larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
The Publishers Association v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1995-01-17
30 Finally, with respect to the decision of the RPC, the Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 79 of its judgment that "as is clear from point 43 of the decision, the Commission did not ignore the ruling of the British court. However, as the Commission rightly observed, the national court, which was of course giving judgment prior to the accession of the United Kingdom and Ireland to the European Communities, did not directly express any view as to the indispensability of the restrictions on competition within the common market arising from the NBA. In so far as that court did indirectly touch on the question of external trade, it found that the PA had not proved that the abolition of the NBA would lead to a substantial decline in exports. It must therefore be concluded that the Decision is not vitiated by inadequate reasoning on the ground that it did not specifically rebut the findings of the Restrictive Practices Court in 1962 or the evidence produced by the applicant to show that the situation on the book market has not changed substantially since 1962. In any event, as the Court of Justice held in Joined Cases 43 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission (cited above, at paragraph 40), national judicial practices, even on the supposition that they are common to all the Member States, cannot prevail in the application of the competition rules set out in the Treaty".
39 Under Article 190 of the EEC Treaty, decisions must state the reasons on which they are based. It has consistently been held that while the Commission is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by undertakings seeking an exemption, the statement of reasons in any adverse decision must enable the Court to review its lawfulness and make clear to the Member State and the persons concerned the circumstances in which the Commission has applied the Treaty.
Fitmay Ltd, H. A. van der Linde and Tracotex Holland BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.
Date: 1995-01-19
82 It must be noted to begin with that in the Dinter judgment the Court held (in paragraphs 17 and 18) that the method of determining the import price, applicable in accordance with Article 3(3) of Regulation No 1626/85 if the invoice presented to the customs authorities has not been drawn up by the exporter in the country in which the products originated, applies only if there are no other elements or if the customs authorities have doubts as to the price stated on the invoice. Also in that judgment the Court held that the countervailing charge cannot be levied, even where the goods have been bought by the importer from an intermediary who is not established in the country of origin of the goods, if it is certain that both the price paid to the intermediary by the importer and the resale price then charged by the importer are higher than the minimum price, since in that event the objective of protection pursued by the protective measures is attained.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1995-01-24
13 However, that special procedure under Directive 89/665 is a preliminary measure which can neither derogate from nor replace the powers of the Commission under Article 169 of the Treaty. That article gives the Commission discretionary power to bring an action before the Court where it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty and that the State concerned has not complied with the Commission' s reasoned opinion.
27 Hence the fact that the term UNIX was not followed by the words "or equivalent" may not only deter economic operators using systems similar to UNIX from taking part in the tendering procedure, but may also impede the flow of imports in intra-Community trade, contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty, by reserving the contract exclusively to suppliers intending to use the system specifically indicated.
Calle Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse für den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg.
Date: 1995-02-16
9 The Court has consistently held that the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, of which Article 14 forms part, constitute a complete and uniform system of conflict rules, the aim of which is to ensure that workers moving within the Community are to be subject to the social security scheme of only one Member State, in order to prevent more than one legislative system from being applicable and to avoid the complications which may result from that situation (see, in particular, Case C-71/93 Van Poucke v Rijksinstitut voor de Sociale Verzekeringen der Zelfstandigen [1994] ECR I-1101, paragraph 22).
15 Accordingly, it should be stated in reply to the first two questions that the situation of a Danish worker, residing in Denmark and employed exclusively by an undertaking with its seat in Germany, who in the course of that employment relationship, regularly, for several hours each week and for a period not limited to twelve months pursues his activity partly in Denmark, falls under Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71.
The third question
Criminal proceedings against Jean-Louis Aubertin, Bernard Collignon, Guy Creusot, Isabelle Diblanc, Gilles Josse, Jacqueline Martin and Claudie Normand.
Date: 1995-02-16
9 It is settled case-law that the Treaty provisions on the freedom of movement for persons cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State (see, for example, Joined Cases C-330/90 and C-331/90 López Brea and Hidalgo Palacios [1992] ECR I-323, paragraph 7).
Bonapharma Arzneimittel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld.
