larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Weingut Gustav Decker KG v Hauptzollamt Landau.
Date: 1979-01-25
8ALTHOUGH IN GENERAL THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY PRECLUDES A COMMUNITY MEASURE FROM TAKING EFFECT FROM A POINT IN TIME BEFORE ITS PUBLICATION , IT MAY EXCEPTIONALLY BE OTHERWISE WHERE THE PURPOSE TO BE ACHIEVED SO DEMANDS AND WHERE THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE CONCERNED ARE DULY RESPECTED .

AS REGARDS MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS IN PARTICULAR THE SYSTEM INTRODUCED BY REGULATION NO 974/71 IMPLIES IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE MEASURES ADOPTED TAKE EFFECT AS FROM THE OCCURRENCE OF THE EVENTS WHICH GIVE RISE TO THEM , SO THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM FULLY EFFECTIVE IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF NEWLY-FIXED MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS TO FACTS AND EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED SHORTLY BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE REGULATION FIXING THEM IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL .

IT IS INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS THAT TRADERS MUST EXPECT ANY APPRECIABLE CHANGE IN THE MONETARY SITUATION POSSIBLY TO ENTAIL THE EXTENSION OF THE SYSTEM TO NEW CATEGORIES OF GOODS AND THE FIXING OF NEW AMOUNTS .

IN THIS CASE ON THE DATE LAID DOWN FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE NEW AMOUNTS , THE COMMISSION ADOPTED SPECIAL MEASURES FOR THEM TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF INDUSTRY CONCERNED .

THE APPLICABILITY OF REGULATION NO 649/73 TO EVENTS OCCURRING AS FROM 26 FEBRUARY 1973 , THAT IS TO SAY DURING A PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS BEFORE ITS ACTUAL PUBLICATION , WAS THEREFORE NOT SUCH AS TO JEOPARDIZE EXPECTATIONS DESERVING PROTECTION .

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FINDING IN RELATION TO REGULATION NO 649/73 , AND HAVING REGARD TO THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION PREVAILING AT THE TIME , NO OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO LEGAL CERTAINTY PREVENTS REGULATION NO 741/73 , ADOPTED ON 5 MARCH 1973 , FROM ALTERING THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS RESULTING FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED REGULATION FROM BEING GIVEN EFFECT AS FROM 5 MARCH 1973 , NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT REGULATION NO 649/73 HAD NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL .
Fausta Deshormes, née La Valle v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1979-02-01
35ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDES THAT ' ' AUXILIARY STAFF ' '  MEANS STAFF ENGAGED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES IN AN INSTITUTION BUT NOT ASSIGNED TO A POST INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF POSTS APPENDED TO THE SECTION OF THE BUDGET RELATING TO THAT INSTITUTION , OR STAFF ENGAGED TO REPLACE AN OFFICIAL WHO IS UNABLE FOR THE TIME BEING TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES AND WHOSE POST COULD NOT BE FILLED BY TEMPORARY POSTING OF ANOTHER OFFICIAL .
Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1979-02-07
6THE TEXT OF ARTICLE 8 IN THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE VERSIONS , CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORIGINS OF THE PROVISION AND THE PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS , ON WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE BASED THEIR ARGUMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , CONTAINS TOO MANY CONTRADICTORY AND AMBIGUOUS ELEMENTS TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE .

IN ORDER TO INTERPRET THAT PROVISION , THEREFORE , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ITS CONTEXT AND THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RULES IN QUESTION .
8IN CASES WHERE , VIEWED OBJECTIVELY , COMMUNITY LAW HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY APPLIED ON THE BASIS OF AN INTERPRETATION ADOPTED IN GOOD FAITH BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE , EITHER UNDER COMMUNITY LAW OR UNDER MOST OF THE NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS , TO RECOVER SUMS PAID IN ERROR FROM THE RECIPIENTS AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO UNDERTAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE .

CONSEQUENTLY SUCH A SITUATION CANNOT FALL UNDER ARTICLE 8 BUT MUST , ON THE CONTRARY , BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE SAME REGULATION , ACCORDING TO WHICH REFUNDS GRANTED AND INTERVENTION UNDERTAKEN ' ' IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES ' '  WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS ARE TO BE FINANCED BY THE EAGGF .
THOSE PROVISIONS PERMIT THE COMMISSION TO CHARGE TO THE EAGGF ONLY SUMS PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WHILE LEAVING THE MEMBER STATES TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF ANY OTHER SUM PAID , AND IN PARTICULAR ANY AMOUNTS WHICH THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WRONGLY BELIEVED THEMSELVES AUTHORIZED TO PAY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS .
9THAT STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EXPENDITURE IS TO BE BORNE BY THE EAGGF IS NECESSARY , MOREOVER , IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIVES OF REGULATION NO 729/70 .
IN FACT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN CONDITIONS OF EQUALITY BETWEEN TRADERS IN THE MEMBER STATES REQUIRES THAT THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE SHOULD NOT , BY THE EXPEDIENT OF A WIDE INTERPRETATION OF A GIVEN PROVISION , FAVOUR TRADERS IN THAT STATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE IN OTHER STATES WHERE A STRICTER INTERPRETATION IS APPLIED .

IF SUCH DISTORTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ARISES DESPITE THE MEANS AVAILABLE TO ENSURE THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY IT CANNOT BE FINANCED BY THE EAGGF BUT MUST , IN ANY EVENT , BE BORNE BY THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED .

IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION NO 729/70 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE OPERATIONS IN QUESTION .
French Government v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1979-02-07
7AS REGARDS THE RELEVANCE OF SUBSEQUENT RECTIFICATION IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT UNDER ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY THE LEGALITY OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE ELEMENTS OF FACT AND OF LAW EXISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THE MEASURE WAS ADOPTED .
9WITH REGARD MORE PARTICULARLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE LEGALITY OF DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE DISCHARGE OF ACCOUNTS PRESENTED BY THE MEMBER STATES IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE FINANCED BY THE EAGGF IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF SUCH A DECISION IS TO ASSESS WHETHER IT MAY BE ACCEPTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY PROVISIONS .
10IN CASES WHERE THE COMMUNITY RULES AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF AN AID ONLY ON CONDITION THAT CERTAIN FORMALITIES RELATING TO PROOF ARE COMPLIED WITH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT , AID PAID IN DISREGARD OF THAT CONDITION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAW AND THE RELATED EXPENDITURE CANNOT , THEREFORE , IN PRINCIPLE BE CHARGED TO THE EAGGF WHEN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION ARE DISCHARGED , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY POSSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO TAKE ACCOUNT , DURING ANOTHER FINANCIAL YEAR , OF THE SUBSEQUENT PRODUCTION OF THE REQUISITE PROOF .
27THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TREATY OBLIGATIONS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A DECLARATION THAT THE CONDUCT OF A MEMBER STATE INFRINGES COMMUNITY LAW AND OF TERMINATING THAT CONDUCT ; THE COMMISSION REMAINS AT LIBERTY , IF THE MEMBER STATE HAS PUT AN END TO THE ALLEGED FAILURE , TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS BUT SUCH DISCONTINUANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RECOGNITION THAT THE CONTESTED CONDUCT IS LAWFUL .
28AS COMMUNITY LAW NOW STANDS THE PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THE ACCOUNTS , ON THE OTHER HAND , SERVES TO DETERMINE NOT ONLY THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY AND PROPERLY INCURRED BUT ALSO THAT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY IS CORRECTLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMUNITY AND IN THIS RESPECT THE COMMISSION HAS NO DISCRETIONARY POWER TO DEROGATE FROM THE RULES REGULATING THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES .
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1979-02-07
7CONSEQUENTLY SUCH A SITUATION CANNOT FALL UNDER ARTICLE 8 BUT MUST , ON THE CONTRARY , BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE SAME REGULATION , ACCORDING TO WHICH REFUNDS GRANTED AND INTERVENTION UNDERTAKEN ' ' IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES ' '  WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS ARE TO BE FINANCED BY THE EAGGF .
THOSE PROVISIONS PERMIT THE COMMISSION TO CHARGE TO THE EAGGF ONLY SUMS PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF AGRICULTUAL PRODUCTION WHILE LEAVING THE MEMBER STATES TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF ANY OTHER SUM PAID , AND IN PARTICULAR ANY AMOUNTS WHICH THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WRONGLY BELIEVED THEMSELVES AUTHORIZED TO PAY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS .
8THAT STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EXPENDITURE IS TO BE BORNE BY THE EAGGF IS NECESSARY , MOREOVER , IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIVE OF REGULATION NO 729/70 .
IN FACT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN CONDITIONS OF EQUALITY BETWEEN TRADERS IN THE MEMBER STATES REQUIRES THAT THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE SHOULD NOT , BY THE EXPEDIENT OF A WIDE INTERPRETATION OF A GIVEN PROVISION , FAVOUR TRADERS IN THAT STATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE IN OTHER STATES WHERE A STRICTER INTERPRETATION IS APPLIED .

