larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Procureur du Roi v P. Dechmann.
Date: 1978-06-29
16AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 23 JANUARY 1975 ( CASE 31/74 GALLI ( 1975 ) 1 ECR 47 ) AND IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 26 FEBRUARY 1976 ( CASE 65/75 TASCA AND JOINED CASES 88 TO 90/75 SADAM ( 1976 ) ECR 291 AND 323 ), IN SECTORS COVERED BY A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET , AND A FORTIORI WHEN THIS ORGANIZATION IS BASED 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 .
Milchfutter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt de Gronau.
Date: 1978-07-04
11NOR , FINALLY , CAN ANY ARGUMENT BE DERIVED FROM THE PROVISIONS AND STRUCTURE OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1463/73 OF 30 MAY 1973 LAYING DOWN DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 146 , P . 1 ) SINCE THAT REGULATION , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 974/71 ON WHICH IT IS BASED , PRINCIPALLY LAYS DOWN THE DETAILED FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS .

IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REGULATION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RESTATE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 974/71 WITH REGARD TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION IN THE HEADINGS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .

THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 1463/73 ON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION RELIES IS MERELY TO LINK THE PAYMENT OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS TO THE OTHER OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AT THE FRONTIER PURSUANT TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF AND THE AGRICULTURAL RULES , WHILE ARTICLES 7 TO 15 PROVIDE , IN RESPECT OF INTRA- COMMUNITY TRADE , A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF A FINANCIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE WHICH HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS .

CONSEQUENTLY , NO ARGUMENT MAY BE DERIVED FROM AN ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY IN REGULATION NO 1463/73 AS , BY VIRTUE OF THE REFERENCE BY ARTICLE 1 OF THE BASIC REGULATION NO 974/71 TO THE COMMON ORGANIZATIONS OF THE MARKET AND THE REFERENCE BY THE LATTER TO THE HEADINGS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , A COMPLETE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS ESTABLISHED WHICH ENABLES THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS TO BE DETERMINED .
Directeur régional de la Sécurité sociale de Nancy v Paulin Gillard and Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est, Nancy.
Date: 1978-07-06
12IN FACT , THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BENEFITS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND BENEFITS WHICH COME WITHIN IT RESTS ENTIRELY ON THE FACTORS RELATING TO EACH BENEFIT , IN PARTICULAR ITS PURPOSE AND THE CONDITIONS FOR ITS GRANT .
13IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE THAT THE BENEFIT GRANTED IN PURSUANCE OF THE NATIONAL PROVISIONS IN QUESTION HAS THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR WHO PROVE THAT THEY UNDERWENT A LONG PERIOD OF CAPTIVITY TESTIMONY OF NATIONAL GRATITUDE FOR THE HARDSHIPS ENDURED BETWEEN 1939 AND 1945 ON BEHALF OF FRANCE AND ITS ALLIES AND THUS GRANTING THEM , BY AN INCREASE IN THE RATE OF OLD-AGE PENSION , A QUID PRO QUO FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED TO THOSE STATES .
Centrafarm BV v American Home Products Corporation.
Date: 1978-10-10
11IN RELATION TO TRADE-MARKS , THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER IS IN PARTICULAR THE GUARANTEE TO THE PROPRIETOR OF THE TRADE-MARK 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 HIS PROTECTION AGAINST COMPETITORS WISHING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE STATUS AND REPUTATION OF THE MARK BY SELLING PRODUCTS ILLEGALLY BEARING THAT TRADE-MARK .
12IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THAT EXCLUSIVE RIGHT GRANTED TO THE PROPRIETOR OF THE MARK 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 ULTIMATE USER .
14THE GUARANTEE OF ORIGIN WOULD IN FACT BE JEOPARDIZED IF IT WERE PERMISSIBLE FOR A THIRD PARTY TO AFFIX THE MARK TO THE PRODUCT , EVEN TO AN ORIGINAL PRODUCT .
17THE RIGHT GRANTED TO THE PROPRIETOR TO PROHIBIT ANY UNAUTHORIZED AFFIXING OF HIS MARK TO HIS PRODUCT ACCORDINGLY COMES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE TRADE-MARK .
18THE PROPRIETOR OF A TRADE-MARK WHICH IS PROTECTED IN ONE MEMBER STATE IS ACCORDINGLY JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 IN PREVENTING A PRODUCT FROM BEING MARKETED BY A THIRD PARTY IN THAT MEMBER STATE UNDER THE MARK IN QUESTION EVEN IF PREVIOUSLY THAT PRODUCT HAS BEEN LAWFULLY MARKETED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE UNDER ANOTHER MARK HELD IN THE LATTER STATE BY THE SAME PROPRIETOR .
21NEVERTHELESS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SUCH A PRACTICE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE MARKS AS PART OF A SYSTEM OF MARKETING INTENDED TO PARTITION THE MARKETS ARTIFICIALLY .
22IN SUCH A CASE THE PROHIBITION BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE UNAUTHORIZED AFFIXING OF THE MARK BY A THIRD PARTY CONSTITUTES A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON INTRA- COMMUNITY TRADE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION .
23IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO SETTLE IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE WHETHER THE PROPRIETOR HAS FOLLOWED THE PRACTICE OF USING DIFFERENT MARKS FOR THE SAME PRODUCT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTITIONING THE MARKETS .