Date: 1995-02-23
16 Under the actual terms of the EEC-Austria Agreement only goods originating in the Community or Austria may benefit from the preferential arrangements and the EUR.1 movement certificate constitutes the documentary evidence of that origin. As was rightly pointed out by the Advocate General in his Opinion, to allow other means of proof in addition to those proofs of origin would affect the unity and security of the application of the EEC-Austria Agreement.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-02-23
11 The Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with its obligations under Community law (Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 18).
12 The only defence available to a Member State in opposing an application by the Commission under Article 93(2) of the Treaty for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it to implement the decision properly (see Case 52/84 Commission v Belgium [1986] ECR 89, paragraph 14, Case 94/87 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 175, paragraph 8, and Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-3131, paragraph 10).
13 However, a Member State which, in giving effect to a Commission decision on State aid, encounters unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties or becomes aware of consequences overlooked by the Commission, must submit those problems to the Commission for consideration, together with proposals for suitable amendments to the decision in question. In such cases, the Commission and the Member State must, by virtue of the rule imposing on the Member States and the Community institutions a duty of genuine cooperation which underlies, in particular, Article 5 of the Treaty, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions and, in particular, the provisions on aid (see Case 52/84 Commission v Belgium, paragraph 16, Case 94/87 Commission v Germany, paragraph 9, and Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece, paragraph 19).
ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Interdata (Centro de Processamento de Dados Ldª) v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1995-03-07
6 It follows that revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called in question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the court.  Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings (see, most recently, the order of 25 February 1992 in Case C-185/90 P-REV Gill v Commission [1992] ECR I-993, paragraph 12, and the judgment in Case C-130/91 REV ISAE/VP and Interdata v Commission [1995] ECR I-407, paragraph 6).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1995-03-23
9 It is settled law (see Case 29/84 Commission v Germany [1985] ECR 1661, paragraph 23) that whilst legislative action on the part of each Member State is not necessarily required in order to implement a directive, it is essential for national law to guarantee that the national authorities will effectively apply the directive in full, that the legal position under national law should be sufficiently precise and clear and that individuals are made fully aware of their rights and, where appropriate, may rely on them before the national courts. That last condition is of particular importance where the directive in question is intended, as here, to accord rights to nationals of other Member States.
12 However, despite the Commission' s argument to the contrary, the Court need not take into account the failure to communicate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which ought to have been adopted in order to comply with the directive, precisely because the Greek Government did not adopt all those provisions within the prescribed period (see Case C-303/93 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR 1901, paragraph 6).
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v City of Glasgow District Council.
Date: 1995-03-28
16 Far from containing a direct and unconditional renvoi to provisions of Community law so as to incorporate them into the domestic legal order, the 1982 Act takes the Convention as a model only, and does not wholly reproduce the terms thereof.
18 Moreover, express provision is made in the 1982 Act for the authorities of the contracting state in question to adopt modifications "designed to produce divergence" between any provision of Schedule 4 and a corresponding provision of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court.
19 Accordingly, the provisions of the Convention which the Court is asked to interpret cannot be regarded as having been rendered applicable as such, in cases outwith the scope of the Convention, by the law of the contracting state concerned.
23 Accordingly, if the Court were to declare that it had jurisdiction to give a ruling in regard to this question, its interpretation of the provisions of the Convention would not be binding on the national court which would be bound by the interpretation of the Court only if the Convention were applicable to the dispute.
24 It cannot be accepted that the replies given by the Court to the courts of the contracting states are to be purely advisory and without binding effect. That would be to alter the function of the Court, as envisaged in the Protocol of 3 June 1971, cited above, namely that of a court whose judgments are binding (see Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, paragraph 61).
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1995-03-30
21 The first point to note is that due consultation of the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty constitutes an essential procedural requirement, disregard of which renders the measure concerned void. The effective participation of the Parliament in the legislative process of the Community, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Treaty, represents an essential factor in the institutional balance intended by the Treaty. Such power reflects the fundamental democratic principle that the people should take part in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly (see the "Isoglucose" judgments, Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, paragraph 33, and Case 139/79 Maizena v Council [1980] ECR 3393, paragraph 34).
