larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2008-05-06
44. It should be borne in mind that, under the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) EC, each institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty (see Case C-403/05 Parliament  v Commission  [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 49, and the case-law cited).
45. It must be observed, first, that, when adopting Directive 2005/85 in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 67(1) EC, the Council had the opportunity to apply the third indent of Article 202 EC in order to adopt measures not essential to the subject-matter to be regulated (see, to that effect, Case C‑240/90 Germany  v Commission  [1992] ECR I‑5383, paragraph 36).
46. Thus, on the assumption that the lists of safe countries are non-essential and relate to a specific case, the Council could have decided to reserve the right to exercise implementing powers, provided that it stated in detail the grounds for its decision (see, to that effect, Case C‑257/01 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I‑345, paragraph 50).
47. The Council must properly explain, by reference to the nature and content of the basic instrument to be implemented, why exception is being made to the rule that, under the system established by the Treaty, when measures implementing a basic instrument need to be taken at Community level, it is the Commission which, in the normal course of events, is responsible for exercising that power ( Commission  v Council , paragraph 51).
54. However, it has already been held that the rules regarding the manner in which the Community institutions arrive at their decisions are laid down in the Treaty and are not at the disposal of the Member States or of the institutions themselves (see United Kingdom  v Council , paragraph 38).
55. The Treaty alone may, in particular cases such as that provided for in the second indent of Article 67(2) EC, empower an institution to amend a decision-making procedure established by the Treaty.
56. To acknowledge that an institution can establish secondary legal bases, whether for the purpose of strengthening or easing the detailed rules for the adoption of an act, is tantamount to according that institution a legislative power which exceeds that provided for by the Treaty.
57. It would also enable the institution concerned to undermine the principle of institutional balance which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions (Case C‑70/88 Parliament  v Council  [1990] ECR I‑2041, paragraph 22).
60. Furthermore, the existence of an earlier practice of establishing secondary legal bases cannot reasonably be relied upon. Even on the assumption that there is such a practice, it cannot derogate from the rules laid down in the Treaty and cannot therefore create a precedent binding on the institutions (see, to that effect, United Kingdom  v Council , paragraph 24, and Case C‑426/93 Germany  v Council  [1995] ECR I‑3723, paragraph 21).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2008-05-08
33. In addition, according to settled case-law, a profession is deemed regulated, for the purpose of Directive 89/48, where access to the professional activity constituting that profession or its exercise is governed by laws, regulations or administrative provisions creating a system under which that professional activity is expressly reserved to those who fulfil certain conditions and access to it is prohibited to those who do not fulfil them (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑164/94 Aranitis  [1996] ECR I-135, paragraphs 18 and 19, and Case C-285/01 Burbaud  [2003] ECR I-8219, paragraph 45).
37. First of all, the right to recognition of diplomas is guaranteed as an expression of the fundamental right to freedom of establishment by the second paragraph of Article 43 EC. Under settled case-law, it stems from that EC Treaty provision that a Member State to which an application has been made for authorisation to pursue a profession access to which depends, under national law, on the possession of a diploma or professional qualification must take into consideration the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which the person concerned has acquired with the aim of pursuing that profession in another Member State by comparing the knowledge so certified with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules (see Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou  [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 16, and Case C-238/98 Hocsman  [2000] ECR I-6623, paragraph 23).
39. Moreover, as the Commission has pointed out, Directive 89/48 does not establish a system of automatic recognition. Although it recognises the right of access to regulated professions, that directive, under Article 4(b) thereof, allows the host State to require an applicant who is a national of another Member State to complete an adaptation period or to take an aptitude test, in particular where the matters covered by the education and training he has received differ substantially from those covered by the diploma required in the host Member State, or where the profession regulated in the host Member State comprises one or more regulated professional activities which are not in the profession regulated in the Member State from which the applicant originates or comes and that difference between the professional activities in the two Member States concerned corresponds to different specific training.
43. Accordingly, the recognition of diplomas giving access to the profession of hospital pharmacist falls within the scope of Directive 89/48 and the Member States must provide for a system allowing for that recognition, under the conditions laid down in that directive.
Nancy Delay v Università degli studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Repubblica italiana.
Date: 2008-05-15
19. The principle of equal treatment, of which Article 39 EC is a specific expression, requires that comparable situations should not be treated differently and that different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, in particular, Case C‑303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld  [2007] ECR I‑3633, paragraph 56).
22. The Court has previously held that Law No 230/62 must serve as a measure of comparison to determine whether the new system applying to former foreign-language assistants is similar to the general system applying to the national workforce or whether, on the contrary, it affords them a lower level of protection (Case C‑212/99 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 25).
23. If national workers are entitled, under Law No 230/62, to reinstatement from the point of view of increases in salary, seniority and the payment by the employer of social security contributions, from the date of their original recruitment, former foreign-language assistants who have become linguistic associates must also be entitled to similar reinstatement with effect from the date of their original recruitment (Case C‑212/99 Commission  v Italy , paragraph 30).
