larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Suzanne Culmsee and others v Economic and Social Committee.
Date: 1985-07-04
13 IT MUST BE NOTED THAT , IN THIS CASE , AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THE APPLICANTS CLAIMED ONLY DEFAULT INTEREST IN THEIR STANDARD COMPLAINTS AND NOT COMPENSATORY INTEREST WHICH THEY CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COURT . CONSEQUENTLY , THEIR APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATORY INTEREST .

SUBSTANCE
Alain-Pierre Allo and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-04
18 HOWEVER , AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 22 OCTOBER 1975 IN CASE 9/75 ( MEYER-BURCKHARDT V COMMISSION ( 1975 ) ECR 1171 ), A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN OFFICIAL AND THE INSTITUTION BY WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED , EVEN IF IT INVOLVES AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES , IS PURSUED , WHERE IT ORIGINATES IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN THE PERSON CONCERNED AND THE INSTITUTION , UNDER ARTICLE 179 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . ACCORDINGLY , THE APPLICANTS HAVE LOCUS STANDI TO SUBMIT BOTH A CLAIM FOR ANNULMENT AND A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES PROVIDED THAT THEY SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH ARE THE SAME FOR BOTH MEANS OF REDRESS .
19 IT MUST BE NOTED THAT , IN THIS CASE , AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THE APPLICANTS CLAIMED ONLY DEFAULT INTEREST IN THEIR COMPLAINTS AND NOT COMPENSATORY INTEREST WHICH THEY CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COURT . CONSEQUENTLY , THEIR APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATORY INTEREST .

SUBSTANCE
J. P. Ambrosetti and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-04
19 IT MUST BE NOTED THAT , IN THIS CASE , AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THE APPLICANTS CLAIMED ONLY DEFAULT INTEREST IN THEIR COMPLAINTS AND NOT COMPENSATORY INTEREST WHICH THEY CLAIMED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COURT . CONSEQUENTLY , THEIR APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATORY INTEREST .

SUBSTANCE
René Delhez and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-04
20 IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND , AS THE COURT HAS STATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS , MOST RECENTLY IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 19 JANUARY 1984 IN CASE 262/80 ( ANDERSEN AND OTHERS V PARLIAMENT ( 1984 ) ECR 195 ), THAT A SALARY STATEMENT MAY CONSTITUTE A MEASURE ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN OFFICIAL AND MAY THEREFORE BE THE SUBJECT OF AN ACTION ; THE FACT THAT THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED IS ONLY APPLYING THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE IS IRRELEVANT IN THAT RESPECT . THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COMMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY
J. W. M. Kromhout v Raad van Arbeid.
Date: 1985-07-04
14 IT IS CLEAR FROM THOSE PROVISIONS THAT FAMILY BENEFITS OR FAMILY ALLOWANCES ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS WITH DEPENDENT FAMILIES IN THE FORM OF A CONTRIBUTION BY SOCIETY TOWARDS THEIR EXPENSES . THE RULE AGAINST OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS AT ISSUE IS DESIGNED THEREFORE TO PREVENT DUPLICATION OF THE COMPENSATION FOR THOSE EXPENSES , AN EXCESS PAYMENT TO THE WORKER ' S FAMILY WHICH WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED . ACCORDINGLY , THE RULE MUST BE INTERPRETED AS HAVING THE EFFECT OF PRECLUDING THE PAYMENT OF PARALLEL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR ONE AND THE SAME SITUATION IN RESPECT OF ONE AND THE SAME PERIOD .
15 IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT A SITUATION OF THE KIND WHICH HAS ARISEN IN THIS CASE MAY LEAD TO THE PAYMENT OF EXCESS COMPENSATION FOR FAMILY EXPENSES , INASMUCH AS THE CHILDREN IN QUESTION ACQUIRE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PERIOD PARALLEL RIGHTS TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES , BY VIRTUE OF THE MOTHER AND BY VIRTUE OF THE FATHER . THEREFORE , THE RELEVANT RULE AGAINST OVERLAPPING BENEFITS MUST BE INTERPRETED AS APPLYING TO A SITUATION OF THAT KIND WHENEVER THOSE CHILDREN ARE PERSONS COVERED BY REGULATION NO 1408/71 , AS MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE WORKING PARENT , WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NEED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER PARENT , WHO DOES NOT CARRY ON A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY , FORMS PART BY VIRTUE OF HIS OR HER MARITAL STATUS OF THE FAMILY OF THE FIRST WORKER AND IS CONSEQUENTLY ALSO A PERSON COVERED BY THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION .
21 IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT , ACCORDING TO THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS AND ON THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE EEC TREATY , A RULE DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE OVERLAPPING OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT DOES NOT , WITHOUT CAUSE , DEPRIVE THOSE CONCERNED OF AN ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS CONFERRED ON THEM BY THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE . ACCORDINGLY , WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCES THE PAYMENT OF WHICH IS SUSPENDED EXCEEDS THAT OF THE ALLOWANCES RECEIVED BY VIRTUE OF THE PURSUIT OF A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY , THE RULE ON OVERLAPPING BENEFITS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 574/72 SHOULD BE APPLIED ONLY IN PART AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE AMOUNTS SHOULD BE GRANTED AS A SUPPLEMENT ( SEE , FOR EXAMPLE , THE JUDGMENT OF 19 FEBRUARY 1981 IN CASE 104/80 BEECK V BUNDESANSTALT FUR ARBEIT ( 1981 ) ECR 503 ).
Calvin E. Williams v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-04
14 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , ALTHOUGH THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1982 ORDERED THE COURT OF AUDITORS TO ' REMOVE THE DIFFERENCE IN CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN HIM AND OFFICIALS FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY ' , IT COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF AUDITORS TO BREACH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 32 . THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT , TO WHICH THAT JUDGMENT REFERS , MUST BE RECONCILED WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY , ACCORDING TO WHICH NO PERSON MAY RELY , IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM , ON AN UNLAWFUL ACT COMMITTED IN FAVOUR OF ANOTHER ( JUDGMENT OF 9 OCTOBER 1984 IN CASE 188/83 WITTE V EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( 1984 ) ECR 3465 ).
Hauptzollamt Bremen - Freihafen v J. Henr. Drünert Holzimport.
Date: 1985-07-04
12 FIRST , AS REGARDS THE COMMISSION ' S OBSERVATIONS , IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY IS BASED ON A CLEAR SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN NATIONAL COURTS , ON THE ONE HAND , AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE , ON THE OTHER , AND IT DOES NOT PERMIT THE COURT TO ENQUIRE INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OR TO VERIFY WHETHER THE NATIONAL COURT ' S STATEMENT OF THE FACTS IS CORRECT . THUS IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMISSION IS RIGHT IN ITS ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE FACTS SET OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE BUNDESFINANZHOF OR THOSE SET OUT IN THE JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE , AND NOT QUESTIONED IN THE ORDER FOR REFERENCE ; IT IS REQUIRED SOLELY TO PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO RESOLVE THE LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE IT .
AS-Autoteile Service GmbH v Pierre Malhé.
Date: 1985-07-04
16 ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONVENTION MAKES A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS TO THAT GENERAL RULE BY GRANTING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE COURTS OF A CONTRACTING STATE OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 2 IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE A PARTICULAR CONNECTION WITH THAT OTHER STATE , ON THE BASIS OF THE LOCATION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY , THE SEAT OF A COMPANY , AN ENTRY IN A PUBLIC REGISTER OR , IN THE CASE OF PARAGRAPH ( 5 ), THE PLACE WHERE A JUDGMENT IS TO BE ENFORCED .
17 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE SPECIFICITY OF THE CONNECTION REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 16 THAT A PARTY CANNOT MAKE USE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY ARTICLE 16 ( 5 ) ON THE COURTS OF THE PLACE OF ENFORCEMENT IN ORDER TO BRING BEFORE THOSE COURTS A DISPUTE WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE UNDER ARTICLE 2 . THE USE FOR SUCH A PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION TO OPPOSE ENFORCEMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION WHICH THE CONVENTION INTENDED TO ESTABLISH BETWEEN THE COURT OF THE DEFENDANT ' S DOMICILE AND THE COURT OF THE PLACE OF ENFORCEMENT .