22 Furthermore, observance of the consultation requirement implies that the Parliament has expressed its opinion and the requirement cannot be satisfied by the Council' s simply asking for the opinion ("Isoglucose" judgments, paragraphs 34 and 35 respectively). In an emergency, it is for the Council to use all the possibilities available under the Treaty and the Parliament' s Rules of Procedure in order to obtain the preliminary opinion of the Parliament ("Isoglucose" judgments, paragraphs 36 and 37 respectively).
23 However, the Court has held that inter-institutional dialogue, on which the consultation procedure in particular is based, is subject to the same mutual duties of sincere cooperation as those which govern relations between Member States and the Community institutions (see Case 204/86 Greece v Council [1988] ECR 5323, paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-04-04
16 According to consistent case-law, the only defence available to a Member State in opposing an application by the Commission under Article 93(2) of the Treaty for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it to implement the decision properly (see, most recently, the judgment in Case C-349/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 12, and the case-law cited therein).
17 The Court has also held that a Member State which, in giving effect to a Commission decision on State aid, encounters unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties or becomes aware of consequences overlooked by the Commission, must submit those problems to the Commission for consideration, together with proposals for suitable amendments to the decision in question. In such cases, the Commission and the Member State must, by virtue of the rule imposing on the Member States and the Community institutions a duty of genuine cooperation which underlies, in particular, Article 5 of the Treaty, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions and, in particular, the provisions on aid (see the above judgment in Case C-349/93 Commission v Italy, paragraph 13, and the case-law cited therein).
20 At the hearing the Commission pointed out, without being contradicted by the defendant, that in the form of order sought in its application it stated by mistake that default interest was payable as from September 1991, instead of September 1989, being the date referred to in the text of the application. The Commission emphasized that in fact "1989" is the year that was meant.
26 The Court has consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the common market has as its purpose to re-establish the previously existing situation (see the judgment in Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 75, and the case-law cited therein).
27 That objective is attained once the aid in question, increased where appropriate by default interest, has been repaid by the recipient, in this case Finmeccanica, to IRI, the public body responsible for managing State holdings. By repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored.
30 In those circumstances, the application must be considered to be unfounded in so far as the Commission charges the Italian Republic with failing to require IRI to repay the aid to the Italian State.
Failure to notify the measures implementing the decision
31 The Court does not need to examine the form of order sought against the Italian Republic for failing to notify the Commission of the measures implementing the decision since the Italian Republic did not in fact implement the decision within the prescribed period.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-04-04
15 The Court has consistently held that the only defence available to a Member State in opposing an application by the Commission under Article 93(2) of the Treaty for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it to implement the decision properly (see, most recently, the judgment in Case C-349/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 12, and the case-law cited therein).
16 The Court has also held that a Member State which, in giving effect to a Commission decision on State aid, encounters unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties or becomes aware of consequences overlooked by the Commission, must submit those problems to the Commission for consideration, together with proposals for suitable amendments to the decision in question. In such cases, the Commission and the Member State must, by virtue of the rule imposing on the Member States and the Community institutions a duty of genuine cooperation which underlies, in particular, Article 5 of the Treaty, work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty provisions and, in particular, the provisions on aid (see the above judgment in Case C-349/93 Commission v Italy, paragraph 13, and the case-law cited therein).
21 The Court has consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the common market has as its purpose to re-establish the previously existing situation (see the judgment in Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 75, and the case-law cited therein).
22 That objective is attained once the aid in question, increased where appropriate by default interest, has been repaid by the recipient, in this case SNAM SpA, to ENI, the public body responsible for managing State holdings. By repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored.
Ernst Bauer v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1995-04-06
11 Under the terms of Article 54 of Italian law No 392 of 27 July 1978 on tenancies of residential property (Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 211 of 29 July 1978) any clause stipulating that disputes concerning the determination of rent are to be settled by arbitrators is null and void. However, even if this provision can apply to the abovementioned arbitration clause, it follows from the judgment in Case C-209/90 Commission v Feilhauer [1992] ECR I-2613, paragraph 13, that the Court's jurisdiction to determine a dispute concerning a contract falls to be determined solely with regard to Article 181 of the EEC Treaty, which is in the same terms as Article 153 of the Euratom Treaty, and the terms of the arbitration clause, and this cannot be affected by provisions of national law which purport to oust its jurisdiction.
