larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Minolta Camera Co. Ltd v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-03-10
10 As the Court has already held, in particular in its judgment in Case 250/85 Brother v Council [1988] ECR 5683, at paragraph 16, the division of production and sales activities within a group made up of legally distinct companies can in no way alter the fact that the group is a single economic entity which organizes in that way activities that, in other cases, are carried on by what is in legal terms as well a single entity.
11 Consequently, by including the selling, administrative and other general expenses of sales subsidiaries in the constructed normal value it is possible to avoid a situation where expenses necessarily included in the selling price of a product when it is sold by a sales department forming part of the manufacturer' s organization are not included when that product is sold by a company which, although financially controlled by the manufacturer, is a legally distinct entity (judgment in Joined Cases 260/85 and 106/86 TEC v Council [1988] ECR 5855, at paragraph 29).
12 It should next be observed that, according to the Court' s case-law (see inter alia the judgments in Case 240/84 Toyo v Council [1987] ECR 1809, at paragraph 13, Case 255/84 Nachi Fujikoshi v Council [1987] ECR 1861, at paragraph 14, Case 258/84 Nippon Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1923, at paragraph 14, and Case 260/84 Minebea v Council [1987] ECR 1975, at paragraph 8), determination of the normal value and determination of the export price are governed by separate rules and therefore selling, general and administrative expenses need not necessarily be treated in the same way in both cases.
18 To achieve that objective the institutions may take into consideration either the profit margin realized on sales of the same manufacturer' s other models or the profit margin realized by another company (see the judgments in Joined Cases 277 and 300/85 Canon v Council [1988] ECR 5731, at paragraphs 21 and 22, and Case 301/85 Sharp Corporation v Council [1988] ECR 5813, at paragraph 8). Consequently, it must be held that the institutions may also have recourse to an average profit in accordance with the method set out in paragraph 16.
22 Lastly, as far as the inclusion of the profit realized by the sales subsidiaries in Japan is concerned, it is sufficient to observe that the institutions are not under any obligation to choose as the reasonable margin of profit, within the meaning of Article 2(3)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 2176/84, the profit margin of the manufacturer rather than that of its sales subsidiary in the domestic market and they were fully entitled to adopt for that purpose the combined profit margins of the two companies in view of the fact that they constituted a single economic entity (judgment in Joined Cases 273/85 and 107/86 Silver Seiko v Council [1988] ECR 5927, at paragraph 17).
Sharp Corporation v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-03-10
8 As the Court has already held, in particular in its judgment in Case 250/85 Brother v Council [1988] ECR 5683, at paragraph 16, the division of production and sales activities within a group made up of legally distinct companies can in no way alter the fact that the group is a single economic entity which organizes in that way activities that, in other cases, are carried on by what is in legal terms as well a single entity.
11 It should further be added that, as the Court held in Joined Cases 273/85 and 107/86 Silver Seiko v Council [1988] ECR 5927, at paragraph 14, by taking into consideration the sales subsidiary' s prices it is possible to ensure that costs which manifestly form part of the selling price of a product where the sale is made by an internal sales department of the manufacturing organization are not left out of account where the same selling activity is carried out by a company which, despite being financially controlled by the manufacturer, is a legally distinct entity. The same is true as regards the inclusion of the costs incurred by SBK in the constructed normal value for one of Sharp' s models.
34 It should be noted in this connection that when the same argument was relied on by the applicant in Case C-156/87 Gestetner, cited above, the Court pointed out at paragraph 57 that, with regard to imports of PPCs supplied by Fuji Xerox from Japan, the institutions took the view that Rank Xerox had not produced evidence that it had been led to buy the machines on grounds of self-protection. According to the information obtained the decision was a management decision taken by the Xerox group of companies. However, the volume of those imports was minimal in relation to the entire range of PPCs produced by Rank Xerox within the Community and in relation to the Community market as a whole (1%), and the resale prices were the same as the prices of equivalent machines produced by Rank Xerox.
38 That argument cannot be accepted. As the Court held in its judgment in Case C-156/87 Gestetner, at paragraph 47, Olivetti and Océ imported PPCs from Japan so as to be able to offer their customers a full range of models. Those PPCs, falling within segments 1 and 2, were sold at higher prices than those charged by their suppliers and accounted for between 35 and 40% of sales and rentals of new machines placed on the market over the period from 1981 to July 1985. The attempts of both producers to develop and market a full range of models failed, however, because of the depressed market prices imposed by Japanese imports.
58 It should be borne in mind that, as the Court held in its judgment in C-156/87 Gestetner, at paragraph 63, the question whether the interests of the Community call for Community intervention involves appraisal of complex economic situations and judicial review of such an appraisal must be limited to verifying whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers.
Criminal proceedings against Thomas Edward Lomas and others.
Date: 1992-03-10
21 The practical difficulties which the Commission and the United Kingdom claim would preclude the implementation of a system of charging the clawback which provides for the amount of the premium to be exactly equal to that of the clawback cannot alter that conclusion.
23 With regard to the consequences of the declaration that Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1633/84 is invalid, it should be pointed out at once that, as the Court has consistently held (see, for example, Case 4/79 Providence Agricole de la Champagne v ONIC [1980] ECR 2823; Case 112/83 Produits de Maïs v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects [1985] ECR 719; and Case 41/84 Pinna v Caisse d' Allocations Familiales de la Savoie [1986] ECR 1), where it is justified by overriding considerations of legal certainty the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Treaty, which is applicable by analogy also to a reference under Article 177 of the Treaty for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a measure adopted by the Community institutions, confers on the Court a discretion to decide, in each particular case, which specific effects of a regulation that has been declared void must be regarded as definitive.
30 Accordingly, the answer to the second question submitted by the national courts must be that the declaration that Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1633/84 is invalid may not be relied upon with effect from a date prior to that of this judgment, except by traders or those entitled through them who initiated proceedings or made an equivalent complaint under the applicable national law before that date.
Question 3
Chief Adjudication Officer v Anne Maria Twomey.
Date: 1992-03-10
10 That argument cannot be upheld. As the Court stated in its judgment of 12 June 1986 in Case 302/84 (Ten Holder v Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging [1986] ECR 1821, at paragraphs 14 and 15), a worker who has ceased to carry on an activity in the territory of a Member State continues to be subject to the legislation of that State if he has not taken up employment in another Member State. Only workers who have definitively ceased all professional or trade activity fall outside the scope of Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 (see inter alia the Court' s judgment of 21 February 1991 in Case C-140/88 Noij v Staatsecretaris van Financiën [1991] ECR I-387, at paragraphs 9 and 10).
13 It should be noted first of all that, as the Court has consistently held, the definition of the concept of "worker" in Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 has a general scope and covers any person having the status of a person insured under the social security legislation of one or more Member States, whether or not pursuing a professional or trade activity (see inter alia the judgment in Case 182/87 Algemene Zickenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v Pierik [1979] ECR 1977, at paragraph 4). Mrs Twomey does have the status of a person insured under the legislation of the United Kingdom, inasmuch as she would be entitled to sickness benefit if she resided in the United Kingdom.
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1992-03-13
7 Article 19 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC and Article 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure provide that the application in a case brought before the Court must contain, among other things, the subject-matter of the dispute, the submissions and a brief statement of the grounds on which the application is based.
8 As the Court held in its judgment in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, at paragraphs 26 to 30, an application does not satisfy that requirement if the Commission' s complaints are not accurately set out in it and simply appear by way of reference to "all the reasons set out in the letter of formal notice and in the reasoned opinion".
Industrie- en Handelsonderneming Vreugdenhil BV v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-03-13
12 In this respect, it must be stated that only the national courts have jurisdiction to entertain an action for the recovery of amounts wrongfully charged by a national administration on the basis of Community rules which are subsequently declared invalid (see to this effect the judgment in Case 20/88 Roquette Frères v Commission [1989] ECR 1553, at paragraph 14). Following its action before the College, Vreugdenhil was able to obtain actual reimbursement of the sums wrongfully charged by the Netherlands intervention agency, plus interest at the statutory rate and the costs of the proceedings.
14 In regard to that claim, it should be observed that the combined provisions of Article 178 and Article 215 of the Treaty give the Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions seeking compensation for damage attributable to the Community, which is bound, under the second paragraph of Article 215, to make good, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties (judgment in Joined Cases 106/87 to 120/87 Asteris v Greece [1988] ECR 5515, at paragraph 14).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1992-03-18
7 It should first be observed that, as the Court as already held in its judgment in Case C-150/88 Komanditgesellschaft in Firma Eau de Cologne & Parfuemerie-Fabrik Glockengasse No 4711 v Provide SRL [1989] ECR 3891, paragraph 28, the directive provided exhaustively for the harmonization of national rules on the packaging and labelling of cosmetic products with which it was concerned.
12 The Court has consistently held (see, most recently, the judgment in Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2606, paragraph 35) that the subject-matter of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty is determined by the Commission' s reasoned opinion and that, even where the default has been remedied after the time-limit prescribed in the second paragraph of that article has expired, there is still an interest in pursuing the action in order to establish the basis of liability which a Member State may incur, as a result of its default towards other Member States, the Community or private parties.
13 It must therefore be held that, by making the marketing of cosmetic products dependent on the lodging with the competent national authorities of a declaration containing information other than that which a Member State may require under Article 7(3) of Council Directive 76/768 of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products and by requiring that any manufacturer or person responsible for the marketing of a cosmetic product should keep at the seat of his undertaking in Greece a file for each product manufactured or imported containing all particulars relating to the composition, properties and description of the product, to the formal record of the manufacture and inspection of each batch and to the method adopted for such inspection, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 76/768.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1992-03-18
13 It should first be observed that the conditions for the application of Article 9(d) are concurrent. Consequently, if one of those conditions is not satisfied, the authorities awarding contracts may not derogate from the provisions of the directive, in particular those relating to advertising.
14 In the present case the extreme urgency relied on by the Spanish Government was not incompatible with the time-limits provided for in the context of the accelerated procedure under Article 15 of the directive.
Mario Doriguzzi-Zordanin and Marzio Doriguzzi-Zordanin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben.
Date: 1992-03-19
14 In reply to the questions referred by the Landessozialgericht, it should be noted that the Court has interpreted Article 78(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 as meaning that where the amount of the benefits actually received in the Member State of residence is lower than that of the benefits provided for under the legislation of another Member State, an orphan is entitled to receive from the competent institution of the latter State a benefit supplement equal to the difference between the two amounts (see as the most recent authority the judgment in Case C-251/89 Athanasopoulos [1991] ECR I-2797).
15 It follows from that case-law that an orphaned child of a migrant worker cannot be deprived of an entitlement to higher benefits available to him under the legislation of a Member State other than that in which he resides. However, he cannot be allowed rights greater than those he would be able to claim under the legislation of that other Member State if he were resident there. Such a result can be brought about only if the institution of the latter Member State can set off against the benefits it must provide all the benefits paid in the Member State of residence for the maintenance of the orphan, regardless of their nature or designation.
16 The information provided by the Commission shows that national systems of assistance for orphans vary considerably. In view of this variation, and in order to avoid arbitrary differences according to the national systems applicable, the term "benefits" for orphans in Article 78(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as referring to all benefits intended under the applicable national system for the maintenance of orphans, whatever the character and designation of those benefits may be.
17 Consequently, the amount of the benefit supplement for orphans must be calculated by comparing all the benefits intended for the maintenance of the orphan in question, actually provided in the Member State of residence, with all the benefits intended for the maintenance of the said orphan which he would be entitled to if resident in the other Member State.
Criminal proceedings against José António Batista Morais.
Date: 1992-03-19
7 In answering that question, it should be noted that the Court has consistently held that the Treaty provisions on the free movement of persons and services cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State (see, most recently, the judgment in Cases C-330/90 and C-331/90, Lopez Brea [1992] ECR I-323).
11 In that connection, it should be noted that the Court has consistently held that Member States are obliged under the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty not to detract, by means of national legislation, from the full and uniform application of Community law or from the effectiveness of its implementing measures; nor may they introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 231/83 Cullet v Leclerc [1985] ECR 305, at paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark.
Date: 1992-03-31
17 With reference to the admissibility of the application, it should be noted that under Article 19 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC and Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission must indicate, in any application made under Article 169 of the Treaty, the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal and factual particulars on which those complaints are based (see the judgment of the Court in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, at paragraph 28).