IF SUCH DISTORTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ARISES DESPITE THE MEANS AVAILABLE TO ENSURE THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY IT CANNOT BE FINANCED BY THE EAGGF BUT MUST , IN ANY EVENT , BE BORNE BY THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED .
J. Knoors v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken.
Date: 1979-02-07
20IN FACT , THESE LIBERTIES , WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM , COULD NOT BE FULLY REALIZED IF THE MEMBER STATES WERE IN A POSITION TO REFUSE TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW TO THOSE OF THEIR NATIONALS WHO HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE FACILITIES EXISTING IN THE MATTER OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT AND WHO HAVE ACQUIRED , BY VIRTUE OF SUCH FACILITIES , THE TRADE QUALIFICATIONS REFERRED TO BY THE DIRECTIVE IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT WHOSE NATIONALITY THEY POSSESS .
24ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT AND THE PROVISION OF SERVICES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE PURELY INTERNAL TO A MEMBER STATE , THE POSITION NEVERTHELESS REMAINS THAT THE REFERENCE IN ARTICLE 52 TO ' ' NATIONALS OF A MEMBER STATE ' '  WHO WISH TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES ' ' IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ' '  CANNOT BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE BENEFIT OF COMMUNITY LAW A GIVEN MEMBER STATE ' S OWN NATIONALS WHEN THE LATTER , OWING TO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE LAWFULLY RESIDED ON THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND HAVE THERE ACQUIRED A TRADE QUALIFICATION WHICH IS RECOGNIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW , ARE , WITH REGARD TO THEIR STATE OF ORIGIN , IN A SITUATION WHICH MAY BE ASSIMILATED TO THAT OF ANY OTHER PERSONS ENJOYING THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE TREATY .
25HOWEVER , IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DISREGARD THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST WHICH A MEMBER STATE MAY HAVE IN PREVENTING CERTAIN OF ITS NATIONALS , BY MEANS OF FACILITIES CREATED UNDER THE TREATY , FROM ATTEMPTING WRONGLY TO EVADE THE APPLICATION OF THEIR NATIONAL LEGISLATION AS REGARDS TRAINING FOR A TRADE .
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 1979-02-07
10AS THE COURT SAID IN THE SAME JUDGMENT , PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH APPEAR AT THE STAGE WHEN A COMMUNITY MEASURE IS PUT INTO EFFECT CANNOT PERMIT A MEMBER STATE UNILATERALLY TO OPT OUT OF FULFILLING ITS OBLIGATIONS . THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM PROVIDES THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED WITH THE NECESSARY MEANS TO ENSURE THAT ITS DIFFICULTIES BE GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION , SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON MARKET AND THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .
Granaria BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten.
Date: 1979-02-13
5THUS IT FOLLOWS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY THAT , ALTHOUGH RESPECT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RULE OF LAW WITHIN THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT ENTAILS FOR PERSONS AMENABLE TO COMMUNITY LAW THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS BY LEGAL ACTION , THAT PRINCIPLE ALSO IMPOSES UPON ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY LAW THE OBLIGATION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REGULATIONS ARE FULLY EFFECTIVE SO LONG AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DECLARED TO BE INVALID BY A COMPETENT COURT .
14THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY ' S LIABILITY UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY FALLS WITHIN THE TREATY FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 178 OF THE TREATY , AND LIES OUTSIDE THAT OF ANY NATIONAL COURT .

THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION BY A NATIONAL AGENCY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS BY THE AGENCIES AND SERVANTS OF MEMBER STATES , EITHER BY REASON OF AN INFRINGEMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW OR BY AN ACT OR OMISSION CONTRARY TO NATIONAL LAW , IN THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY AND MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE NATIONAL COURTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED .

THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH QUESTIONS
SA Buitoni v Fonds d'orientation et de régularisation des marchés agricoles.
Date: 1979-02-20
16AS REGARDS THE PROBLEM OF PROPORTIONALITY , IT SHOULD BE EXAMINED WHETHER THE PENALTY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 499/76 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIOD FOR PRESENTATION OF THE PROOFS PRESCRIBED BY THAT PROVISION EXCEEDS WHAT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT .
SpA Simmenthal v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1979-03-06
25THUS , ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION DECISION WAS ADOPTED IN THE FORM OF A DECISION ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBER STATES AND THROUGH THEM TO THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES , IT HAS DIRECTLY DETERMINED THE FATE , BE IT FAVOURABLE OR UNFAVOURABLE , OF EACH OF THE TENDERS SUBMITTED IN ANSWER TO THE NOTICES OF INVITATIONS TO TENDER OF 13 JANUARY 1978 .
26SINCE THE INVITATION TO TENDER IN QUESTION IS IN FACT ONE WHICH COVERS THE WHOLE OF THE COMMUNITY AND WAS DECIDED UPON BY THE COMMISSION ALONE - THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES ONLY ACTING AS AGENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING THE TENDERS AND NOTIFYING THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE RESULT - IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE COMMISSION DECISION IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT AND THAT ITS APPLICATION IS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE .
32EVEN THOUGH THE CONTESTED DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER TENDERERS PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME INVITATION TO TENDER THE APPLICANT RETAINS AN INTEREST IN THE ANNULMENT OF THIS DECISION ; SUCH INTEREST CONSISTS EITHER IN ITS BEING RESTORED SUFFICIENTLY BY THE COMMISSION TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION OR IN INDUCING THE COMMISSION TO MAKE SUITABLE AMENDMENTS IN THE FUTURE TO THE SYSTEM OF INVITATIONS TO TENDER IF THE LATTER IS FOUND TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH CERTAIN LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .
39AS THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 JUNE 1958 IN CASE 15/57 , COMPAGNIE DES HAUTS FOURNEAUX DE CHASSE V HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY ( 1957 AND 1958 ) ECR 211 , AND IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 JUNE 1956 IN CASE 9/56 , MERONI & CO ., INDUSTRIE METALLURGISCHE S.P.A . V HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY ( 1957 AND 1958 ) ECR 133 , HAS ALREADY HELD IN CONNEXION WITH ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY , ARTICLE 184 OF THE EEC TREATY GIVES EXPRESSION TO A GENERAL PRINCIPLE CONFERRING UPON ANY PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE , FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE ANNULMENT OF A DECISION OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THAT PARTY , THE VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH FORM THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE DECISION WHICH IS BEING ATTACKED , IF THAT PARTY WAS NOT ENTITLED UNDER ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY TO BRING A DIRECT ACTION CHALLENGING THOSE ACTS BY WHICH IT WAS THUS AFFECTED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN IN A POSITION TO ASK THAT THEY BE DECLARED VOID .
40THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE SAID ARTICLE MUST THEREFORE INCLUDE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH , ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION , NEVERTHELESS PRODUCE SIMILAR EFFECTS AND ON THOSE GROUNDS MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED UNDER ARTICLE 173 BY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS OTHER THAN COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS AND MEMBER STATES .
Claudino Rossi v Caisse de compensation pour allocations familiales des régions de Charleroi et Namur.
Date: 1979-03-06
12SINCE THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS NOT EXPRESSLY DETERMINED BY THE REGULATIONS DEALING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS , IT CAN BE FOUND ONLY THROUGH THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE REGULATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AIMS PURSUED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY ( ARTICLES 48 TO 51 ) UNDER WHICH THEY WERE MADE .