BPB Industries plc and British Gypsum Ltd v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1995-04-06
11 For the reasons given in, respectively, points 20 to 31, points 42 to 69 and points 76 to 86 of the Advocate General' s Opinion, the first, second and third pleas in law must be dismissed as unfounded.
The fourth plea in law
21 When considering whether this plea is well-founded, it must first be borne in mind that observance of the rights of the defence requires, inter alia, that the undertaking concerned must have been enabled to express its views effectively on the documents used by the Commission to support its allegation of an infringement (Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461, paragraph 7).
34 With regard to the alternative plea, suffice it to point out that it is not for this Court, when ruling on questions of law in the context of an appeal, to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the Court of First Instance exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of Community law.
Flip CV and O. Verdegem NV v Belgian State.
Date: 1995-04-06
26 Decision 80/1096 does indeed introduce Community financial aid for Member States which have, in particular, incurred costs in compensating owners whose animals have been slaughtered or destroyed under measures to control classical swine fever. However, although the Community legislature, in the context of its broad discretion in the field of agricultural policy (see, in particular, Case C-311/90 Hierl v Hauptzollamt Regensburg [1992] ECR I-2061, paragraph 13), may have considered that partial or total compensation of owners whose animals have been slaughtered might be a suitable means of facilitating control of classical swine fever and that any use which the Member States might make of it should be supported, no intention to make compensation for owners of slaughtered animals a principle of Community policy in that field is apparent either from the preamble to that decision or from its terms. Article 3(2)(a) and Article 3(2a)(a) of Decision 80/1096, as supplemented and amended by Council Decision 87/488/EEC of 22 September 1987 (OJ 1987 L 280, p. 26), merely provide for the possible reimbursement by the EAGGF to Member States of up to 50% of any cost incurred in compensating owners whose animals have been slaughtered.
Union Nationale des Mutualités Socialistes v Aldo Del Grosso.
Date: 1995-04-06
14 The Court of Justice has held (inter alia in Case 323/86 Collini [1987] ECR 5489, paragraphs 10 and 15, and Joined Cases C-90/91 and C-91/91 Di Crescenzo and Casagrande [1992] ECR I-3851, paragraph 20) that an "independent benefit" must be understood to mean a benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1), that is to say, the amount of which corresponds to the total length of insurance periods or periods of residence to be taken into account under the legislation of the Member State in which the competent institution is situated, without regard to the periods completed under the legislation of other Member States to which the beneficiary has been subject.
24 The Court has consistently held that social security benefits must be regarded as being of the same kind if their subject-matter and purpose, together with their method of calculation and the conditions for granting them, are identical (see inter alia Case 197/85 Stefanutti [1987] ECR 3855, paragraph 12).
Lloyd's Register of Shipping v Société Campenon Bernard.
Date: 1995-04-06
12 Lloyd' s Register contends that in its judgment in Case 33/78 Somafer v Saar Ferngas [1978] ECR 2183, at paragraph 13, the Court held that the rule set out in Article 5(5) applies to actions relating to undertakings which have been entered into by that establishment in the name of the parent body, provided that they are to be performed in the Contracting State of the ancillary establishment.
18 Thirdly, it should be noted that an ancillary establishment is a place of business which has the appearance of permanency such as the extension of a parent body, has a management and is equipped to negotiate business with third parties so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the parent body, whose seat is in another Contracting State, do not have to deal directly with such parent body (see Somafer, cited above, at paragraph 12).
21 That interpretation is, moreover, in conformity with the objective of the special rules of jurisdiction. As the Jenard Report (OJ 1979 C 59, at p. 22) makes clear, those rules allow the plaintiff to sue the defendant in courts other than those of his domicile because there is a specially close connecting factor between the dispute and the court with jurisdiction to resolve it.