larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Ispettorato Provinciale dell’Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all’agricoltura e foreste della Regione Sicilia and Regione Sicilia v Domenico Valvo.
Date: 2008-03-13
17. It is apparent from the actual wording of Articles 17 and 18, and, in particular, the use of the word ‘may’ on a number of occasions, that Member States have the right to grant a compensatory allowance to farmers who fulfil the conditions laid down in those articles. Moreover, Article 18(2) of Regulation No 950/97 expressly authorises Member States to lay down additional or limiting conditions for the grant of that allowance. The Community legislature thus conferred on Member States a discretion in that area (see Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97 Jokela and Pitkäranta  [1998] ECR I-6267, paragraphs 36 and 37).
European Parliament (C-14/06) and Kingdom of Denmark (C-295/06) v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2008-04-01
50. At the outset, it should borne in mind that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) EC, the Community institutions may act only within the limits of the powers conferred upon them by the EC Treaty (Case C-403/05 Parliament v Commission [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 49).
51. Under the third indent of Article 202 EC, in order to ensure that the objectives set out in the Treaty are attained and in accordance with its provisions, the Council is to confer on the Commission, in the acts which the Council adopts, powers for the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down. The Council may impose certain requirements in respect of the exercise of those powers and may also reserve the right, in specific cases, to exercise directly implementing powers itself ( Parliament v Commission , paragraph 50).
52. Within the framework of those powers, the limits of which must be determined by reference amongst other things to the essential general aims of the legislation in question, the Commission is authorised to adopt all the measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to it (see, to that effect, Case C-478/93 Netherlands v Commission [1995] ECR I-3081, paragraphs 30 and 31; Case C-159/96 Portugal v Commission [1998] ECR I-7379, paragraphs 40 and 41; and Parliament v Commission , paragraph 51).
67. According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of Community law it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission  [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 50, and Case C-306/05 SGAE [2006] ECR I-11519, paragraph 34).
75. Such an objective, in compliance with Article 152 EC, according to which a high level of human health protection is to be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities (see, to that effect, Case C-504/04 Agrarproduktion Staebelow [2006] ECR I-679, paragraph 39), and in compliance with Article 174(2) EC, according to which Community policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection and is based on the principles of precaution and preventive action (see Case C-127/02 Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging [2004] ECR I-7405, paragraph 44) justifies the strict interpretation of the conditions for exemption.
84. Under the second paragraph of Article 231 EC the Court, if it considers it necessary, is to state which of the effects of a regulation which it has declared void are to be considered as definitive. Such a provision can also be applied to a decision adopted to amend an Annex contained in a directive (with regard to the directive itself, see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-21/94 Parliament v Council [1995] ECR I-1827, paragraph 31).
01051 Telecom GmbH v Deutsche Telekom AG.
Date: 2008-04-03
21. In order to answer the question referred by the national court, it must first be recalled that although, as Deutsche Telekom and the German, Austrian and Finnish Governments point out, the Directive does not harmonise fully all the rules relating to late payments in commercial transactions, it does govern certain specific rules in that regard. They include, inter alia, as the Court has already held, rules on interest for late payment (see, to that effect, Case C‑302/05 Commission  v Italy  [2006] ECR I‑10597, paragraph 23).
27. It is worth adding also that such a reading of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Directive appears to be confirmed by the interpretation adopted by the Court in respect of other areas of Community law. Thus, as 01051 Telecom points out, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the crediting to the account of the own resources of the European Communities constitutes the decisive criterion for establishing whether a Member State which is required to place a sum of money at the disposal of the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations and whether, consequently, it is required to pay interest for late payment (see, to that effect, Case C‑363/00 Commission  v Italy  [2003] ECR I‑5767, paragraphs 42, 43 and 46).
K. D. Chuck v Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank.
Date: 2008-04-03
26. The Court has held that Article 51 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 51 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment, Article 42 EC) leaves in being differences between the Member States’ social security schemes and, consequently, in the rights of persons working in the Member States (Case C‑227/89 Rönfeldt  [1991] ECR I‑323, paragraph 12).
27. Regulation No 1408/71 does not set up a common scheme of social security, but allows different national social security schemes to exist and its sole objective is to ensure the coordination of those schemes (Case 21/87 Borowitz  [1988] ECR 3715, paragraph 23). It allows different schemes to continue to exist, creating different claims on different institutions against which the claimant possesses direct rights by virtue either of national law alone or of national law supplemented, where necessary, by Community law (Case 100/78 Rossi  [1979] ECR 831, paragraph 13).
28. The Court has also held that regulations adopted for the implementation of Article 51 of the Treaty must be interpreted in the light of the objective pursued by that article, which is the establishment of the greatest possible freedom of movement for migrant workers within the Community (see Case 10/78 Belbouab  [1978] ECR 1915, paragraph 5, and Case C-105/89 Buhari Haji  [1990] ECR I-4211, paragraph 20).
32. However, as the Advocate General notes in point 44 of his Opinion, Regulation No 1408/71 seeks to achieve the objective set out in Article 51 of the Treaty by preventing the possible negative effects that the exercise of the freedom of movement for workers could have on the enjoyment, by workers and their families, of social security benefits, in particular so far as concerns the career of migrant workers who have contributed to various social security systems, and thus to provide workers with legal certainty that they will retain the pension rights deriving from their contributions to pension systems in a similar way to a worker who has not exercised his right to freedom of movement within the Community.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2008-04-03
33. It should, at the outset, be stated that, in examining this action, it is necessary to take into consideration the explanations of the law provided by the Kingdom of Spain which are not disputed by the Commission. Those explanations are based on the interpretations in the case‑law of the national courts as to the effects which follow from the act of awarding the contract and the finalisation of the contract respectively, since those legal concepts are matters of national law.
37. It follows from the case‑law of the Court that the combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of the directive are to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages (see Alcatel Austria and Others , paragraph 43).
38. Moreover, the complete legal protection which must accordingly be ensured before the conclusion of the contract pursuant to Article 2(1) of the review directive presupposes, in particular, the duty to inform the tenderers of the award decision before the conclusion of the contract so that they may have a real possibility of initiating review proceedings.
39. That same protection requires provision to be made for the unsuccessful tenderer to examine in sufficient time the question of whether the decision to award is valid. In the light of the need to guarantee the effectiveness of the review directive, it follows that a reasonable period must pass between the moment when the award decision is communicated to the unsuccessful tenderers and the conclusion of the contract in order to allow them, inter alia, to bring an application for interim measures until the conclusion of the contract.
44. It follows that, in certain cases, no effective review proceedings can be brought against the act of awarding the contract before the performance as such of the contract although the objective of the review directive is to ensure that unlawful decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible (see, to that effect, Case C‑470/99 Universale-Bau and Others  [2002] ECR I-11617, paragraph 74).
45. Fourth, the fact that there is the option of bringing proceedings for the annulment of the contract itself is not such as to compensate for the impossibility of challenging the mere act of awarding the contract concerned, before the contract is concluded.
Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk.
Date: 2008-04-03
15. As a preliminary point, it should be stated that, in order to determine the meaning of the word ‘tether’, in the absence of a definition of that word in Amended Directive 91/629 it is necessary to refer to the usual and everyday accepted meaning of that word (Case 349/85 Denmark v Commission [1988] ECR 169, paragraph 9, and Case C-164/98 P DIR International Film and Others v Commission [2000] ECR I-447, paragraph 26).
22. It should secondly be pointed out that, in any event, the word in question cannot be examined solely in the Dutch version of that point, as Community provisions must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all European Community languages (see Case C-449/93 Rockfon [1995] ECR I-4291, paragraph 28; Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 36; and Case C-280/04 Jyske Finans [2005] ECR I-10683, paragraph 31).
23. According to settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a Community provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement of the uniform application of Community law (see Case C-149/97 Institute of the Motor Industry [1998] ECR I-7053, paragraph 16).
24. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (Case C-437/97 EKW and Wein & Co [2000] ECR I-1157, paragraph 42, and Case C-1/02 Borgmann [2004] ECR I-3219, paragraph 25).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
Date: 2008-04-08
40. As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in accordance with established case-law, Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC), as a whole, has the aim of ensuring free movement of goods between the Member States in normal conditions of competition through the elimination of all forms of protection which may result from the application of internal taxation that discriminates against products from other Member States and the complete neutrality of internal taxation as regards competition between domestic products and imported products ( Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 6).
41. In that context, the second paragraph of Article 90 EC is intended to prevent any form of indirect fiscal protectionism affecting imported products which, although not similar, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, to domestic products, nevertheless compete with some of them, even if only partially, indirectly or potentially ( Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 7, and Joined Cases C‑367/93 to C‑377/93 Roders and Others  [1995] ECR I‑2229, paragraph 38).
43. It is clear from the case-law that wine and beer are, to a certain extent, capable of meeting identical needs, which means that a certain measure of mutual substitutability must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the Court has pointed out that, in view of the significant differences in quality – and, accordingly, in price – between wines, the decisive competitive relationship between wine and beer, a popular and widely consumed beverage, must be established by reference to those wines which are the most accessible to the public at large, that is to say, generally speaking, the lightest and least expensive varieties, and it is therefore on that basis that tax comparisons must be made ( Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).
52. Thirdly, it is appropriate to determine whether the higher taxation of wine as compared with strong beer is such as to have the effect, on the market in question, of reducing potential consumption of imported products to the advantage of competing domestic products (see Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 15, and Roders and Others , paragraph 39).
53. In that respect, account must be taken of the difference between the selling prices of the products in question and the impact of that difference on the consumer’s choice, as well as to changes in the consumption of those products ( Roders and Others , paragraph 39).
60. Admittedly, the Court pointed out, in paragraph 10 of the judgment of 27 February 1980 in Commission  v United Kingdom , that it is impossible to require, in each case, for the purposes of applying the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, that the protective effect of internal tax arrangements be shown statistically, but that it is sufficient for it to be shown that a given tax mechanism is likely, in view of its inherent characteristics, to bring about such an effect.
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2008-04-10
25. It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, in proceedings under Article 226 EC the question whether a Member State had 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 Case C-423/00 Commission  v Belgium  [2002] ECR I-593, paragraph 14, and Case C-254/05 Commission  v Belgium  [2007] ECR I‑4269, paragraph 39).
31. According to settled case-law, all rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions, prohibited by Article 28 EC (see, inter alia, Case 8/74 Dassonville  [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5; Case C-420/01 Commission  v Italy  [2003] ECR I-6445, paragraph 25; and Case C-143/06 Ludwigs-Apotheke  [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 25).
33. It must be held that potential customers, traders or individuals have practically no interest in buying them in the knowledge that affixing such film to the windscreen and windows alongside passenger seats in motor vehicles is prohibited.
37. According to settled case-law, a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports may be justified only by one of the public-interest reasons laid down in Article 30 EC or by one of the overriding requirements referred to in the judgments of the Court (see, in particular, Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral ( ‘ Cassis de Dijon ’) [1979] ECR 649, paragraph 8), provided in each case that that measure is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (Case C-14/02 ATRAL  [2003] ECR I-4431, paragraph 64; Case C-432/03 Commission v Portugal  [2005] ECR I-9665, paragraph 42; and Case C-254/05 Commission  v Belgium , paragraph 33).
38. In this case, the justifications put forward by the Portuguese Republic relate, first, to the fight against crime in the context of public safety and, second, to ensuring that the obligation to wear seat belts is complied with, which comes within the sphere of road safety. The fight against crime and ensuring road safety may constitute overriding reasons in the public interest capable of justifying a hindrance to the free movement of goods (see, with regard to road safety, Case C-54/05 Commission  v Finland  [2007] ECR I-2473, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
39. However, it is for the Member States to show that their legislation is appropriate to ensure the attainment of such objectives and that it is in conformity with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-297/05 Commission  v Netherlands [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).
Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België VZW and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken.
Date: 2008-04-17
38. As the Court has previously held, the content of the education and training required by a Member State which regulates a profession is a criterion which is especially relevant in order to establish the requirements connected to the practice thereof (Case C‑149/05 Price  [2006] ECR I‑7691, paragraph 55). Consequently, a profession which is open to persons who have not received significant education and training in law cannot be considered to be one ‘whose practice requires precise knowledge of national law’.
The proportionality of the compensatory measures
39. In any event, the scope of Article 4 of Directive 89/48, which expressly authorises compensatory measures, must be restricted to those cases where they are proportionate to the objective pursued (Case C‑330/03 Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos  [2006] ECR I‑801, paragraph 24).
42. So far as concerns the imposition of a penalty in conditions such as those of the main proceedings, a Member State may not apply a penalty for failure to complete an administrative formality where such completion has been refused or rendered impossible by the Member State concerned, in infringement of Community law (Joined Cases C‑338/04, C‑359/04 and C‑360/04 Placanica and Others  [2007] ECR I‑1891, paragraph 69). That is notably the case where compliance with the administrative formality concerned is made subject to conditions which are contrary to Community law.
Thomas Flaherty (C-373/06 P), Larry Murphy (C-379/06 P) and Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P) v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2008-04-17
25. According to established case-law, an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the time at which the action is brought, failing which it will be inadmissible. That purpose must continue, like the interest in bringing proceedings, until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it (see, to that effect, Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie and AKZO Chemie UK  v Commission  [1986] ECR 1965, paragraph 21; and, by analogy, Case C‑19/93 P Rendo and Others  v Commission  [1995] ECR I‑3319, paragraph 13; Case C‑174/99 P Parliament  v Richard  [2000] ECR I‑6189, paragraph 33; and Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger  v Commission  [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 42).
36. First of all, it must be borne in mind that the Court has consistently held that persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by a decision (Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at 107; Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki and Others  v Commission  [1985] ECR 207, paragraph 11; and Case C‑260/05 P Sniace v Commission [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 53).
Othmar Michaeler (C-55/07 and C-56/07), Subito GmbH (C-55/07 and C-56/07) and Ruth Volgger (C-56/07) v Amt für sozialen Arbeitsschutz and Autonome Provinz Bozen.
Date: 2008-04-24
21. The objective of Directive 97/81 and the framework agreement is, first, to promote part-time work and, secondly, to eliminate discrimination between part-time workers and full-time workers.