29. So far as more particularly concerns the effects of an interruption of the employment relationship, it is to be emphasised that, in paragraph 28 of its judgment in Case C‑212/99 Commission  v Italy , the Court held that only an analysis concentrating on the substance, rather than the form, of statutory schemes will make it possible to establish whether their actual application to different categories of workers in comparable legal situations leads to situations which are compatible or, in contrast, incompatible with the fundamental principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH and Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen.
Date: 2008-05-22
33. It should be recalled, first, that the Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, reopen the oral procedure, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see the order of 4 February 2000 in Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar  [2000] ECR I‑665, paragraph 18; Case C-210/03 Swedish Match  [2004] ECR I‑11893, paragraph 25; and Case 138/05 Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie  [2006] ECR I-8339, paragraph 23).
34. Second, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 222 EC, it is the duty of the Advocate General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice, require the Advocate General’s involvement. In carrying out that task, the Advocate General may, where appropriate, analyse a reference for a preliminary ruling by placing it in a context broader than that strictly defined by the national court or the parties to the main proceedings. Given that the Court is not bound either by the Advocate General’s Opinion or by the reasoning which led to that view to be formed, it is not necessary to reopen the oral procedure, pursuant to Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure, every time the Advocate General raises a point of law that has not been debated by the parties.
49. It must also be stated that, where an implementing directive requires interpretation, that interpretation must, as far as possible, be consistent with the provisions of the basic directive (see, by analogy, Case C-90/92 Dr Tretter  [1993] ECR I‑3569, paragraph 11). In addition, a provision must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity (Case C-403/99 Italy  v Commission  [2001] ECR I‑6883, paragraphs 28 and 37).
50. However, although, by not expressly requiring Member States to check that the holders of previous authorisations have access to an Annex II dossier, Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/37 has the effect of curtailing the period during which data is protected pursuant to Article 13(3)(d) of Directive 91/414, that situation arises as a direct result of the way in which Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/37 is drafted. Given that the wording of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/37 is clear and unambiguous, the interpretation according to which the holder of an existing authorisation is not required, under that provision, to submit an Annex II dossier during the review phase is the only interpretation that is compatible with the principle of legal certainty, in accordance with which Community legislation must enable those concerned to acquaint themselves with the precise extent of the obligations it imposes upon them (see Case C-161/06 Skoma-Lux  [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 36 and 38).
Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard.
Date: 2008-05-22
17. In the Regulation, jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment is the subject of a specific section, namely Section 5 of Chapter II. That section, which contains Articles 18 to 21 of the Regulation, seeks to ensure that employees are afforded the protection referred to in recital 13 of the preamble thereto.
18. As maintained, or at least acknowledged, by Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, the French, German, Italian and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission of the European Communities, it is apparent from the wording of the provisions of Section 5 that they are not only specific but also exhaustive.
22. The rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation is also not the subject of a corresponding provision in Section 5, unlike the rule laid down in Article 6, point 3, concerning the case of counter‑claims, which has been incorporated in Article 20, point 2, of that regulation.
28. However, it is settled case-law that the rules of special jurisdiction must be interpreted strictly and cannot be given an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by the Regulation (see, inter alia, in relation to Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation, Case C‑103/05 Reisch Montage  [2006] ECR I‑6827, paragraph 23, and Case C‑98/06 Freeport  [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 35). As has been noted in paragraph 23 of this judgment, the wording of the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II of the Regulation precludes the application of Article 6, point 1, in disputes concerning matters relating to con tracts of employment.
33. Therefore, as regards the Community provisions currently in force, an interpretation such as that suggested by the French and German Governments would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the Regulation and which requires, in particular, that rules of jurisdiction be interpreted in such a way as to be highly predictable, as stated in recital 11 in the preamble to the Regulation, (see, inter alia, as regards Article 6, point 1, of the Regulation, Reisch Montage , paragraphs 24 and 25, and Freeport , paragraph 36).
Skatteministeriet v Ecco Sko A/S.
Date: 2008-05-22
27. It should be noted at the outset that it is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the Combined Nomenclature and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑208/06 and C‑209/06 Medion and Canon Deutschland  [2007] ECR I‑7963, paragraph 34).
40. That interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Explanatory Note 1(b) to Chapter 64 of the CN, as it appears in the Explanatory Notes to the CN published by the Commission on 28 February 2006 (OJ 2006 C 50, p. 1) and corrected on 28 October 2006 (OJ 2006 C 260, p. 18), which, although it was not applicable at the material time, states that ‘the lining is not exposed on the outside surface of the footwear, with the exception of a padding e.g. around the collar’.
47. Lastly, the opinion of the Customs Code Committee referred to in the observations submitted to the Court cannot prevent the classification of the sandal at issue in the main proceedings under CN heading 6403. It is settled case-law, as far as concerns the Committee’s conclusions, that, although they constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Customs Code by the customs authorities of the Member States and as such may be considered as a valid aid to the interpretation of the Code, they do not have legally binding force (Case C‑11/05 Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods  [2006] ECR I-4285, paragraph 39). The Court even added that, where appropriate, it may be necessary to consider whether the content of such opinions is in accordance with the actual provisions of the Common Customs Tariff and whether they alter the meaning of such provisions (see, to that effect, Case 798/79 Chem-Tec  [1980] ECR 2639, paragraph 11).
Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine Srl v Regione Lazio.
Date: 2008-06-05
25. As to whether the recipient’s failure to comply with such an obligation entitles the competent authority to refuse altogether to pay the financial assistance, it is to be noted that the principle of proportionality, which is a general principle of Community law and has been affirmed on numerous occasions in the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular with regard to the common agricultural policy, must be observed as such both by the Community legislature and by the national legislatures and courts which apply Community law. That principle requires that measures adopted by Community institutions should not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (see Joined Cases C‑37/06 and C‑58/06 Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 33 and 35, and the case-law cited therein).
26. In that regard, it is necessary, in accordance with settled case-law, to check whether the obligations at issue in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings are to be regarded as principal obligations whose observance is of fundamental importance to the proper functioning of a Community system and whose infringement may be punished by total forfeiture of the financial assistance concerned, without there being any breach of the principle of proportionality, or whether they are secondary obligations whose infringement should not be punished with the same rigour as is applied to the failure to fulfil a principal obligation (see, by analogy, with regard to the total forfeiture of a security, Case 21/85 Maas  [1986] ECR 3537, paragraph 15, and the case-law cited therein).
James Wood v Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions.
Date: 2008-06-05
13. It is in this regard settled case-law that the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way. Such treatment may be justified only if it is based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and is proportionate to the objective being legitimately pursued (see Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello  [2003] ECR I-11613, paragraph 31, and the case-law cited).
JVC France SAS v Administration des douanes - Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières.
Date: 2008-06-05
30. In that regard, it must be observed that, according to established case-law, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (see, in particular, Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 59, and Case C-466/04 Acereda Herrera [2006] ECR I‑5341, paragraph 47).
31. The Court can refuse the request from the national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical (see Bosman , paragraph 61, and Acereda Herrera , paragraph 48).
33. It should be recalled, first of all, that it is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and for ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN and the notes to the sections or chapters (see, in particular, Case C-42/99 Eru Portuguesa  [2000] ECR I-7691, paragraph 13; Case C-495/03 Intermodal Transports [2005] ECR I-8151, paragraph 47; Case C-445/04 Possehl Erzkontor [2005] ECR I-10721, paragraph 19; and Case C-500/04 Proxxon  [2006] ECR I-1545, paragraph 21).
34. The Court has also held that the explanatory notes to the CN and those to the HS are an important aid for interpreting the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force. The wording of those notes must therefore be consistent with the provisions of the CN and cannot alter their scope (see Intermodal Transports , paragraph 48; Possehl Erzkontor , paragraph 20; and Proxxon , paragraph 22). Where it is apparent that they are contrary to the wording of the headings of the CN and the section or chapter notes, the explanatory notes to the CN must be disregarded (see Case C-229/06 Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft  [2007] ECR I-3251, paragraph 31).
37. It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the reply to the second question must be that the explanatory notes to the CN relating to subheading 8525 40 99, published on 6 July 2001 and 23 October 2002, are interpretative in character and do not have legally binding force. They are in accordance with the wording of the CN and do not alter its scope. It follows that the adoption of a new classification regulation was not necessary.
Costs
Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV.
Date: 2008-07-10
19. It should be noted, at the outset, that Article 234 EC does not empower the Court to apply rules of Community law to a particular case, but only to rule on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and of acts adopted by European Community institutions (see, inter alia, Case 100/63 van der Veen  [1964] ECR 565, 572, and Case C‑203/99 Veedfald  [2001] ECR I‑3569, paragraph 31). The Court may, however, in the framework of the judicial cooperation provided for by that article and on the basis of the material presented to it, provide the national court with an interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of one or other of its provisions (Case 20/87 Gauchard  [1987] ECR 4879, paragraph 5, and Joined Cases C‑515/99, C‑519/99 to C‑524/99 and C‑526/99 to C‑540/99 Reisch and Others  [2002] ECR I‑2157, paragraph 22).
38. In a case such as that referred by the national court, where there is no direct victim of discrimination but a body empowered to do so by law seeks a finding of discrimination and the imposition of a penalty, the sanctions which Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 requires to be laid down in national law must also be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
39. If it appears appropriate to the situation at issue in the main proceedings, those sanctions may, where necessary, include a finding of discrimination by the court or the competent administrative authority in conjunction with an adequate level of publicity, the cost of which is to be borne by the defendant. They may also take the form of a prohibitory injunction, in accordance with the rules of national law, ordering the employer to cease the discriminatory practice, and, where appropriate, a fine. They may, moreover, take the form of the award of damages to the body bringing the proceedings.
40. The answer to the sixth question must therefore be that Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 requires that rules on sanctions applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.
Costs