larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Merck & Co. Inc. v Stephar BV and Petrus Stephanus Exler.
Date: 1981-07-14
9 IN THE LIGHT OF THAT CONFLICT OF VIEWS , IT MUST BE STATED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THE PATENT , WHICH HAS BEEN DESCRIBED ABOVE , THE SUBSTANCE OF A PATENT RIGHT LIES ESSENTIALLY IN ACCORDING THE INVENTOR AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF FIRST PLACING THE PRODUCT ON THE MARKET .
10 THAT RIGHT OF FIRST PLACING A PRODUCT ON THE MARKET ENABLES THE INVENTOR , BY ALLOWING HIM A MONOPOLY IN EXPLOITING HIS PRODUCT , TO OBTAIN THE REWARD FOR HIS CREATIVE EFFORT WITHOUT , HOWEVER , GUARANTEEING THAT HE WILL OBTAIN SUCH A REWARD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES .
11 IT IS FOR THE PROPRIETOR OF THE PATENT TO DECIDE , IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES , UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS HE WILL MARKET HIS PRODUCT , INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MARKETING IT IN A MEMBER STATE WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION . IF HE DECIDES TO DO SO HE MUST THEN ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS CHOICE AS REGARDS THE FREE MOVEMENT OF THE PRODUCT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET , WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE FORMING PART OF THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE PATENT IN DETERMINING THE MANNER IN WHICH HIS EXCLUSIVE RIGHT WILL BE EXERCISED .
12 THAT IS BORNE OUT , MOREOVER , BY THE STATEMENTS OF THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 22 JUNE 1976 ( TERRAPIN , CASE 119/75 ( 1976 ) ECR 1039 ) AND 20 JANUARY 1981 ( MUSIK-VERTRIEB MEMBRAN AND K-TEL , JOINED CASES 55 AND 57/80 ( NOT YET PUBLISHED ) INASMUCH AS ' ' THE PROPRIETOR OF AN INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROP-  ERTY RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE LAW OF A MEMBER STATE CANNOT RELY ON THAT LAW TO PREVENT THE IMPORTATION OF A PRODUCT WHICH HAS BEEN LAWFULLY MARKETED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THE PROPRIETOR HIMSELF OR WITH HIS CONSENT ' ' .
13 UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS TO PERMIT AN INVENTOR , OR ONE CLAIMING UNDER HIM , TO INVOKE A PATENT HELD BY HIM IN ONE MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE IMPORTATION OF THE PRODUCT FREELY MARKETED BY HIM IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHERE THAT PRODUCT IS NOT PATENTABLE WOULD BRING ABOUT A PARTITIONING OF THE NATIONAL MARKETS WHICH WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE AIMS OF THE TREATY .
Anklagemyndigheden v Hans Ulrich Schumacher, Peter Hans Gerth, Johannes Heinrich Gothmann and Alfred C. Töpfer.
Date: 1981-10-27
16 IT MAY BE SEEN THEREFORE FROM THOSE RULES THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A PRODUCT ORIGINATING IN A NEW MEMBER STATE OR IN THE COMMUNITY AS ORIGINALLY     CONSTITUTED HAS REMAINED ON THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE DESIGNATED AS THE IMPORTING STATE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE AND FOR THE DURATION OF COMPLETION OF THE CUSTOMS FORMALITIES AND , WITHOUT BEING MARKETED IN THAT STATE , HAS IMMEDIATELY BEEN RE-EXPORTED SO AS TO BE MARKETED IN A THIRD MEMBER STATE , IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION BETWEEN THE EXPORTING STATE AND THE IMPORTING STATE OF AN ' ' ACCESSION ' '  COMPENSATORY AMOUNT . SINCE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE OBJECTIVE OF OFFSETTING PRICES HAS NOT BEEN ATTAINED , AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR APPLICATION OF AN ' ' ACCESSION ' '  COMPENSATORY AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED .
Krupp Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1981-10-28
13 AS REGARDS THE NOTIFICATION OF 1 NOVEMBER 1980 , IT IS TO BE REGRETTED THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO STATE THE PROVISIONS WHICH IT WAS APPLYING AND TO EXPLAIN THE INTERPRETATION WHICH IT WAS THUS GIVING TO DECISION 2794/80 . IT IS HOWEVER TRUE THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT , BY EXAMINING THE FIGURES IN THE NOTIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE METHODS OF CALCULATION DEFINED IN THE DECISION , TO DETERMINE WHICH PROVISIONS HAD BEEN APPLIED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF ITS OWN ECONOMIC POSITION . THE COMMISSION ' S SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REASONS WAS THEREFORE NOT SUCH AS TO DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF CHECKING THE CORRECT APPLICATION , IN REGARD TO     ITSELF , OF THE RULES LAID DOWN BY DECISION 2794/80 OR TO PREVENT THE COURT FROM EXERCISING ITS TASK OF REVIEW AND THEREFORE CANNOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF 1 NOVEMBER 1980 .
THE CONDITIONS FOR APPLYING ARTICLE 4 , POINT 4 , OF DECISION 2794/80
Günther Arning v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1981-10-29
13 AS THE COURT ALSO STATED IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT , IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 25 HAS BEEN MET , IT IS ADVISABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY THE DOCUMENT GIVING NOTICE OF THAT DECISION BUT ALSO THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WAS TAKEN AND BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON CONCERNED . IN THIS REGARD , IT IS NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE IN PARTICULAR WHETHER THE APPLICANT WAS ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE INFORMATION ON WHICH THE COMMISSION ALLEGES THAT THE DECISION WAS BASED .
Anton Birke v Commission and Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1981-11-12
28 THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION SEEKS TO OBTAIN PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS THOSE WHICH HE WOULD OBTAIN FROM THE ANNULMENT OF THE REGULATIONS . THE COURT HAS HELD ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1966 ( SCHRECKENBERG , CASE 59/65 ( 1966 ) ECR 543 ) THAT ALTHOUGH A PARTY MAY TAKE ACTION BY MEANS OF A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION WITHOUT BEING OBLIGED BY ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THE ILLEGAL MEASURE WHICH CAUSES HIM DAMAGE , HE MAY NOT BY THIS MEANS CIRCUMVENT THE INADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION WHICH CONCERNS THE SAME ILLEGALITY AND WHICH HAS THE SAME FINANCIAL END IN VIEW . THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
Günter Bruckner v Commission and Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1981-11-12
19 THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION SEEKS TO OBTAIN PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS THOSE WHICH HE WOULD OBTAIN FROM THE ANNULMENT OF THE REGULATIONS . THE COURT HAS HELD ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1966 ( SCHRECKENBERG , CASE 59/65 ( 1966 ) ECR 543 ) THAT ALTHOUGH A PARTY MAY TAKE ACTION BY MEANS OF A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION WITHOUT BEING OBLIGED BY ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THE ILLEGAL MEASURE WHICH CAUSES HIM DAMAGE , HE MAY NOT BY THIS MEANS CIRCUMVENT THE INADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION WHICH CONCERNS THE SAME ILLEGALITY AND WHICH HAS THE SAME FINANCIAL END IN VIEW . THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi and others ; Ditta Italo Orlandi & Figlio and Ditta Vincenzo Divella v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato.
Date: 1981-11-12
8 HOWEVER , AS THE REGULATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS , IT IS ADVISABLE TO HAVE RECOURSE TO GENERALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRET-  ATION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT RATIONE TEMPORIS , HAVING REGARD BOTH TO WORDING OF THE REGULATION AND TO ITS OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL SCHEME .
9 ALTHOUGH PROCEDURAL RULES ARE GENERALLY HELD TO APPLY TO ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AT THE TIME WHEN THEY ENTER INTO FORCE , THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH SUBSTANTIVE RULES . ON THE CONTRARY , THE LATTER ARE USUALLY INTERPRETED AS APPLYING TO SITUATIONS EXISTING BEFORE THEIR ENTRY INTO FORCE ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT CLEARLY FOLLOWS FROM THEIR TERMS , OBJECTIVES OR GENERAL SCHEME THAT SUCH AN EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO THEM .
11 IN THIS REGARD , IT SHOULD BE STATED FIRST THAT THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BODY OF RULES COVERING THE POST-CLEARANCE RECOVERY OF IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES , RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY OR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY ON THE CUSTOMS UNION . REPLACING THE RELEVANT NATIONAL PROVISIONS WITH COMMUNITY PROVISIONS , THAT REGULATION CONTAINS BOTH PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE RULES WHICH FORM AN INDIVISIBLE WHOLE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS OF WHICH MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION , WITH REGARD TO THE TIME AT WHICH THEY TAKE EFFECT .
15 IT APPEARS FROM ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE REGULATION COVERS ONLY IMPORT OR EXPORT TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT OF DUTIES WAS MADE ON OR AFTER 1 JULY 1980 .
Analog Devices GmbH v Hauptzollamt München-Mitte and Hauptzollamt München-West.
Date: 1981-11-19
12 ADMITTEDLY , IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR CONCERNED , AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE USE OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AS BASIC UNITS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN ELECTRONIC MICRO-CIRCUITS HAS BECOME MORE WIDESPREAD , JUSTIFY THE DRAWING UP OF A NEW CUSTOMS CLASSIFICATION . HOWEVER , IF THAT IS THE CASE , IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT     COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF IT BY AMENDING THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF . FAILING SUCH AN AMENDMENT , THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TARIFF CANNOT BE ADAPTED TO CHANGING PROCESSES .
Paolo Benassi v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1981-11-19
5 AS THE COURT STATED IN THE JUDGMENT CITED ABOVE , THE FUNCTION OF THE WEIGHTING MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 64 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE REMUNERATION OF ALL OFFICIALS HAS THE SAME PURCHASING POWER , WHATEVER THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE WEIGHTING MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 65 IS A MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL FOR ADJUSTING THE REMUNERATION OF ALL OFFICIALS AND SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES .

THE SECOND KIND OF WEIGHTING , AS PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR ADJUSTING THE REMUNERATION OF OFFICIALS EMPLOYED AT THE SEATS OF THE COMMUNITIES , IS INTENDED BY VIRTUE OF ITS VERY FUNCTION TO BE MERGED WITH THE BASIC SALARY , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS ADOPTED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE REMUNERATION BY ITS APPLICATION TO THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE TABLE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 66 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS .
Bernard Michel v European Parliament.
Date: 1981-11-26
22 HOWEVER , IT MUST BE REMEMBERED IN THAT REGARD THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING A PERSON SHOULD STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH IT IS BASED IS INTENDED TO ENABLE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION AND TO PROVIDE THE PERSON CONCERNED WITH DETAILS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW HIM TO     ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE DECISION IS WELL FOUNDED OR WHETHER IT IS VITIATED BY AN ERROR WHICH WILL ALLOW ITS LEGALITY TO BE CONTESTED . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS MUST IN PRINCIPLE BE NOTIFIED TO THE PERSON CONCERNED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING HIM AND THAT A FAILURE TO STATE THE REASONS CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY THE FACT THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED LEARNS THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT .
Pfizer Inc. v Eurim-Pharm GmbH.
Date: 1981-12-03
7 THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE TRADE-MARK RIGHT IS IN PARTICULAR TO GUARANTEE TO THE PROPRIETOR THAT HE HAS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THAT TRADE     MARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING A PRODUCT INTO CIRCULATION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEREFORE TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST COMPETITORS WISHING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE STATUS AND REPUTATION OF THE TRADE MARK BY SELLING PRODUCTS ILLEGALLY BEARING THAT TRADE MARK .
