larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH.
Date: 2002-04-23
23 It is clear from paragraph 14 of the judgment in Case 102/77 Hoffmann-La Roche [1978] ECR 1139 that the proprietor of a trade mark right which is protected in two Member States at the same time is justified, for the purposes of the first sentence of Article 30 EC, in preventing a product to which the trade mark has lawfully been applied in one of those States from being put on the market in the other Member State after it has been repacked in new packaging to which the trade mark has been affixed by a third party. That paragraph also states, however, that such prevention of marketing will constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member States, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 30 EC, where it is established, in particular, that the use of the trade mark right by the proprietor, having regard to the marketing system which he has adopted, will contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States.
25 The Court has found in that respect that it is necessary to take account of the circumstances prevailing at the time of marketing in the importing Member State which make repackaging objectively necessary in order that the pharmaceutical product can be placed on the market in that State by the parallel importer. The trade mark proprietor's opposition to the repackaging is not justified if it hinders effective access of the imported product to the market of that State (see, to that effect, Upjohn, paragraph 43).
26 Such an impediment exists, for example, where pharmaceutical products purchased by the parallel importer cannot be placed on the market in the Member State of importation in their original packaging by reason of national rules or practices relating to packaging, or where sickness insurance rules make reimbursement of medical expenses depend on a certain packaging or where well-established medical prescription practices are based, inter alia, on standard sizes recommended by professional groups and sickness insurance institutions. In that regard, it is sufficient for there to be an impediment in respect of one type of packaging used by the trade mark proprietor in the Member State of importation (see Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, paragraphs 53 and 54).
27 In contrast, the trade mark proprietor may oppose the repackaging if it is based solely on the parallel importer's attempt to secure a commercial advantage (see, to that effect, Upjohn, paragraph 44).
28 In that context, it has also been held that the trade mark proprietor may oppose replacement packaging where the parallel importer is able to reuse the original packaging for the purpose of marketing in the Member State of importation by affixing labels to that packaging (see Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others, paragraph 55).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2002-04-25
29 Contrary to the arguments put forward by the Italian Government, it makes no difference in this regard whether the waste water discharges directly or indirectly into a sensitive area.
30 The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the directive, which deals with discharges of urban waste water into receiving waters considered sensitive areas, and Article 5(2) of the directive, which requires urban waste water entering collecting systems to be subjected to more stringent treatment before discharge into sensitive areas, make no distinction between direct and indirect discharges into sensitive areas.
31 That interpretation is, moreover, supported by the objective of the directive, which is, according to Article 1, the protection of the environment, and by Article 174(2) EC, which provides that Community policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection.
32 That objective would be undermined if only waste water which discharges directly into a sensitive area had to be subjected to more stringent treatment than that mentioned in Article 4 of the directive.
Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido, and Club Med Viagens Ldª.
Date: 2002-04-30
13 The Directive, which is designed amongst other things to protect consumers who buy package holidays, gives a definition of that term in Article 2(1) whereby it is enough, for a service to qualify as a package, if, first, the combination of tourist services sold by a travel agency at an inclusive price includes two of the three services referred to in that paragraph (namely transport, accommodation and other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a significant proportion of the package), and, second, that service covers a period of more than 24 hours or includes overnight accommodation.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2002-05-07
8 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26).
10 Further, it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by Community directives, nor therefore the late or incomplete implementation of a directive (see, in particular, Case C-140/01 Commission v Belgium [2002] ECR I-2105, paragraph 16). Likewise, as the Court has also held, it is irrelevant that the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations is the result of technical difficulties encountered by it (see, in particular, Case C-152/98 Commission v Netherlands [2001] ECR I-3463, paragraph 41).
Michael Hölterhoff v Ulrich Freiesleben.
Date: 2002-05-14
16 In that regard, it is sufficient to state that, in a situation such as that described by the national court, the use of the trade mark does not infringe any of the interests which Article 5(1) is intended to protect. Those interests are not affected by a situation in which:
- the third party refers to the trade mark in the course of commercial negotiations with a potential customer, who is a professional jeweller,
- the reference is made for purely descriptive purposes, namely in order to reveal the characteristics of the product offered for sale to the potential customer, who is familiar with the characteristics of the products covered by the trade mark concerned,
- the reference to the trade mark cannot be interpreted by the potential customer as indicating the origin of the product.
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2002-05-14
16 It is settled law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-110/00 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I-7545, paragraph 13, and Case C-423/00 Commission v Belgium [2002] ECR I-593, paragraph 14).
18 Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-423/00 Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 16). While, pursuant to the principle of cooperation, the Commission and the Member States must work together in good faith, such cooperation must be in full compliance with the Treaty and secondary legislation.
