larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1992-07-16
8 In deciding on this action it should be recalled that according to the case-law of the Court (see Case 247/84 Motte [1985] ECR 3887, at paragraph 25; Case 304/84 Muller [1986] ECR 1511, at paragraph 26; and Case C-42/90 Bellon [1990] ECR I-4863, at paragraphs 16 and 17), rules making the use of an additive subject to authorization are in compliance with Community law if two conditions are satisfied.
9 First, the rules must make provision for a procedure enabling traders to have the additive included on the national list of authorized additives. The procedure must be one which is readily accessible, can be completed within a reasonable period, and, if it leads to a rejection, that rejection must be open to challenge before the courts.
10 Secondly, an application to have an additive included on the list in question may be rejected by the competent administrative authorities only if the additive does not meet any genuine need, in particular a technological need, or presents a danger to public health.
11 As far as technological need is concerned, according to the Court' s settled case-law (see the "Purity requirement for beer case" Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227, at paragraph 52), in evaluating the need to use an additive account must be taken of the findings of international scientific research and the assessment made by the authorities of the other Member States.
12 It is not sufficient, for the purpose of showing that an additive does not meet a genuine need, to rely on the fact that a product could be manufactured using another substance. Such an interpretation of the concept of technological need could result in favouring national production methods, which would constitute a disguised means of restricting trade between Member States (see the "Purity requirement for beer case", cited above, at paragraph 51, and Joined Cases C-13/91 and C-113/91 Debus [1992] ECR I-3617, at paragraph 28).
13 With regard to the safeguarding of public health, the Court has held (see in particular Muller, at paragraph 26, and Bellon, at paragraph 17) that the existence of a risk arising from the use of an additive must be assessed in the light of international scientific research, in particular the work of the Scientific Committee for Food, and the eating habits in the Member State concerned.
16 In the present case it should be noted that the abovementioned French decrees introduced for additives a system, comprising a ban, subject to the possibility of authorization, that applied equally to additives in foodstuffs from Member States where they were lawfully manufactured and marketed.
Wienand Meilicke v ADV/ORGA F. A. Meyer AG.
Date: 1992-07-16
22 It has consistently been held (see, in the first place, Case 16/65 Schwarze v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fuer Getreide und Futtermittel [1965] ECR 877 and, most recently, Case C-147/91 Criminal proceedings against Ferrer Laderer [1992] ECR I-4097, paragraph 6) that the procedure provided for by Article 177 is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts.
23 It is also settled law (see, in the first place, Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board v Redmond [1978] ECR 2347, paragraph 25, and, most recently, Case C-186/90 Durighello v INPS [1991] ECR I-5773, paragraph 8), that, in the context of such cooperation, the national court, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts of the case, is in the best position to assess, having regard to the particular features of the case, whether a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
24 Consequently, since the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bscher v Oberfinanzdirektion Koeln [1990] ECR I-4003, paragraph 20).
25 Nevertheless, in Case 244/80 Foglia v Novello [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21, the Court considered that, in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction, it is a matter for the Court of Justice to examine the conditions in which the case has been referred to it by the national court. The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the preliminary-ruling procedure requires the national court to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions (Foglia v Novello, cited above, paragraphs 18 and 20, and Case 149/82 Robards v Insurance Officer [1983] ECR 171, paragraph 19).
26 The Court has already made it clear that the need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it essential to define the legal context in which the interpretation requested should be placed and that, in that respect, it may be convenient, in certain circumstances, for the facts of the case to be established and for questions of purely national law to be settled at the time the reference is made to the Court, so as to enable the latter to take cognizance of all the features of fact and of law which may be relevant to the interpretation of Community law which it is called upon to give (Joined Cases 36 and 71/80 Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland [1981] ECR 735, paragraph 6). Without such information, the Court may find it impossible to give a useful interpretation (see Case 52/76 Benedetti v Munari [1977] ECR 163, paragraphs 20, 21 and 22, and Joined Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor v Germany [1983] ECR 2633, paragraph 36).
32 The Court is thus being asked to give a ruling on a hypothetical problem, without having before it the matters of fact or law necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
Belgian State v Société coopérative Belovo.