8 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT EXCLUSIVE RIGHT INVOLVES THE RIGHT TO PREVENT THE TRADE MARK FROM BEING AFFIXED BY A THIRD PERSON AFTER THE PRODUCT HAS BEEN RE-PACKAGED , REGARD MUST BE HAD TO THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE TRADE MARK , WHICH IS TO GUARANTEE THE IDENTITY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE TRADE-MARKED PRODUCT TO THE CONSUMER OR FINAL USER BY ENABLING HIM TO DISTINGUISH WITHOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION BETWEEN THAT PRODUCT AND PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE ANOTHER ORIGIN . THIS GUARANTEE OF ORIGIN MEANS THAT THE CONSUMER OR FINAL USER MAY BE CERTAIN THAT A TRADE-MARKED PRODUCT WHICH IS OFFERED TO HIM HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT AT A PREVIOUS STAGE IN THE MARKETING PROCESS TO INTERFERENCE BY A THIRD PERSON , WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROPRIETOR OF THE TRADE MARK , AFFECTING THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF THE PRODUCT .
9 IN CONSEQUENCE , THE RIGHT ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPRIETOR OF THE TRADE MARK ENABLING HIM TO PREVENT ANY USE THEREOF WHICH IS LIKELY TO IMPAIR THE GUARANTEE OF ORIGIN AS DEFINED ABOVE , IS THEREFORE PART OF THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE TRADE-MARK RIGHT .
11 IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE RE-PACKAGING IN FACT INVOLVES NO RISK OF EXPOSING THE PRODUCT TO INTERFERENCE OR INFLUENCES WHICH MIGHT AFFECT ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AND THE CONSUMER OR FINAL USER OF THE PRODUCT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE MISLED AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PRODUCT , ABOVE ALL WHERE , AS IN THIS CASE , THE PARALLEL IMPORTER HAS CLEARLY INDICATED ON THE EXTERNAL WRAPPING THAT THE     PRODUCT WAS MANUFACTURED BY A SUBSIDIARY OF THE PROPRIETOR OF THE TRADE MARK AND HAS BEEN RE-PACKAGED BY THE IMPORTER .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1981-12-09
25 AS JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS RULES ON THIS MATTER THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT CONSUMERS WHO IN ITALY ' ' BY TIME-HONOURED TRADITION ' '  TREAT ALL ' ' VINEGARS ' '  AS WINE-VINEGAR OWING TO THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF THE WORD ' ' ACETO ' '  ( VINEGAR ). CONSUMERS THUS RUN THE RISK OF BEING MISLED AS TO THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE RAW MATERIAL USED AND OF THE END-PRODUCT .
26 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS AND IN PARTICULAR FROM HEADING 22.10 OF THE COMMON     CUSTOMS TARIFF , WHICH IS ALSO USED IN ANNEX II TO THE TREATY FOR WHICH ARTICLE 38 OF THE TREATY MAKES PROVISION , THAT THE TERM VINEGAR DOES NOT COVER WINE-VINEGAR ALONE WHICH , MOREOVER , IS THE SUBJECT OF A SPECIFIC SUBHEADING . IT FOLLOWS THAT VINEGAR IS A GENERIC TERM AND IT WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON MARKET AND IN PARTICULAR WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS FOR NATIONAL LEGISLATION TO BE ABLE TO RESTRICT A GENERIC TERM TO ONE NATIONAL VARIETY ALONE TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER VARIETIES PRODUCED , IN PARTICULAR , IN OTHER MEMBER STATES .
Regina v Robert Tymen.
Date: 1981-12-16
16 THE SAME QUESTION HAS ALREADY FORMED THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE JUDGMENT OF 16 FEBRUARY 1978 ( CASE 88/77 , SCHONENBERG , ( 1978 ) ECR 473 ). IN THAT JUDGMENT , WHICH , LIKE THE PRESENT CASE , CONCERNED A BREACH OF NATIONAL FISHERY PROVISIONS , THE COURT FOUND THAT WHERE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE BROUGHT BY VIRTUE OF A NATIONAL MEASURE WHICH IS HELD TO BE CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW A CONVICTION IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO INCOMPATIBLE WITH THAT LAW .
