance – Reimbursement by the competent Member State of medical expenses incurred in another Member State – Application of the rates in effect in the Member State of residence – Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72 – Practice of a health insurance fund whereby medical expenses not exceeding a certain amount are reimbursed in full – Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 574/72, Art. 34)

Summary

In the absence of completion of the formalities giving entitlement, during a stay in a Member State other than the competent State, to receive the benefits in kind provided by the institution of the place of stay on behalf of the competent institution, Article 34 of Regulation No 574/72 enables persons covered by social insurance to obtain from the competent State reimbursement of expenses incurred during that stay at the rates administered by the institution of the place of stay. That provision is to be interpreted as not precluding a practice whereby a health insurance fund, in the application of national rules, reimburses medical costs incurred by its members during a stay in another Member State in full when those costs do not exceed a certain amount. The fact that that reimbursement is in full suffices to ensure that the reimbursement received by the person covered by social insurance is at least equivalent to, if not higher than, what that person would have received had reimbursement been made in the circumstances provided for in that provision.

(see paras 24, 27, operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification – Not permissible

(Art. 226 EC)

Summary

A Member State may not plead situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. In that regard, a Federal State cannot argue that its constitutional law precludes it from adopting measures transposing a directive in the place of a federated State and that only censure by the Court confers the power on the Federal State to undertake the transposition.

Though each Member State may freely allocate areas of internal legal competence as it sees fit, the fact remains that it alone is responsible to the Community under Article 226 EC for compliance with obligations arising under Community law.

(see paras 12-13)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Exemptions laid down by the Sixth Directive – Exemption for the letting of immovable property – Meaning – Grant of a licence in return for a payment set essentially on the basis of the area occupied – Included – Condition – Contracts having as their essential object the making available, in a passive manner, of premises or parts of buildings in exchange for a payment linked to the passage of time

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

Summary

Article 13B(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that transactions by which one company, through a number of contracts, simultaneously grants associated companies a licence to occupy a single property in return for a payment set essentially on the basis of the area occupied and by which the contracts, as performed, have as their essential object the making available, in a passive manner, of premises or parts of buildings in return for a payment linked to the passage of time, are transactions comprising the ‘letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision and not the provision of a service capable of being categorised in a different way.

(see para. 28, operative part)