18 It must be held that in the present case the application does not comply with those requirements. In the "Legal Position" part of its application the Commission in fact does no more than mention a number of provisions of the directive, certain judgments of the Court and Articles 5, 8a, 95 and 189 of the Treaty; the application does not give any details of the facts and circumstances which allegedly gave rise to the failure by the Danish authorities to fulfil their obligations.
Council of the European Communities v European Parliament.
Date: 1992-03-31
12 In that respect, it should be noted that the effect of the annulment of the act of the President of the Parliament of 11 July 1990 owing to the unlawfulness of ASB No 2/90 alleged by the Council would be to deprive that amending and supplementary budget of its validity (see the judgment in Council v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 46).
36 That argument must be rejected. It is sufficient to state, in that respect, that it is incumbent on the Court to give a decision on the consequences of an annulment without being bound by the proposals formulated to that end by the parties and that, in any event, the Council has an interest in obtaining a declaration of illegality even where the effects of the act annulled remain unaffected.
Hamlin Electronics GmbH v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt.
Date: 1992-03-31
8 In order to answer that question, it should be borne in mind first of all that, as the Court has consistently held (see, most recently, the judgment in Case C-384/89 Tomatis and Fulchiron [1991] ECR I-127), regard being had to the requirements of legal certainty, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the headings of the Common Customs Tariff.
12 It must be borne in mind that where a provision is ambiguous it must be interpreted according to the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part.
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1992-04-07
17 As the Court stated in the judgment in Case C-32/89 Greece v Commission [1991] ECR I-1321, paragraphs 10 and 11, as is shown by the internal note of 6 June 1985 from KYDEP' s director general to its board, the report of the 36th general meeting of that body, the analytical report of KYDEP' s balance sheet accounts for 1988, the lines of reasoning of the order of 26 November 1982 of the Minister for Economic Affairs setting up a committee composed of representatives of the public authorities, the Bank of Greece and the president of KYDEP to examine the undertakings' export offers for wheat and flour and, finally, as the representative of the Hellenic Republic eventually partially admitted in his observations during the oral procedure, programme contracts were signed between the State, KYDEP and the private traders and were executed during the period in question.
22 With regard to whether such State intervention is compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 2727/75, it should be noted that the common organizations of the markets are based on the concept of an open market to which every producer has free access under genuinely competitive conditions and the functioning of which is regulated solely by the instruments provided for in those organizations. In particular, in sectors covered by a common organization of the market, and a fortiori when that organization is based, as in the present case, on a common price system, Member States can no longer take action, through national provisions adopted unilaterally, affecting the machinery of price-formation as established under the common organization (judgment in Case C-35/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-3125, paragraph 29).
25 It should be recalled at the outset that the Commission may avail itself of the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty when it seeks a finding by the Court that a Member State is in breach of Article 93(3) of the Treaty, which obliges Member States to inform the Commission of any plans to grant or alter aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty (judgment in Case C-35/88 Commission v Greece, previously cited, paragraph 34). The defendant is accordingly not justified in contending that such a claim of failure to fulfil obligations on the basis of Article 169 of the Treaty is inadmissible.
29 As the Court has consistently held, an application brought under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty may be based only on the arguments and submissions already set forth in the reasoned opinion (judgment in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, paragraph 16).
Compagnia Italiana Alcool Sas di Mario Mariano & Co. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-04-07
42 As regards the general context in which the Commission adopted its decision, it is to be observed that Regulation No 3877/88 confers on the Commission a wide power for the assessment of complex economic situations and that when exercising that power it must take account of factors which may lead to disturbances of the market. Where the Commission has such latitude, it has a duty not only to identify the factors which influenced its decision but also to state their effect (see the judgment of the Court in Case C-269/90 Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Mitte v Technische Universitaet Muenchen [1991] ECR I-5469, at paragraph 27).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1992-04-07
20 In reply, the Hellenic Republic states that several studies have been undertaken between 1989 and 1991 regarding the management and recycling of waste from the Chania area. However, implementation of the planned programme has been suspended because of the opposition of the local population.
21 That argument cannot be accepted. First of all, it must be stated that pursuant to Article 145 of the Act of Accession the above directives ought to have been implemented in Greece by 1 January 1981 at the latest. Moreover, the Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead domestic difficulties, such as difficulties of implementation which emerge at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect, to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down by Community law.