17 THE REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST ACCORDINGLY BE THAT WHERE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE BROUGHT BY VIRTUE OF A NATIONAL MEASURE WHICH IS HELD TO BE CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW A CONVICTION IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO INCOMPATIBLE WITH THAT LAW .

THIRD , FOURTH AND FIFTH QUESTIONS
Jacques de Hoe v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1981-12-17
17 IN HIS THIRD SUBMISSION THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT AT THE TIME OF THE CONTESTED DECISION THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE HIS PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1975 TO 1977 . IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT , ACCORDING TO THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , PERIODIC REPORTS CONSTITUTE ESSENTIAL FACTORS FOR ALL DECISIONS CONCERNING AN OFFICIAL ' S CAREER .
18 HOWEVER , IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE REPORT WAS DRAWN UP BY THE COMPETENT REPORTING OFFICER ON 5 DECEMBER 1977 , THAT IT WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT HE MIGHT READ AND COUNTERSIGN IT , AND THAT HE LATER REQUESTED AN INTERVIEW WITH HIS REPORTING OFFICER . AS A RESULT OF THAT INTERVIEW , THE REPORTING OFFICER CHANGED HIS REPORT AND IN APRIL 1978 DREW UP A NEW REPORT WITH FOUR COPIES AND TRANSMITTED THEM TO THE APPLICANT WHO KEPT THEM AND STILL HELD THEM AT THE TIME WHEN THE APPLICATION TO THE COURT     WAS MADE . THIS SHOWS THAT THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF DID NOT CONSIDER THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS QUALITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THE POST TO BE FILLED THAT THAT DOCUMENT SHOULD APPEAR IN HIS FILE .
19 UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICANT MAY NOT RELY ON THE ABSENCE OF THE PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE PERIOD MENTIONED , AND THEREFORE THE THIRD SUBMISSION MUST ALSO BE REJECTED .
Criminal proceedings against Frans-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Biologische Producten BV.
Date: 1981-12-17
9 WHILST IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT , IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , TO PRONOUNCE UPON THE COMPATIBILITY OF RULES OF NATIONAL LAW WITH PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW , IT DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH ALL MATERIAL CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH WILL ENABLE THAT COURT TO JUDGE WHETHER THOSE RULES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW IN QUESTION . THE QUESTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AS ASKING , ESSENTIALLY , WHETHER , AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT , THE SYSTEM AND THE DETAILED PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE APPROVAL OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE EEC TREATY .
12 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT , AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES , THERE WERE NO COMMON OR HARMONIZED RULES RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION OR MARKETING OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS . IN THE ABSENCE OF HARMONIZATION , IT WAS THEREFORE FOR THE MEMBER STATES TO DECIDE WHAT DEGREE OF PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF HUMANS THEY INTENDED TO ASSURE AND IN PARTICULAR HOW STRICT THE CHECKS TO BE CARRIED OUT WERE TO BE ( JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 20 MAY 1976 IN CASE 104/75 DE PEIJPER ( 1976 ) ECR 613 AT P . 635 ), HAVING REGARD HOWEVER TO THE FACT THAT THEIR FREEDOM OF ACTION IS ITSELF RESTRICTED BY THE TREATY .
14 WHILST A MEMBER STATE IS FREE TO REQUIRE A PRODUCT OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION , WHICH HAS ALREADY RECEIVED APPROVAL IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , TO UNDERGO A FRESH PROCEDURE OF EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL , THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES ARE NEVERTHELESS REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN BRINGING ABOUT A RELAXATION OF THE CONTROLS EXISTING IN INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE . IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED UNNECESSARILY TO REQUIRE TECHNICAL OR CHEMICAL ANALYSES OR LABORATORY TESTS WHERE THOSE ANALYSES AND TESTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CARRIED OUT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND THEIR RESULTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THOSE AUTHORITIES , OR MAY AT THEIR REQUEST BE PLACED AT THEIR DISPOSAL .