THE SECOND QUESTION
Tayeb Belbouab v Bundesknappschaft.
Date: 1978-10-12
5THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR MIGRANT WORKERS , WHICH IS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY , IS THE PRIMARY AIM OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY .

IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THAT OBJECTIVE THAT REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THAT ARTICLE ARE TO BE INTERPRETED .
7IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY , ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHICH IS THAT ANY FACTUAL SITUATION SHOULD NORMALLY , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY PROVISION , BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL RULES EXISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THAT SITUATION OBTAINED , THE SECOND CONDITION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE STATUS OF BEING A NATIONAL OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES REFERS TO THE TIME OF THE EMPLOYMENT , OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS RELATING TO THE INSURANCE PERIODS AND OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE CORRESPONDING RIGHTS .

IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS THAT THE CRITERION OF NATIONALITY LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE EXAMINED IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE PERIODS DURING WHICH THE WORKER IN QUESTION CARRIED ON HIS WORK .
Joh. Eggers Sohn & Co. v Freie Hansestadt Bremen.
Date: 1978-10-12
19ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY TO DECIDE UPON THE COMPATIBILITY OF A NATIONAL PROVISION WITH COMMUNITY LAW , IT MAY NEVERTHELESS EXTRACT FROM THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION FORMULATED BY THE NATIONAL COURT , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS STATED BY THE LATTER , THOSE ELEMENTS WHICH COME WITHIN THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW .
25HOWEVER DESIRABLE MAY BE THE INTRODUCTION OF A POLICY ON QUALITY BY A MEMBER STATE , SUCH A POLICY CAN ONLY BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BY MEANS WHICH ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY .

CONSEQUENTLY , THE MEMBER STATES ARE EMPOWERED TO LAY DOWN QUALITY STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS MARKETED ON THEIR TERRITORY AND MAY MAKE THE USE OF DESIGNATIONS OF QUALITY SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH STANDARDS , BUT ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT SUCH STANDARDS AND DESIGNATIONS - UNLIKE THE POSITION IN THE CASE OF REGISTERED DESGINATIONS OF ORIGIN AND INDICATIONS OF ORIGIN - ARE NOT LINKED TO A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRODUCTION PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION BE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE COUNTRY BUT ARE DEPENDENT SOLELY ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTRINSIC OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH GIVE THE PRODUCTS THE QUALITY REQUIRED BY LAW .

A PRESUMPTION OF QUALITY WHICH IS LINKED TO A REQUIREMENT THAT THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE PRODUCTION PROCESS SHOULD TAKE PLACE ON NATIONAL TERRITORY , THEREBY RESTRICTING OR TREATING UNFAVOURABLY A PROCESS SOME OR ALL OF THE PHASES WHEREOF ARE CARRIED OUT IN OTHER MEMBER STATES IS , ALWAYS EXCEPTING THE RULES RELATING TO REGISTERED DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN AND INDICATIONS OF ORIGIN , INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET .

THIS IS MORE PARTICULARLY THE CASE WHERE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE PRODUCTION PROCESS SHOULD TAKE PLACE ON NATIONAL TERRITORY IS , IN SUBSTANCE , JUSTIFIED ONLY BY A RULE WHICH , BY INTRODUCING THE PRINCIPLE OF ' ' UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY ' ' , IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE QUALITY CONTROLS WHEREAS SUCH CONTROLS MAY BE CARRIED OUT JUST AS EFFECTIVELY BY MEANS WHICH ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
26IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT A NATIONAL MEASURE WHICH MAKES THE RIGHT TO USE A DESIGNATION OF QUALITY FOR A DOMESTIC PRODUCT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE SEMI-FINISHED PRODUCT FROM WHICH IT WAS MANUFACTURED WAS EITHER PRODUCED OR TREATED ON NATIONAL TERRITORY , AND REFUSES TO ALLOW THE USE OF THAT DESIGNATION SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SEMI-FINISHED PRODUCT WAS IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , IS A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION .

THE FACT THAT THE USE OF THAT DESIGNATION OF QUALITY IS OPTIONAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CEASES TO BE AN UNJUSTIFIED OBSTACLE TO TRADE IF THE USE OF THAT DESIGNATION PROMOTES OR IS LIKELY TO PROMOTE THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCT CONCERNED AS COMPARED WITH PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT BENEFIT FROM ITS USE .
Société générale alsacienne de banque SA v Walter Koestler.
Date: 1978-10-24
5THE FACT THAT DEBTS ARISING OUT OF A WAGERING CONTRACT OR OTHER SIMILAR DEBTS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PERSON PROVIDING SERVICES ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IF THE SAME LIMITATION APPLIES TO ANY PERSON PROVIDING SERVICES ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE SAME STATE WHENEVER THAT PERSON CLAIMS PAYMENTS OF A DEBT OF THE SAME KIND , AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT CASE .

THE REFUSAL BY A MEMBER STATE , FOR REASONS FOUNDED ON THE SOCIAL ORDER TO ALLOW AN ACTION BASED ON A CLAIM OF THIS KIND , EVEN IF IT WAS VALID IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , TO BE BROUGHT BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ESTABLISHED IN THAT MEMBER STATE CANNOT THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW , WHEN THE TREATY , WHILST IT PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION , DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY OBLIGATION TO TREAT A FOREIGNER PROVIDING SERVICES MORE FAVOURABLY , WITH REFERENCE TO HIS DOMESTIC LAW , THAN A PERSON PROVIDING SERVICES ESTABLISHED IN THE MEMBER STATE WHERE THE SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED .
Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce ; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.
Date: 1978-10-25
26THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION IS MERELY A SPECIFIC ENUNCIATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY WHICH IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW .
Koninklijke Scholten-Honig NV and De Verenigde Zetmeelbedrijven "De Bijenkorf" BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten.
Date: 1978-10-25
26THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION IS MERELEY A SPECIFIC ENUNCIATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY WHICH IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW .
37ACCORDING TO A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THE LAWS AMENDING A LEGISLATIVE PROVISION APPLY , UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED , TO THE FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF SITUATIONS WHICH AROSE UNDER THE FORMER LAW .
Nikolaus Meeth v Glacetal.
Date: 1978-11-09
5ACCORDING TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 17 ' ' IF THE PARTIES . . . HAVE AGREED THAT A COURT OR THE COURTS OF A CONTRACTING STATE ARE TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO SETTLE ANY DISPUTES WHICH HAVE ARISEN OR WHICH MAY ARISE IN CONNEXION WITH A PARTICULAR LEGAL RELATIONSHIP , THAT COURT OR THOSE COURTS SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ' ' .

WITH REGARD TO AN AGREEMENT CONFERRING RECIPROCAL JURISDICTION IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT APPEARS IN THE CONTRACT WHOSE IMPLEMENTATION FORMS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF THE DISPUTE , THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION GIVES RISE TO DIFFICULTY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 17 , AS IT IS WORDED , REFERS TO THE CHOICE BY THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT OF A SINGLE COURT OR THE COURTS OF A SINGLE STATE .

THAT WORDING , WHICH IS BASED ON THE MOST WIDESPREAD BUSINESS PRACTICE , CANNOT , HOWEVER , BE INTERPRETED AS INTENDING TO EXCLUDE THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES TO AGREE ON TWO OR MORE COURTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING ANY DISPUTES WHICH MAY ARISE .

THIS INTERPRETATION IS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT ARTICLE 17 IS BASED ON A RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENT WILL OF THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT IN DECIDING WHICH COURTS ARE TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO SETTLE DISPUTES FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION , OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 17 .
THIS APPLIES PARTICULARLY WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE BY SUCH AN AGREEMENT RECIPROCALLY CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE COURTS SPECIFIED IN THE GENERAL RULE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION .

ALTHOUGH SUCH AN AGREEMENT COINCIDES WITH THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 2 IT IS NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE IN THAT IT EXCLUDES , IN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES , OTHER OPTIONAL ATTRIBUTIONS OF JURISDICTION , SUCH AS THOSE DETAILED IN ARTICLES 5 AND 6 OF THE CONVENTION .
Regina v Ernest George Thompson, Brian Albert Johnson and Colin Alex Norman Woodiwiss.
Date: 1978-11-23
25IT MUST BE INFERRED FROM THIS THAT UNDER THE SYSTEM OF THE TREATY MEANS OF PAYMENT ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS GOODS FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ARTICLES 30 TO 37 OF THE TREATY .
Fritz Schumalla.
Date: 1978-11-28
4IMPLYING THE ADOPTION OF ' ' COMMON RULES ' '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 75 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF THE TREATY , SUCH HARMONIZATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY , WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY ARTICLE 3 ( E ) OF THE TREATY AND IS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY .

ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 74 OF THE TREATY , THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY SHALL , IN MATTERS OF TRANSPORT BY RAIL , ROAD AND INLAND WATERWAY , BE PURSUED BY THE MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SUCH A POLICY .

FOR THIS PURPOSE , IN GIVING THE COUNCIL THE TASK OF ADOPTING THIS POLICY , THE TREATY CONFERS WIDE LEGISLATIVE POWERS UPON IT AS REGARDS THE ADOPTION OF APPROPRIATE COMMON RULES .

ARTICLE 75 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE AFORESAID ARTICLE 74 AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF TRANSPORT , THE COUNCIL SHALL LAY DOWN , IN ADDITION TO THE RULES AND CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN SUBPARAGRAPHS ( A ) AND ( B ), ' ' ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS ' ' .

ARTICLE 75 ( 2 ) INDICATES THAT THE COUNCIL HOLDS THIS LEGISLATIVE POWER EVEN AFTER THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD .

ARTICLE 79 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THIS POWER IS CONFERRED ON THE COUNCIL IN A GENERAL WAY , IN ORDER INTER ALIA TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSPORT AFFECTING COMPETITION .
6FURTHERMORE , SINCE COMMON PROVISIONS ENSURE AN IMPROVEMENT OF ROAD SAFETY AS WELL AS THE SOCIAL PROTECTION OF THE DRIVER , THEY CANNOT BUT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ELIMINATION OF DISPARITIES LIABLE TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DISTORTION IN COMPETITION IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR , AND THUS PROVE ' ' APPROPRIATE ' '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 75 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE TREATY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY .

MOREOVER , SAFETY OF TRANSPORT BY RAIL , ROAD AND INLAND WATERWAY FULFILS NOT ONLY THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY BUT ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMON MARKET AS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 ( F ), BECAUSE AS A RESULT OF BEING SUBJECT TO COMMON RULES IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE OBSERVANCE OF THE CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE SPHERE OF TRANSPORT .
Francesco Bussone v Ministro dell'agricoltura e foreste.
Date: 1978-11-30
14WHILST THE REGULATIONS ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN EGGS AND ON MARKETING STANDARDS FOR EGGS CONTAIN DETAILED RULES RELATING TO GRADING BY QUALITY AND WEIGHT , PACKING , WAREHOUSING , TRANSPORT , PRESENTATION AND MARKING OF EGGS THEY CONTAIN NO PROVISION RELATING TO THE SELLING PRICE OF LABELS OR THE METHOD OF FINANCING THE ADMINISTRATE COSTS INHERENT IN THE SUPERVISION .
15AS THE REGULATIONS NEITHER OBLIGE MEMBER STATES TO DISTRIBUTE THE LABELS TO USERS FREE OF CHARGE NOR PROHIBIT THEM FROM REQUIRING A CONSIDERATION FOR THE ISSUE OF BANDS , IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THEY LEAVE THE MEMBER STATES FREE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF FINANCING THE SUPERVISION .
21WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION , THAT IS TO SAY THE CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION IS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF THE SYSTEM , THE PRINCIPLE MUST BE LAID DOWN THAT WHILST THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS LEAVE THE MEMBER STATES FREE TO CHOOSE THE MEANS OF FINANCING THE SUPERVISION WHICH THEY REQUIRE , THE CHOICE OF THE MEMBER STATES IS CONFINED TO THE STRICTLY NECESSARY OBJECTIVES OF THE FINANCING ITSELF .
32THAT PROHIBITION IS , HOWEVER , RELAXED TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE REGULATION IN QUESTION LEAVES IT TO THE MEMBER STATES THEMSELVES TO ADOPT THE NECESSARY LEGISLATIVE , REGULATORY , ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MEASURES TO ENSURE THE EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT REGULATION .
Welding & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hambourg-Waltershof.
Date: 1978-11-30
11THE PRESENT CASE CONCERNS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EXISTING REGULATION ON DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF LEVIES ON SUGAR .

THE COMMISSION HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 190 BY STATING AS ITS REASONS FOR THE CONTENT OF THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 837/68 OF THE COMMISSION THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ' ' THE SUCROSE CONTENT USED TO CALCULATE THE LEVY CAN BE FIXED AT A LEVEL WHICH WOULD CORRESPOND IN GENERAL TO THE NATURAL CONTENT OF SUCH PRODUCTS IN THE COMMUNITY ' '  ( FIFTH RECITAL ) AND THAT ' ' TO AVOID DISTORTIONS OF COMPETITION , IT IS NECESSARY TO SPECIFY IN RESPECT OF THOSE PRODUCTS THE METHOD BY WHICH SUCROSE CONTENT , INCLUDING OTHER SUGARS EXPRESSED AS SUCROSE , IS TO BE DETERMINED ' ' .

SPECIFIC REASONS CANNOT BE REQUIRED FOR ALL THE DETAILS WHICH MAY BE FOUND IN SUCH A MEASURE SINCE THEY FORM PART OF THE SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE LEVIES ON SUGAR , A FACT WHICH CANNOT BE CONTESTED IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SAID MEASURE WAS TO CLOSE A GAP GIVING RISE TO UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE METHOD OF CALCULATING THE LEVY ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS TO WHICH THE BASIC PROVISION APPLIED AND SINCE THE STATEMENT OF ALL THE REASONS FOR CHOOSING SPECIFIC METHODS WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A DETAILED SCIENTIFIC TREATISE .

IT IS A QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE OF A REGULATION , THAT IS TO SAY , A MEASURE INTENDED TO HAVE GENERAL APPLICATION , THE PREAMBLE TO WHICH MAY BE CONFINED TO INDICATING THE GENERAL SITUATION WHICH LED TO ITS ADOPTION , ON THE ONE HAND , AND THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE ON THE OTHER .

CONSEQUENTLY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REQUIRE THAT IT SHOULD SET OUT THE VARIOUS FACTS , WHICH ARE OFTEN VERY NUMEROUS AND COMPLEX , ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE REGULATION WAS ADOPTED , OR A FORTIORI THAT IT SHOULD PROVIDE A MORE OR LESS COMPLETE EVALUATION OF THOSE FACTS .

ACCORDINGLY THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 837/68 CANNOT BE CALLED IN QUESTION ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE REASONS ON WHICH IT IS BASED .
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Hermann Kendermann OHG.
Date: 1978-11-30
12THERE IS , HOWEVER , NO GROUND FOR QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION 2448/75 IN SO FAR AS THE PAYMENT OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS IS NOT PROVIDED FOR BECAUSE THE COUPAGE EXCEEDS THE LIMITS LAID DOWN BY NATIONAL PROVISIONS . THE COURT HAS ALREADY DECIDED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1978 IN CASE 136/77 RACKE V HAUPTZOLLAMT MAINZ (( 1978 ) ECR 1245 ) THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN RETAINING THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS ON IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF WINE TO AND FROM GERMANY IN VIEW OF THE SITUATION EXISTING ON THE WINE MARKET AT THE TIME IN QUESTION . MORE PARTICULARLY , AS IT EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEDURE , IN ADOPTING REGULATION 2448/75 , THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH WERE NECESSARILY TO APPLY EQUALLY TO IMPORTS AND EXPORTS , THE COMMISSION WAS GUIDED BY THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THE MARKET TREND ALLOWED IT AT THE TIME TO SUSPEND THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNT AND THUS OPEN UP THE GERMAN MARKET TO FOREIGN TABLE WINES WHICH , BECAUSE OF THEIR SPECIAL QUALITIES , WERE SUFFICIENTLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE TYPICAL DOMESTIC WINES OF TYPES A II AND A III , IT WAS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE PROTECTION AGAINST FOREIGN WINES WHICH DIRECTLY CORRESPONDED TO AND WERE IN COMPETITION WITH THEM . SINCE THE RESULTING DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF WINES WHICH WERE NOT MARKETABLE AS WINES OF TYPE A II WAS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REGULATION HAS ANY DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT .
Société des Usines de Beaufort and others v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1979-01-18
15ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3331/74 , BY PROVIDING FOR DEROGATIONS FROM THE RULES AS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BASIC QUOTAS , WHICH ARE NECESSARY SO AS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUGAR INDUSTRY , INTRODUCED FROM ITS ORIGIN BOTH A GENERAL DEROGATION APPLICABLE TO ALL MEMBER STATES , IN OTHER WORDS TO ALL PARTS OF THE COMMON MARKET LISTED IN ARTICLE 24 OF REGULATION NO 3330/74 , AND A SPECIAL DEROGATION IN RESPECT OF A SINGLE PART OF THE COMMON MARKET , IN OTHER WORDS THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIAL SITUATION IN THE SUGAR SECTOR IN THAT COUNTRY .
Ministère public and"Chambre syndicale des agents artistiques et impresarii de Belgique" ASBL v Willy van Wesemael and others.
Date: 1979-01-18
7SINCE THE ACTIVITY AT ISSUE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS CONSISTS IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES , THE CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE NATIONAL COURT MUST PRIMARILY START FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO ' ' SERVICES ' ' .
28TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTICULAR NATURE OF CERTAIN SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED , SUCH AS THE PLACING OF ENTERTAINERS IN EMPLOYMENT , SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON PERSONS PROVIDING SERVICES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY WHERE THEY HAVE AS THEIR PURPOSE THE APPLICATION OF PROFESSIONAL RULES , JUSTIFIED BY THE GENERAL GOOD OR BY THE NEED TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF THE ENTERTAINER , WHICH ARE BINDING UPON ANY PERSON ESTABLISHED IN THE SAID STATE , IN SO FAR AS THE PERSON PROVIDING THE SERVICE IS NOT SUBJECT TO SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE IS ESTABLISHED .