Pharmon BV v Hoechst AG.
Date: 1985-07-09
25 IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT THAT WHERE , AS IN THIS INSTANCE , THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE GRANT A THIRD PARTY A COMPULSORY LICENCE WHICH ALLOWS HIM TO CARRY OUT MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING OPERATIONS WHICH THE PATENTEE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PREVENT , THE PATENTEE CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE OPERATION OF THAT THIRD PARTY . SUCH A MEASURE DEPRIVES THE PATENT PROPRIETOR OF HIS RIGHT TO DETERMINE FREELY THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH HE MARKETS HIS PRODUCTS .
Vittorio Salerno and others v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-11
31 WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REGULATION AT ISSUE IS OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS , IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT ARTICLE 3 OF THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT THE HEADQUARTERS STAFF RECRUITED BY VIRTUE OF THE REGULATION ARE TO BE APPOINTED TO THE APPROPRIATE GRADE AND STEP INDICATED IN THE TABLE OF EQUIVALENCE IN THE ANNEX TO THE REGULATION . IT IS CLEAR FROM THAT PROVISION THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS NO DISCRETION WITH REGARD TO THE GRADING OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED .
36 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 184 IS TO PROTECT PARTIES AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF AN UNLAWFUL REGULATION WHERE THE REGULATION ITSELF CAN NO LONGER BE CHALLENGED OWING TO THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 173 . HOWEVER , IN ALLOWING A PARTY TO PLEAD THE INAPPLICABILITY OF A REGULATION , ARTICLE 184 DOES NOT CREATE AN INDEPENDENT RIGHT OF ACTION ; SUCH A PLEA MAY ONLY BE RAISED INDIRECTLY IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AN IMPLEMENTING MEASURE , THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION BEING CHALLENGED IN SO FAR AS IT CONSTITUTES THE LEGAL BASIS OF THAT MEASURE .
56 IT WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT - AND NOT THE COUNCIL - WHO , PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY , DECLARED THAT THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE COMMUNITIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1982 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 31 OF 8.2.1982 , P . 1 ) DRAWN UP BY THE BUDGETARY AUTHORITY HAD BEEN FINALLY ADOPTED . TO THAT MUST BE ADDED THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE BUDGET NOR A FORTIORI AN EXPLANATORY REMARK , THOUGH NECESSARY IN ORDER TO UNDERTAKE EXPENDITURE , CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DEALING WITH RECRUITMENT OF OFFICIALS . NOR ARE THEY BINDING ON THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION AS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES . THUS , WHEN IT ADOPTED REGULATION NO 3332/82 , THE COUNCIL DID NOT FAIL TO MEET ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION WHICH IT HAD IMPOSED ON ITSELF .
Pierre Hattet and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-11
24 AS REGARDS MORE PARTICULARLY THE RECRUITMENT BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EAC ' S SPECIAL CONTRACT STAFF , THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT IN CASE 119/83 , CITED ABOVE , THAT , SINCE NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE EXISTED BETWEEN THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL SITUATION OF THE EAC ' S HEADQUARTERS STAFF AND THAT OF ITS SPECIAL CONTRACT STAFF , THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TREATMENT ACCORDED TO THE LATTER AT THE TIME OF THEIR RECRUITMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND THAT ACCORDED TO THE HEADQUARTERS STAFF WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
28 THE COURT HAS HELD IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS ( IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 1 DECEMBER 1983 IN CASE 190/82 , BLOMEFIELD V COMMISSION , ( 1983 ) ECR 3981 , AND THE JUDGMENT OF 12 JULY 1984 IN CASE 17/83 , ANGELIDIS V COMMISSION , ( 1984 ) ECR 2907 ) THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY HAS A WIDE DISCRETION , WITHIN THE LIMITS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 31 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OR BY THE INTERNAL DECISIONS IMPLEMENTING THEM , IN ASSESSING THE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OF A PERSON APPOINTED AS AN OFFICIAL , BOTH AS REGARDS THE NATURE AND LENGTH OF THAT EXPERIENCE AND AS REGARDS THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POST TO BE FILLED .