15 FOR THE SAME REASONS , A MEMBER STATE OPERATING AN APPROVALS PROCEDURE MUST ENSURE THAT NO UNNECESSARY CONTROL EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IF THE PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE CONTROL CARRIED OUT IN THE MEMBER STATE OF ORIGIN SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE MERE FACT THAT THOSE EXPENSES WEIGH MORE HEAVILY ON A TRADER MARKETING SMALL QUANTITIES OF AN APPROVED PRODUCT THAN ON HIS COMPETITOR WHO MARKETS MUCH GREATER QUANTITIES , DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH EXPENSES CONSTITUTE ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION OR A DISGUISED RESTRICTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 36 .
Regina v Social Security Commissioner, ex parte Norman Ivor Browning.
Date: 1981-12-17
12 THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE IN VIEW OF WHICH THE COURT MADE REFERENCE IN ITS DECISION OF 30 NOVEMBER 1977 , CITED ABOVE , WHERE IN PARAGRAPH 5 IT IS STATED THAT ' ' ARTICLE 50 COVERS CASES WHERE THE PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE WORKER UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE TO WHICH HE WAS SUBJECT WERE RELATIVELY SHORT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE BY THOSE STATES DOES NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF LIVING ' ' .
13 THAT VIEW MAY BE DEDUCED FROM THE ACTUAL WORDING OF ARTICLE 50 , WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE HEADING AND IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE TO THE AWARD OF A ' ' SUPPLEMENT ' ' , MEANING AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM PAYABLE IN APPLICATION OF THE NORMAL RULES UNDER A PARTICULAR NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM . THAT VIEW MAY LIKEWISE BE DEDUCED FROM THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 50 , WHICH STATES THAT A RECIPIENT OF BENEFITS TO WHOM THE REGULATION APPLIES IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE ' ' DIFFERENCE ' '  BETWEEN THE TOTAL OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE UNDER THE REGULATION , THAT IS TO SAY , THE SUM RESULTING FROM THE NORMAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES CONCERNING AGGREGATION AND APPORTIONMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 46 , AND THE MINIMUM BENEFIT WHICH IS GUARANTEED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF RESIDENCE . SUCH A METHOD OF CALCULATION IMPLIES THAT WHAT IS MEANT IS A MINIMUM RESULTING FROM A SPECIFIC GUARANTEE LAID DOWN UNDER NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND NOT THE MINIMUM BENEFITS WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE RULES CONCERNING THE DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS TO RETIREMENT PENSION ON THE BASIS OF THE INSURANCE PERIODS WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID .
14 THOSE CONSIDERATIONS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE MINIMUM BENEFITS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 50 ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ' ' THEORETICAL AMOUNT ' '  REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 46 ( 2 ) ( A ), WHICH DOES NOT REPRESENT A SUM THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF WHICH IS GUARANTEED , BUT FORMS THE BASIS OF CALCULATION USED IN APPLYING THE RULES CONCERNING AGGREGATION AND APPORTIONMENT .
Nicolaus Corman & Fils SA v Hauptzollamt Gronau.
Date: 1982-01-14
8 THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH REGULATION NO 1259/72 , THAT IS TO SAY , ON PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH DO NOT REFER TO LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES IN DETERMINING THEIR MEANING AND SCOPE ; THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER DOES NOT IN FACT AIM IN PRINCIPLE TO DEFINE ITS CONCEPTS ON THE BASIS OF ONE OR MORE NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS WITHOUT EXPRESS PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT . IN THIS CASE ALL NATIONAL VARIATIONS FROM SUCH COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS AS TO QUALITY TEND TO DISTORT THE UNIFORM EFFECT OF REGULATION NO 1259/72 AS AMENDED AND TO USE IT FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED , WHICH IS THE DISPOSAL OF BUTTER STOCKS BY SALE AT A REDUCED PRICE TO CERTAIN PROCESSING UNDERTAKINGS BY PERMITTING A REDUCTION IN THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE MARKETING OF PRODUCTS WHOSE DESTINATION IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT FOR WHICH A FAVOURABLE RATE IS PROVIDED BY THAT REGULATION .