19 Moreover, under the system established by Article 226 EC, the Commission enjoys a discretionary power as to whether it will bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations and it is not for the Court to judge whether that discretion was wisely exercised (see, in particular, Case C-236/99 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-5657, paragraph 28).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2002-05-16
21 According to that case-law, the principles of which were set out in the judgment in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 16, the authorities of a Member State, when considering a request by a national of another Member State for authorisation to exercise a regulated profession, must take into consideration the professional qualification of the person concerned by making a comparison between the qualifications certified by his diplomas, certificates and other formal qualifications and by his relevant professional experience and the professional qualifications required by the national rules for the exercise of the profession in question (see, most recently, Case C-31/00 Dreessen [2002] ECR I-663, paragraph 31).
22 That obligation extends to all diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as well as to the relevant experience of the person concerned, irrespective of whether they were acquired in a Member State or in a third country, and it does not cease to exist as a result of the adoption of directives on the mutual recognition of diplomas (see judgment of 14 September 2000 in Case C-238/98 Hocsman [2000] ECR I-6623, paragraphs 23 and 31).
25 As a result of the automatic and unconditional effect of those systems of mutual recognition, and of the fact that they make it possible to know precisely and in advance if a particular diploma gives the right to take up and pursue the corresponding profession in other Member States, those systems are generally more advantageous for the persons concerned than is the application of the principles set out in the case-law referred to in paragraphs 21 and 22 above. Nevertheless, that case-law certainly remains relevant in situations not covered by the directives providing for the mutual recognition of diplomas (see Hocsman, cited above, paragraph 34).
32 Such a situation exists, for example, in the case of cardiology, which, while constituting a medical specialty in most Member States, is in some other Member States considered to be a specialised branch of internal medicine, so that a diploma of specialist doctor in internal medicine - cardiology cannot be the subject of the automatic and unconditional recognition prescribed in Articles 4 and 6 of Directive 93/16 (see, to that effect, Case C-16/99 Erpelding [2000] ECR I-6821, paragraph 27).
Heinrich Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover, and Wilhelm Wieggrebe and Irmtraut Bredemeier.
Date: 2002-05-16
10 Furthermore, in paragraphs 38 and 39 of its judgment in Case C-44/89 Von Deetzen (II) [1991] ECR I-5119, the Court interpreted the term similar transaction within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 7a of Regulation No 1546/88 and held that it refers to any transaction, whatever its legal basis, which produces effects comparable to those of inheritance and that it embraces, in particular, transactions concluded in respect of the holding concerned between a producer and the potential beneficiary of his estate, provided that the terms of the transaction in question are such that, according to its purpose and subject-matter, the main intention is that the holding should continue to be exploited by the potential beneficiary and not that the marketable value of the holding should be realised by the person from whom he stands to inherit. That is the case where conditions of the contract embodying the transaction in question are such that they place the potential beneficiary in a privileged position compared with that of an operator taking over a comparable holding on an arm's length basis.
29 In paragraph 38 of Von Deetzen II, the Court stated that such an operation exists where the transaction concerned, according to its purpose and subject-matter, has as its main intention that the holding should continue to be exploited by the potential beneficiary and not that the marketable value of the holding should be realised by the person from whom he stands to inherit. It further stated, in paragraph 39 of that judgment, that that is the case where the conditions of the contract embodying the transaction in question place the potential beneficiary in a privileged position compared with that of an operator taking over a comparable holding on an arm's length basis.
32 However, as the use of the expression in particular in paragraph 38 of Von Deetzen II suggests, those are not the only transactions capable of favouring the potential beneficiary in the sense indicated by the Court in that judgment.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2002-05-16
7 It is evident from settled case-law, first, that implementation of the obligations imposed on Member States by the EC Treaty or secondary legislation cannot be made subject to a condition of reciprocity (see Case C-163/99 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-2613, paragraph 22) and, second, that mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given sufficient publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty (Case C-334/94 Commission v France [1996] ECR I-1307, paragraph 30).
8 Moreover, it is settled case-law that a failure to fulfil obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Case C-435/99 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-11179, paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Date: 2002-05-16
7 It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26).
Stratmann GmbH und Co. KG v Landrätin des Kreises Wesel (C-284/00) and Fleischversorgung Neuss GmbH und Co. KG v Landrat des Kreises Neuss (C-288/00).
Date: 2002-05-30
4 Article 3(1)(A)(d) of Directive 64/433, in the version resulting from Directive 89/662, states:
Each Member State shall ensure that only fresh meat which meets the following requirements is sent from its territory to that of another Member State:
A. Carcases, half carcases or half carcases cut into no more than three wholesale cuts, and quarters must:
...
(d) have been inspected post mortem by an official veterinarian in accordance with Chapter VII of Annex I and not have shown any change except for traumatic lesions which occurred shortly before slaughter or localised malformations or changes, provided that it is established, if necessary by appropriate laboratory tests, that these do not render the carcase and offal unfit for human consumption or dangerous to human health.
52 As the Advocate General has pointed out at point 58 of his Opinion, a standard fee by its very nature exceeds the actual cost of the measures which it is intended to finance in certain cases and is lower than that cost in other cases.
56 On the contrary, it is evident both from the annex to Decision 88/408 and from point 4(a) and (b) of Chapter I of the annex to Directive 85/73, as amended by Directive 93/118, that any increase decided on by a Member State must relate to the standard amount of the Community fee itself and take the form of an increase in the standard amount and that a special fee exceeding the levels of the Community fees must cover the entire actual costs.