Edmund Appelbaum v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-11
25 WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION , IT IS CLEAR AND UNCONTESTED THAT THE APPLICANT ' S GRADING WAS LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THAT WHICH HE HAD ENJOYED AT THE EAC AND WHICH HE WOULD HAVE OBTAINED AT THE COMMISSION HAD HE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE EAC ' S HEADQUARTERS STAFF . SINCE THE COURT , IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 DECEMBER 1984 IN JOINED CASES 129 AND 274/82 ( LUX V COURT OF AUDITORS , ( 1984 ) ECR 4127 ), HELD THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , WHICH PROVIDES THAT ' IDENTICAL CONDITIONS OF RECRUITMENT . . . SHALL APPLY TO ALL OFFICIALS BELONGING TO THE SAME CATEGORY OR THE SAME SERVICE ' , IS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE IN COMMUNITY STAFF LAW , THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT ' S FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION AT THE TIME OF HIS RECRUITMENT JUSTIFIES HIS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM THE EAC ' S HEADQUARTERS STAFF .
Heinrich Maag v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-07-11
26 IN THAT CONNECTION , IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT THE DISPUTE ORIGINATES IN THE ALLEGED DELAY ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION ' S ADMINISTRATION IN PAYING ARREARS OF REMUNERATION OWED TO THE APPLICANT BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS ENGAGED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER CONTRACTS NOT CONTAINING AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE . THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN SUCH A DISPUTE AND THE APPLICANT CANNOT UNILATERALLY CREATE AN EXCEPTION TO THE DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE NATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS BY CAUSING THE COMMISSION TO REJECT HIS REQUEST AND SUBSEQUENTLY DESCRIBING THAT REJECTION AS A DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 173 .
Cinéthèque SA and others v Fédération nationale des cinémas français.
Date: 1985-07-11
10 THE PROVISION OF FRENCH LAW WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS IN THE TWO CASES PROHIBITS THE ' EXPLOITATION '  OF CINEMATOGRAPHIC WORKS IN THE FORM OF RECORDINGS , IN PARTICULAR IN THE FORM OF VIDEO-CASSETTES . THE QUESTION MAY THEREFORE BE ASKED WHETHER THAT PROHIBITION , WHILST NOT APPLYING TO THE MERE GRANT OF A LICENCE WHICH IS NOT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE PRODUCTION OF THE VIDEO-CASSETTES IN QUESTION , NEVERTHLESS EXTENDS TO AN INSTRUCTION TO PRODUCE THEM . IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REGARD THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION OF VIDEO-CASSETTES AS THE PROVISION OF ' SERVICES '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TREATY SINCE THE SERVICES OF A MANUFACTURER OF SUCH PRODUCTS RESULT DIRECTLY IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A MATERIAL OBJECT WHICH IS , MOREOVER , THE SUBJECT OF CLASSIFICATION IN THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( HEADING 37.07 ). ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 60 OF THE TREATY SERVICES ARE ONLY TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH IF THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR REMUNERATION ' IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE NOT GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR GOODS ' .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1985-07-11
16 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE BOMB ATTACK , WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE 18 JANUARY 1979 , MAY HAVE CONSTITUTED A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE AND CREATED INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFICULTIES , ITS EFFECT COULD ONLY HAVE LASTED A CERTAIN TIME , NAMELY THE TIME WHICH WOULD IN FACT BE NECESSARY FOR AN ADMINISTRATION SHOWING A NORMAL DEGREE OF DILIGENCE TO REPLACE THE EQUIPMENT DESTROYED AND TO COLLECT AND PREPARE THE DATA . THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT CANNOT THEREFORE RELY ON THAT EVENT TO JUSTIFY ITS CONTINUING FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS YEARS LATER .
Criminal proceedings against Robert Heinrich Maria Mutsch.
Date: 1985-07-11
6 IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT IS STATED THE QUESTION CONCERNS THE CONFORMITY OF NATIONAL LAW WITH COMMUNITY LAW . IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT UNDER ARTICLE 177 THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO APPLY A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW TO A PARTICULAR CASE OR TO JUDGE A PROVISION OF NATIONAL LAW BY REFERENCE TO THAT RULE . IN PURSUANCE OF THE JUDICIAL COOPERATION PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ARTICLE IT MAY , HOWEVER , ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TO IT , PROVIDE A NATIONAL COURT WITH INFORMATION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAY BE USEFUL TO IT IN ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF THE PROVISION .
10 THE QUESTION REFERRED BY THE COUR D ' APPEL , LIEGE , MUST BE RESOLVED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM .
11 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 220 , WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE COUR D ' APPEL , IS NOT INTENDED TO LAY DOWN A LEGAL RULE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE AS SUCH , BUT MERELY DEFINES A NUMBER OF MATTERS ON WHICH THE MEMBER STATES ARE TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH EACH OTHER ' SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY ' . ITS ONLY EFFECT IS TO DEFINE AS AN OBJECTIVE THE EXTENSION BY EACH MEMBER STATE TO THE NATIONALS OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE RELEVANT GUARANTEES ACCORDED BY IT TO ITS OWN NATIONALS . IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMMUNITY BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS AND FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT THE PROTECTION OF THE LINGUISTIC RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF INDIVIDUALS IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE .
16 THE RIGHT TO USE HIS OWN LANGUAGE IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES , UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS NATIONAL WORKERS , PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE INTEGRATION OF A MIGRANT WORKER AND HIS FAMILY INTO THE HOST COUNTRY , AND THUS IN ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF FREE MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS .
17 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RIGHT MUST BE HELD TO FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM ' SOCIAL ADVANTAGE '  AS USED IN ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 , ACCORDING TO WHICH A WORKER WHO IS A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS ENTITLED , IN THE HOST MEMBER STATE , TO ' THE SAME SOCIAL AND TAX ADVANTAGES AS NATIONAL WORKERS ' . AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 31 MAY 1979 IN CASE 207/78 ( MINISTERE PUBLIC V EVEN , ( 1979 ) ECR 2019 ), THAT TERM COVERS ALL ADVANTAGES ' WHICH , WHETHER OR NOT LINKED TO A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT , ARE GENERALLY GRANTED TO NATIONAL WORKERS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THEIR OBJECTIVE STATUS AS WORKERS OR BY VIRTUE OF THE MERE FACT OF THEIR RESIDENCE ON THE NATIONAL TERRITORY ' .
Ford - Werke AG and Ford of Europe Inc. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-09-17
21 SUCH A DECISION ON THE PART OF THE MANUFACTURER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE , ON THE PART OF THE UNDERTAKING , A UNILATERAL ACT WHICH , AS THE APPLICANTS CLAIM , WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY . ON THE CONTRARY , IT FORMS PART OF THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNDERTAKING AND ITS DEALERS . INDEED , ADMISSION TO THE FORD AG DEALER NETWORK IMPLIES ACCEPTANCE BY THE CONTRACTING PARTIES OF THE POLICY PURSUED BY FORD WITH REGARD TO THE MODELS TO BE DELIVERED TO THE GERMAN MARKET .
The Queen, ex parte E. D. & F. Man (Sugar) Ltd v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (IBAP).
Date: 1985-09-24
20 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT , AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 20 FEBRUARY 1979 ( CASE 122/78 , BUITONI V FORMA , ( 1979 ) ECR 677 ) AND OF 23 FEBRUARY 1983 ( CASE 66/82 , FROMANCAIS SA V FORMA , ( 1983 ) ECR 395 ), IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IT IS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MEANS WHICH IT EMPLOYS ARE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT . WHERE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PRIMARY OBLIGATION , COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT , AND A SECONDARY OBLIGATION , ESSENTIALLY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE , IT CANNOT , WITHOUT BREACHING THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY , PENALIZE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION AS SEVERELY AS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRIMARY OBLIGATION .
Thomasdünger GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main.
Date: 1985-09-26
11 BEFORE CONSIDERING THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF , IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT , THE QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO WHAT THE APPLICANT ' S INTEREST WAS IN INSTITUTING THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF HEADINGS REQUESTED BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF . IN THAT RESPECT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT , EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES IN WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH THE COURT IS ASKED TO INTERPRET DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE DISPUTE IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , THE COURT LEAVES IT TO THE NATIONAL COURT TO DETERMINE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF EACH CASE WHETHER THE RGTPRELIMINARY RULING IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE PENDING BEFORE IT .
13 AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD , THE DECISIVE CRITERION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES IS IN GENERAL TO BE SOUGHT IN THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES AS DEFINED IN THE WORDING OF THE RELEVANT HEADING OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND OF THE NOTES TO THE SECTIONS OR CHAPTERS .
14 MOREOVER , THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT IN INTERPRETING THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF THE NOTES WHICH PRECEDE THE CHAPTERS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL , LIKE THE CLASSIFICATION SLIPS ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF NOMENCLATURE , CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT MEANS OF ENSURING THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES AND AS SUCH MAY VALIDLY BE RELIED UPON WHEN INTERPRETING THE TARIFF . IN ORDER TO INTERPRET THE ABOVEMENTIONED TARIFF HEADINGS IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY THE WORDING AND THE SCHEME OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF BUT ALSO THE CONTENTS OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTES AND THE CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS RELATING THERETO .
Office belge de l'économie et de l'agriculture (OBEA) v SA Nicolas Corman et fils.
Date: 1985-10-01
29 IN VIEW OF THAT DEFINITION , IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE FACT THAT A SUBSEQUENT BUYER OR FINAL USER OF BUTTER PURCHASES FROM STORAGE EXCEEDED THE TIME-LIMIT BECAUSE HE RELIED ON A CUSTOMS OFFICER WHO PURPORTED TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT AN EXTENSION AND FOR THAT REASON DID NOT ALTER HIS PRODUCTION PROGRAMME IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE TIME-LIMIT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE SUCCESSFUL TENDERER BUT DOES NOT PRESENT FOR HIM AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY ' THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITHOUT UNREASONABLE SACRIFICE , DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF ALL DUE CARE ' . IN FACT THERE ARE SEVERAL MEANS A PRUDENT TENDERER MAY USE , SUCH AS REQUIRING A SECURITY OR INSERTING AN INDEMNITY CLAUSE IN THE SALE CONTRACT , TO PREVENT SUBSEQUENT BUYERS FROM DISREGARDING THEIR OBLIGATIONS .
30 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT IN THIS REGARD THAT A CLAUSE SUCH AS THAT MENTIONED BY THE NATIONAL COURT IN ITS QUESTION , INSERTED INTO THE SALE CONTRACT BY THE SUCCESSFUL TENDERER AS A PRECAUTION , DOES NOT EXHAUST ALL THE POSSIBLE MEASURES FOR GUARDING AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUBSEQUENT BUYERS MIGHT NOT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS .
P. Capelloni and F. Aquilini v J. C. J. Pelkmans.
Date: 1985-10-03
16 HOWEVER , THE CONVENTION CONFINES ITSELF TO GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION FOR ENFORCEMENT , AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISIONS CONCERNING ENFORCEMENT PROPERLY SO CALLED , WHICH , AS STATED IN THE JUDGMENT OF 2 JULY 1985 ( CASE 148/84 DEUTSCHE GENOSSENSCHAFTSBANK ( 1985 ) ECR 1987 ), IS SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE COURT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS .
21 IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL PROCEDURAL LAW OF THE COURT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS MUST NOT IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO FRUSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THAT REGARD , WHETHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION , BY THE CONVENTION ITSELF AND BY ARTICLE 39 THEREOF IN PARTICULAR . ACCORDINGLY , THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY GIVEN PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL PROCEDURAL LAW OF THE COURT HEARING THE PROCEEDINGS IS APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 39 DEPENDS UPON THE SCOPE OF EACH PROVISION OF NATIONAL LAW AND UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 39 .