Date: 1992-07-16
12 Moreover, it is not for the Court, when making a ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, to appraise the facts of the case; in response to a question, it is required to provide the national court with such interpretative information as may be necessary to enable it to decide the dispute (Case C-332/88 Alimenta v Doux [1990] I-2077). In that connection, the Court may deem it necessary also to consider rules of Community law to which the national court has not referred in its question. It is for the national court, however, to decide whether or not such rules, as interpreted by the Court, are applicable in the case brought before it (see inter alia Case C-315/88 Bagli Pennacchiotti [1990] ECR I-1323, paragraph 10).
14 The purpose of Regulation No 1697/79 is, in particular, to limit, for reasons of legal certainty, the possibility for the national authorities to take legal action to recover import and export duties after clearance (see inter alia Case 210/87 Padovani and Others v Amministrazione delle Finanze della Stato [1988] ECR 6177, paragraph 6).
17 In that connection, the Court has consistently held that it is for the national court to decide whether that condition has been satisfied, having regard to the nature of the error, the professional experience of the trader concerned and the degree of care which he exercised (see inter alia Case C-371/90 Beirafrio v Alfândega do Porto [1992] ECR I-2715, paragraph 21).
18 As regards the precise nature of the error, the question to be determined is whether the rules concerned are complex or, on the contrary, simple enough for an examination of the facts to make an error easily detectable. In a case such as this, where the trader has, in the course of several operations and over a long period of time, been issued with nine certificates each constituting confirmation that the view which subsequently proved to be erroneous was correct, and on which the contested payments were based, the repetition of the error by the customs authority is evidence both of the complex nature of the problem to be resolved (see inter alia Case C-64/89 Hauptzollamt Giessen v Deutsche Fernsprecher [1990] ECR I-2535, paragraph 20) and of lack of negligence on the trader' s part. Furthermore, the fact that the imports occurred after the withdrawal of the certificates, but by virtue of contractual obligations entered into in good faith prior to the withdrawal, does not affect the consequences flowing from the assessment of the nature of the error.
19 As far as the professional experience of the trader is concerned, it is for the national court to determine whether or not the trader involved is one whose activity essentially consists in import and export operations, and whether he already had some experience of trading in the goods in question, particularly whether he had in the past carried out similar transactions on which levies had been correctly calculated (see inter alia Case C-64/89 Deutsche Fernsprecher, cited above, paragraph 21).
Camille Petit v Office national des pensions.
Date: 1992-09-22
8 As the Court has consistently held, the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of movement and the regulations implementing those provisions cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State (see, in particular, Case C-332/90 Steen v Deutsche Bundespost [1992] ECR I-341, paragraph 9, and Case C-60/91 Morais [1992] ECR I-2085, paragraph 7), and the question whether that is the case depends on findings of fact which it is for the national court to make.
10 Accordingly, the reply to be given to the national court is that Articles 48(1) and 51 of the EEC Treaty and Regulation No 1408/71, in particular Articles 3 and 84(4) thereof, do not apply to situations which are confined in all respects within a single Member State.
Criminal proceedings against Leendert Van der Tas.
Date: 1992-10-08
12 It must first be observed that, although in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court may not rule as to the compatibility of national provisions with Community law, it is nevertheless competent to provide the national court with all the elements of interpretation of Community law to enable it to assess such compatibility for the purpose of deciding the case before it (see, in particular, Case C-373/89 Integrity v Rouvroy [1990] ECR I-4243, paragraph 9).
15 Once the Community has established a common organization of the market in a particular sector, the Member States must refrain from taking any unilateral measures, even if such measures are likely to support the common policy (see Case 274/87 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 229, paragraph 21).
Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-10-13
15 Before the above arguments are considered, it should be borne in mind that, in its judgment in Case 46/86 Romkes v Officier van Justitie [1987] ECR 2681, the Court has already given its views on the compatibility with the requirement of relative stability of fishing activities laid down in Regulation No 170/83 of the quota distributions made after the initial distribution in 1983. In paragraph 17 of that judgment, the Court thus stated that the requirement of relative stability must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. It made clear in that regard that, in specifying that provisions effecting the adjustments that it may prove necessary to make to the distribution of the resources among Member States are to be enacted by the Council in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty, Article 4(2) of that regulation shows that the distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure followed for Regulation No 170/83.
Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-10-13
34 However, it is apparent from the foregoing considerations concerning the Act of Accession that the applicant' s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States already included in the distribution decided upon in 1983, the Act having defined, in the terms mentioned, the way in which the new Member States were to be integrated into the common fisheries policy, in particular with regard to external fishery resources already available and distributed at the time of accession.
Weber Haus GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Freiburg-Land.
Date: 1992-10-13
10 A profit transfer in favour of a capital company, if it increases the assets of that company and is likely to increase the value of its shares, constitutes a service which may be subject to capital duty, if it is a service provided by a member.
11 A transfer of profits from one company to another, both being controlled by one and the same member, must be regarded as a service provided by a member within the meaning of the aforesaid provision of the directive if it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the transfer in fact constitutes a payment by that member to one company through the other.
13 It follows that the answer to Question 1 must be that under Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC, capital duty may be charged on a transfer of profits from one company to another where both are controlled by one and the same member, if it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the transfer constitutes a payment by that member to one company through the other. However, such a transaction cannot be subjected to capital duty if the company which receives the profits is a member of or shareholder in the company which transfers them.
Question 2
Commerz-Credit-Bank AG - Europartner v Finanzamt Saarbrücken.
Date: 1992-10-13
11 It is apparent from the preambles to those directives that the purpose of the fiscal derogation is to avoid transfers of assets between companies being impeded by tax obstacles, in order to facilitate the reorganization of undertakings, in particular the grouping within one undertaking of various entities carrying on identical or complementary activities.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1992-10-14
7 It must be emphasized that, even though Article 171 of the EEC Treaty does not specify the time-limit for compliance with a judgment, the interest attaching to the immediate and uniform application of Community law requires the process of complying with the judgment to be initiated at once and to be completed as soon as possible (see the judgment in Case 169/87 Commission v France [1988] ECR 4093, paragraph 14).
Società Tenuta il Bosco Srl v Ministero delle finanze dello Stato.
Date: 1992-10-15
8 The Court of Justice held in its judgment in Case 312/85 Villa Banfi v Regione Toscana [1986] ECR 4039, paragraph 11, that Article 3(1) of Directive 72/159 does not permit Member States, when laying down the criteria to be fulfilled by a legal person in order to be regarded as a farmer practising farming as his main occupation, to exclude certain types of legal person from the scope of the directive solely by reason of their legal form.
11 In determining the scope of a provision of Community law, its wording, context and objectives must all be taken into account.
12 The aim of the regulation is to improve the efficiency of Community agricultural structures in accordance with Community concepts and criteria, and for that purpose it introduces a common measure in Article 1 and provides that the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund is to make a contribution to the measures concerning investments in agricultural holdings, without specifying the legal form of those holdings.
14 By establishing the Community content of the definition of the expression "farmer practising farming as his main occupation", Article 2 leaves Member States no scope for withholding the benefits of the system of aid introduced by the regulation from agricultural holdings which fulfil the requisite conditions.
16 As the Court has held (paragraph 10 of the judgment in Villa Banfi, cited above), such differential treatment would in any event conflict with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 40(3) of the EEC Treaty which Member States must observe when giving effect to the common agricultural policy.
19 Furthermore, it is not possible to derive from the provisions of the Treaty or the rules of secondary Community law any general uniform Community definition of "agricultural holding" universally applicable in all the provisions laid down by law and regulation relating to agricultural production, and that it is for the Community institutions to work out, where appropriate, for the purposes of the rules deriving from the Treaty, such a definition of agricultural holding (judgment in Case 85/77 Santa Anna Azienda Avicola v INPS [1978] ECR 527, paragraphs 8 and 14).
Council of the European Communities v European Parliament, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom and Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1992-10-20
2 The applicant requests that the word "Council" be deleted from the beginning of paragraph 22 of that judgment and that the sentence "The Council expressed no view on this point" be added at the end of paragraph 22.
Hansa Fleisch Ernst Mundt GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat des Kreises Schleswig-Flensburg.
Date: 1992-11-10
12 It must be borne in mind that, as the Court held in its judgment in Case 9/70 Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein [1970] ECR 825, paragraph 5, it would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to decisions by Article 189 to exclude in principle the possibility that persons affected may invoke the obligation imposed by the decision.
13 In that judgment the Court also held that a decision addressed to a Member State could be relied on as against that Member State where the provision in question imposed on its addressee an obligation which was unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise (paragraph 9).
15 However, the fact that a decision allows the Member States to which it is addressed to derogate from clear and precise provisions of it does not in itself deprive those provisions of direct effect. In particular, such provisions may have direct effect where recourse to the possibilities of derogation thus provided for is subject to judicial review (see, to the same effect, the judgment in Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337, paragraph 7).
16 That is precisely the situation in the present case as regards the possibility of derogating from the standard levels of the fees laid down by Article 2(1) of Decision 88/408. As may be seen from Article 2(2) and the annex to Decision 88/408, the amount of the fee may be increased to that of the actual inspection costs where the latter exceed the levels of fees fixed by Article 2(1) of the decision. The possibility of increasing the fee is thus made subject to conditions the fulfilment of which may be the subject of review by the Court.
17 Consequently, the fact that Article 2(2) of Decision 88/408 allows the Member States the possibility of setting higher fees by way of derogation from the standard levels of fees provided for by Article 2(1) of that decision cannot deprive that provision of direct effect.
20 The possibility granted to individuals of relying on a decision as against the Member States to which it is addressed is based on the binding nature of the decision vis-à-vis its addressees. Consequently, where the decision grants the Member States a specified period in which to comply with the obligations resulting from it, the decision may not be relied on by individuals as against the Member States before the expiry of the period in question.
23 It must next be made clear that each Member State is free to allocate powers internally and to implement Community acts which are not directly applicable by means of measures adopted by regional or local authorities, provided that that allocation of powers enables the Community legal measures in question to be implemented correctly.
24 In the present case, no provision of Decision 88/408 precludes the Member States from entrusting to regional or local authorities the powers to derogate from the standard levels of fees, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by Article 2(2) of that decision.
Roland Teulie v Cave coopérative "les Vignerons de Puissalicon".
Date: 1992-11-11
13 It must be borne in mind that the fact that a regulation is directly applicable does not prevent its provisions from empowering a Member State to take implementing measures (see Case 230/78 Eridiana Zuccherifici [1979] ECR 2749, paragraph 34). That applies to Article 7 of Regulation No 1442/88. As is made clear in the last sentence of the eighth recital in the preamble thereto, the Council considered it appropriate, in view of the differences existing in wine-growing structures within the Community, that any compensation scheme should be adopted by the Member States.
18 Even if it were assumed that the French Republic had failed in its duty of notification, it must be observed that, in view of the fact that the adoption of national measures for the implementation of Article 7(1) is not made conditional on their prior notification to the Commission, the notification requirement in question was imposed for the purposes of information only. Consequently, the absence of such notification does not affect the validity of the French measures providing for 15% of the grubbing-up premium to be withheld for the benefit of the wine cooperatives (see Joined Cases C-251/90 and C-252/90 Wood and Cowie [1992] ECR I-2873, paragraph 28).
A. Fournier and others v V. van Werven, Bureau central français and others.
Date: 1992-11-12
22 It must be stated in that regard that even though the national court submitted its question with a view to obtaining a ruling on the interpretation of the agreement between national bureaux, the purpose of which is to determine which of the bureaux must, ultimately, bear the cost of paying compensation to the victim, that argument is not relevant since the determination, in that agreement, of the bureau which is to pay the compensation was arrived at in an area not covered by the Directive and the terms used in the agrement do not therefore necessarily have to have the same meaning as those used in the Directive.
23 Consequently, it is for the national court, as the only court with jurisdiction to interpret the agreement between the national bureaux, to give to the terms used in that agreement the meaning which it considers appropriate, without being bound in that regard by the meaning which must be attributed to the same expression as used in the Directive.