13THE REGULATIONS DID NOT SET UP A COMMON SCHEME OF SOCIAL SECURITY , BUT ALLOWED DIFFERENT SCHEMES 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 .
14THE COMMUNITY RULES COULD NOT , IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS EXCEPTION CONSISTENT WITH THE AIMS OF THE TREATY , BE APPLIED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEPRIVE A MIGRANT WORKER OR HIS DEPENDANTS OF THE BENEFIT OF A PART OF THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE .
Salumificio di Cornuda SpA v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
Date: 1979-03-08
23THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION ON 28 JULY 1966 BY VIRTUE OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS , HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED ON THE SAME DAY , TOOK EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AT THE TIME OF THAT NOTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 191 OF THE TREATY .
24THUS , AS FROM 28 JULY 1966 , THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC WAS , WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT , UNDER A DUTY TO ABOLISH THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES , THE INTRODUCTION OF WHICH HAD BEEN DECLARED TO THE COMMISSION ON 23 JULY 1966 .
25CONSEQUENTLY THE ITALIAN ADMINISTRATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE RECOURSE TO THE PROTECTIVE MEASURE IN QUESTION AGAINST A TRADER IN RESPECT OF AN IMPORTATION WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE DATE - 28 JULY 1966 - ON WHICH THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION TOOK EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THE STATE .
26THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES CANNOT DISPUTE THE FULL EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT DECISION BY RELYING ON THE FACT THAT THE INTERNAL MEASURES TAKEN UNDER THE PROTECTIVE MEASURE WERE NOT REPEALED UNTIL A DATE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ON WHICH THE DECISION TOOK EFFECT .
27RELIANCE , ON THE PART OF THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION , ON ITS OWN DELAY IN CARRYING OUT A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY WOULD IN FACT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY WHICH PROVIDES THAT : ' ' MEMBER STATES SHALL TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES , WHETHER GENERAL OR PARTICULAR , TO ENSURE FULFILMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THIS TREATY OR RESULTING FROM ACTION TAKEN BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ' ' .
SA des grandes distilleries Peureux v directeur des Services fiscaux de la Haute-Saône et du territoire de Belfort.
Date: 1979-03-13
32ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 95 PROHIBITS ANY MEMBER STATE FROM IMPOSING INTERNAL TAXATION ON PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES IN EXCESS OF THAT ON NATIONAL PRODUCTS , IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE IMPOSITION ON NATIONAL PRODUCTS OF INTERNAL TAXATION IN EXCESS OF THAT ON IMPORTED PRODUCTS .
Giovanni Coccioli v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.
Date: 1979-03-20
7ARTICLE 69 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , IN GIVING A WORKER THE RIGHT TO GO TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT , CONFERS ON A PERSON WHO AVAILS HIMSELF OF THAT PROVISION AN ADVANTAGE AS COMPARED WITH A PERSON WHO REMAINS IN THE COMPETENT STATE INASMUCH AS , BY THE EFFECT OF ARTICLE 69 , HE IS FREED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS OF THE DUTY , WHICH IS THE COUNTERPART OF THE GRANT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS , TO KEEP HIMSELF AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES OF THE COMPETENT STATE AND TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL PROCEDURE ORGANIZED THEREIN , EVEN THOUGH HE MUST REGISTER WITH THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES OF THE MEMBER STATE TO WHICH HE GOES .
Jacques de Cavel v Louise de Cavel.
Date: 1979-03-27
7THE ENFORCED SETTLEMENT ON A PROVISIONAL BASIS OF PROPRIETARY LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPOUSES IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE IS CLOSELY LINKED TO THE GROUNDS FOR THE DIVORCE AND THE PERSONAL SITUATION OF THE SPOUSES OR ANY CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE AND IS , FOR THAT REASON , INSEPARABLE FROM QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE STATUS OF PERSONS RAISED BY THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP AND FROM THE SETTLEMENT OF RIGHTS IN PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF THE MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP .

CONSEQUENTLY , THE TERM ' ' RIGHTS IN PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF A MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP ' '  INCLUDES NOT ONLY PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS SPECIFICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ENVISAGED BY CERTAIN NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS IN THE CASE OF MARRIAGE BUT ALSO ANY PROPRIETARY RELATIONSHIPS RESULTING DIRECTLY FROM THE MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP OR THE DISSOLUTION THEREOF .

DISPUTES RELATING TO THE ASSETS OF SPOUSES IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE MAY THEREFORE , DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES , CONCERN OR BE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH :
( 1 ) QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE STATUS OF PERSONS ; OR
( 2)PROPRIETARY LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPOUSES RESULTING DIRECTLY FROM THE MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP OR THE DISSOLUTION THEREOF ; OR
( 3)PROPRIETARY LEGAL RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN THEM WHICH HAVE NO CONNEXION WITH THE MARRIAGE .

WHEREAS DISPUTES OF THE LATTER CATEGORY FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION , THOSE RELATING TO THE FIRST TWO CATEGORIES MUST BE EXCLUDED THEREFROM .
8THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO MEASURES RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OF SPOUSES WHETHER THEY ARE PROVISIONAL OR DEFINITIVE IN NATURE .

AS PROVISIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO PROPERTY - SUCH AS THE AFFIXING OF SEALS OR THE FREEZING OF ASSETS - CAN SERVE TO SAFEGUARD A VARIETY OF RIGHTS , THEIR INCLUSION IN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION IS DETERMINED NOT BY THEIR OWN NATURE BUT BY THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THEY SERVE TO PROTECT .
9FURTHERMORE , IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS COVERED BY THE CONVENTION , NO LEGAL BASIS IS TO BE FOUND THEREIN FOR DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROVISIONAL AND DEFINITIVE MEASURES .

THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT AFFECTED BY ARTICLE 24 OF THE CONVENTION WHEREBY : ' ' APPLICATION MAY BE MADE TO THE COURTS OF A CONTRACTING STATE FOR SUCH PROVISIONAL , INCLUDING PROTECTIVE , MEASURES AS MAY BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE , EVEN IF , UNDER THIS CONVENTION , THE COURTS OF ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE HAVE JURISDICTION AS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER ' ' .

IN FACT THAT PROVISION EXPRESSLY ENVISAGES THE CASE OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES IN A CONTRACTING STATE WHERE ' ' UNDER THIS CONVENTION ' '  THE COURTS OF ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE HAVE JURISDICTION AS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER AND IT CANNOT , THEREFORE , BE RELIED ON TO BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION PROVISIONAL OR PROTECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO MATTERS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED THEREFROM .
P. Biegi v Hauptzollamt Bochum.
Date: 1979-03-28
11WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND QUESTION , AS HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE , REGULATION NO 1669/77 WAS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER , CONFERRED ON IT BY REGULATION NO 97/69 , TO SPECIFY THE CONTENT OF THE HEADINGS OR SUBHEADINGS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF BY MEANS OF MEASURES EFFECTING , SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 OF THE LATTER REGULATION , ' ' THE INCLUSION OF GOODS UNDER A PARTICULAR HEADING OR SUBHEADING ' ' .

A REGULATION SPECIFYING THE CONDITIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION IN A TARIFF HEADING OR SUBHEADING IS OF A LEGISLATIVE NATURE AND CANNOT HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT .

CONSEQUENTLY , COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1669/77 OF 25 JULY 1977 IS NOT BINDING ON NATIONAL COURTS WHICH HAVE TO DEFINE THE TARIFF CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS IMPORTED BEFORE ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE .

THIRD QUESTION
The Queen v Vera Ann Saunders.
Date: 1979-03-28
11THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS CANNOT THEREFORE BE APPLIED TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE WHOLLY INTERNAL TO A MEMBER STATE , IN OTHER WORDS , WHERE THERE IS NO FACTOR CONNECTING THEM TO ANY OF THE SITUATIONS ENVISAGED BY COMMUNITY LAW .