Prefetto Provincia di Cuneo v Silvano Carbone, in his capacity as sole director of the company Expo Casa Manta Srl.
Date: 2002-05-30
26 The question of the need for a preliminary ruling to enable the national court to give judgment in the main proceedings is for that court to decide. According to settled case-law, where the questions referred concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see, in particular, Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 38; Case C-340/99 TNT Traco [2001] ECR I-4109, paragraph 30; and Case C-472/99 Clean Car Autoservice [2001] ECR I-9687, paragraph 13). None of the exceptions to the rule identified in that case-law applies to this case. In particular, it is not obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its subject-matter.
30 It is apparent from the preambles to those two regulations that their objective is to liberalise imports into the Community of products coming from third countries. Thus, the fourth recital in the preamble to Regulation 519/94 states that, in order to achieve greater uniformity in the rules for imports it is necessary to eliminate the exceptions and derogations resulting from the remaining national commercial policy measures. The third recital in the preamble to Regulation 3285/94 refers to the Agreement establishing the WTO and to GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards also contained in Annex 1A thereto. In the light of those new multilateral rules, according to the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation 3285/94, the common rules for imports should be made clearer and, if necessary, amended, particularly where the application of safeguard measures is concerned. The fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation 519/94 and the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation 3285/94 state that the starting point for the common rules for imports is liberalisation of imports, namely the absence of any quantitative restrictions.
31 Placing products on the market is a stage subsequent to importation. Just as a product lawfully manufactured within the Community may not be placed on the market on that ground alone, the lawful importation of a product does not imply that it will automatically be allowed onto the market.
32 A product coming from a third country, in respect of which the requirements laid down by Article 10(1) of the Treaty are satisfied, is regarded as being in free circulation. It will then be treated, according to Article 9(2) of the Treaty, in the same way as products originating in Member States as regards the elimination of customs duties and quantitative restrictions between the Member States (see Case 41/76 Donckerwolcke and Schou [1976] ECR 1921, paragraphs 16 and 17). In so far as there are no Community rules harmonising the conditions governing the marketing of the products concerned, the Member State into which they are put into free circulation may prevent their being placed on the market if they do not satisfy the conditions laid down for that purpose under national law.
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 2002-05-30
14 As regards the TSIs, the Court has already held that it is not apparent from the terms of the Directive and, in particular, of Article 23 thereof, that preparing TSIs is a precondition for the implementation of the Directive. It follows that the fact that the TSIs have not yet been adopted is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether or not a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations (Case C-372/00 Commission v Ireland [2001] ECR I-10303, paragraphs 14 and 15).
15 Nor is it relevant, as the Advocate General noted in point 6 of his Opinion, that no high-speed trains operate in Northern Ireland. In that connection the Court has already held that the fact that an activity referred to in a directive does not yet exist in a Member State cannot release that State from its obligation to adopt laws or regulations in order to ensure that all the provisions of the directive are properly transposed (Case C-214/98 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-9601, paragraph 22, and Commission v Ireland, cited above, paragraph 11).
16 It is in fact necessary for all citizens subject to the law in the United Kingdom, like others subject to the law within the Community, to know what their rights and duties are if and when a high-speed rail system is created and operated in that Member State.
17 It is only where transposition of a directive is pointless for reasons of geography that it is not mandatory (see, to that effect, Case 420/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 2983, paragraph 5). That is not so in the case of the island of Ireland, as may be seen from map 3.7 in Annex I to Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ 1996 L 228, p. 1).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2002-05-30
8 It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation obtaining in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-1147, paragraph 23).
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 2002-05-30
8 On that point, it is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26).
Criminal proceedings against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog.
Date: 2002-06-04
14 The obligation on national courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling has its basis in the cooperation established, in order to ensure the proper application and uniform interpretation of Community law in all the Member States, between national courts, as courts responsible for applying Community law, and the Court. That obligation is in particular designed to prevent a body of national case-law that is not in accordance with the rules of Community law from coming into existence in any Member State (see, inter alia, Hoffmann-La Roche, cited above, paragraph 5, and Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior [1997] ECR I-6013, paragraph 25).
15 That objective is secured when, subject to the limits accepted by the Court of Justice (CILFIT), supreme courts are bound by this obligation to refer (Parfums Christian Dior, cited above) as is any other national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law (Joined Cases 28/62, 29/62 and 30/62 Da Costa en Schaake [1963] ECR 31).
16 Decisions of a national appellate court which can be challenged by the parties before a supreme court are not decisions of a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law within the meaning of Article 234 EC. The fact that examination of the merits of such appeals is subject to a prior declaration of admissibility by the supreme court does not have the effect of depriving the parties of a judicial remedy.
25 According to the relevant provisions of Regulation No 918/83, imports of a non-commercial nature are imports which consist exclusively of goods for the personal use of travellers or their families, or of goods intended as presents, where the nature or quantity of the goods is not such as to indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons.