larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1992-05-20
14 It should be observed first of all that the two definitions of medicinal products, namely the definition relating to presentation and that relating to function , cannot be regarded as strictly separate from one another. A substance which is endowed with properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals , within the meaning of the first Community definition, but which is not presented as such, falls in principle within the scope of the second Community definition of a medicinal product (judgment in Case 227/82 Van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883, paragraph 22).
15 Furthermore, although the essential purpose of Directive 65/65 may, as is indicated in the fourth recital in its preamble, be to remove obstacles to trade in proprietary medicinal products within the Community and although for that purpose Article 1 gives a definition of proprietary medicinal products and of medicinal products, it nevertheless constitutes merely a first stage in the approximation of national legislation on the production and distribution of pharmaceutical products.
16 At the present stage of development of Community law, it is difficult to avoid the continued existence, for the time being and, doubtless, so long as harmonization of the measures necessary to ensure the protection of health is not more complete, of differences in the classification of products as between Member States (see, most recently, the judgments in Case C-60/89 Monteil and Samanni [1991] ECR I-1547, paragraphs 27 and 28, and C-369/88 Delattre [1991] ECR I-1487, paragraphs 28 and 29).
17 In those circumstances, and as is clear from the above judgments and the judgment in Case C-112/89 Upjohn [1991] ECR I-1703, paragraph 23, it is for the national authorities to determine, subject to review by the courts, for each product, whether or not it constitutes a medicinal product, having regard to all of its characteristics, in particular its composition, its pharmacological properties ° as they may be ascertained in the current state of scientific knowledge ° the way in which it is used, the extent to which it is sold, its familiarity to consumers and the risks which its use may entail.
20 In those circumstances, having regard to the arguments it has put forward, the Commission has not demonstrated that the German authorities have exceeded the bounds of their discretion in classifying the lotions in question as medicinal products.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1992-06-03
11 The Court has consistently held that Article 59 prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result (see, in particular, Case C-3/88 Commission v Italy [1989] ECR 4035, paragraph 8).
14 It need merely be observed, in that connection, that such considerations are matters neither of public policy, public security or public health referred to in Articles 66 and 56 of the Treaty, taken together, nor reasons of overriding public interest which might justify the obstacles in question (Case C-353/89 Commission v Netherlands [1991] ECR I-4069, paragraphs 17 and 18, and Case C-288/89 Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda v Commissariaat voor de Media [1991] ECR I-4007).
Alberto Paletta and others v Brennet AG.
Date: 1992-06-03
16 The reply to the question whether a benefit falls within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 essentially depends on the fundamental characteristics of the benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant, and not on whether or not the national legislation describes the benefit as a social security benefit (see, inter alia, the judgment in Case 249/83 Hoeckx v Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn, Kalmthout, [1985] ECR 973, paragraph 11).
17 It should be pointed out here that the benefits in question are granted to the worker only in the event of illness and that their payment for a period of up to six weeks suspends payment of the daily sickness benefits provided for in the Sozialgesetzbuch (German social security code) which are incontestably sickness benefits.
28 The reply to be given to the questions submitted by the national court must therefore be that Article 18(1) to (4) of Regulation No 574/72 are to be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution, even where this is the employer and not a social security institution, is bound in fact and in law by the medical findings made by the institution of the place of residence or temporary residence concerning the commencement and duration of the incapacity for work, when it does not have the person concerned examined by a doctor of its choice, as it may do under Article 18(5).
Parma Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall.
Date: 1992-06-03
20 That argument cannot be accepted either, since the intended use of a product can be taken into account for the purpose of its tariff classification only if the wording of the heading, or the note referring to it, makes an express reference to that criterion (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-219/89 Wesergold [1991] ECR I-1895, paragraph 9). The subheadings at issue make no such reference.
26 Furthermore, that interpretation is consistent with the Court' s case-law, according to which the decisive criterion for the customs classification of goods must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined by the wording of the headings and subheadings of the CCT and by the notes to its sections and chapters (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-120/90 Ludwig Post [1991] ECR I-2391, paragraph 11). As has already been stated, the intended use of a product can be taken into account for the purpose of its tariff classification only if the wording of the heading, or the note referring to it, makes an express reference to that criterion (see paragraph 20, above).
Hauptzollamt Mannheim v Boehringer Mannheim GmbH.
Date: 1992-06-03
10 In examining whether the goods at issue in the main proceedings come under CCT heading 38.16, it must be observed that the Court has consistently held that, having regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the headings and the sub -headings of the CCT, and in the notes to the sections or chapters (see, most recently, the judgment in Case C-120/90 Ludwig Post v Oberfinanzdirektion Muenchen [1991] ECR I-2391, paragraph 11).
18 Although the words "not normally" mean that it cannot altogether be ruled out that that rule of interpretation might exceptionally apply to a heading in Chapter 38 of the CCT, it must be observed that the mere fact that unsterile calf foetus serum is used as a basis for the composition of culture media for micro-organisms does not mean that it already has the essential character of the complete or finished article classifiable under heading 38.16, "prepared culture media for development of micro-organisms". As the Advocate General has said in paragraph 22 of his Opinion, "in fact, only a product which is so close to the finished product that it can come under the same tariff heading as the finished product can be accepted as having such character". Otherwise, it is a different product. This is the case with the product at issue, as long as it has not yet undergone a particular treatment.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1992-06-03
7 The Court has consistently held that Member States are obliged to ensure that the provisions of a directive are applied exactly and in full (see, in particular, the judgments in Cases 91/79 and 92/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1099, at paragraph 6).
Infortec - Projectos e Consultadoria Ldª v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-06-04
20 The Court has consistently held that, having regard to the central role of the Member State concerned and to the importance of the responsibilities which that State assumes in the presentation and supervision of the financing of training measures, the opportunity for it to comment before a definitive decision reducing assistance is adopted constitutes an essential procedural requirement the disregard of which renders the contested decision void (see Case C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission [1991] ECR I-2257, paragraph 17, and Case C-304/91 Oliveira v Commission [1991] ECR I-2283, paragraph 21).
Consorgan - Gestão de Empresas Ldª v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-06-04
14 The Court has consistently held that the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an individual decision is based is to enable the Court to review the legality of the decision and to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested. The extent of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted (see Case 32/86 Sisma v Commission [1987] ECR 1645, paragraph 8).
Cipeke - Comércio e Indústria de Papel Ldª v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-06-04
14 The Court has consistently held that the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an individual decision is based is to enable the Court to review the legality of the decision and to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit its legality to be contested. The extent of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted (see Case 32/86 Sisma v Commission [1987] ECR 1645, paragraph 8).
Arbeiterwohlfahrt der Stadt Berlin e.V. v Monika Bötel.
Date: 1992-06-04
12 As the Court has consistently held (see the judgment in Case 171/88 Rinner-Kuehn v FWW Spezial-Gebaeudereinigung [1989] ECR 2743 and in Case C-262/88 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ECR I-1889), the concept of pay, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 119, comprises any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer, and irrespective of whether the worker receives it under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis.
14 Although compensation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not derive as such from the contract of employment, it is nevertheless paid by the employer by virtue of legislative provisions and under a contract of employment. Staff council members are necessarily employees of the undertaking and are entrusted with the task of safeguarding staff interests, thus promoting harmonious working relationships within the undertaking, which is in its interests.
15 The compensation paid under legislation such as that in issue in the main proceedings is also intended to ensure that staff council members receive income even where during periods of training they are not performing any work as stipulated in their contracts of employment.
25 Finally, such a situation is likely to deter employees in the part-time category, in which the proportion of women is undeniably preponderant, from serving on staff councils or from acquiring the knowledge needed in order to serve on them, thus making it more difficult for that category of worker to be represented by qualified staff council members.
Criminal proceedings against Michel Debus.
Date: 1992-06-04
16 It must first be borne in mind in this connection that in its judgments in Case 174/82 Sandoz, in Case 247/84 Motte, in Case 304/84 Ministère Public v Muller, in Case 178/84 Commission v Germany and in Case C-42/90 Bellon, all cited above, the Court inferred from the principle of proportionality underlying the last sentence of Article 36 of the Treaty that prohibitions on the marketing of products containing additives authorized in the Member State of production but prohibited in the Member State of importation must be restricted to what is actually necessary to secure the protection of public health.
18 Secondly, it should be remembered that, as it follows in particular from the judgments in Case 304/84 Ministère Public v Muller, in Case 178/84 Commission v Germany and in Case C-42/90 Bellon, all cited above, and in Case 227/82 Van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883, it is for the national authorities to demonstrate that their legislation is justified on grounds relating to the protection of the health of their population.
28 It appears from the judgment in Case 178/84 Commission v Germany, cited above, that reference to another manufacturing method of the product used by national manufacturers does not suffice to preclude the possibility that some additives may meet a technological need, since that interpretation of the concept of technological need, which results in favouring national production methods, constitutes a disguised means of restricting trade between Member States.
32 It is sufficient to recall in this connection the well-established case-law to the effect that a national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means (judgment in Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629).
Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 1992-06-04
18 Furthermore, Article 3(4) of Regulation No 1495/80 as amended by Regulation No 220/85 specifies that charges for interest under a financing arrangement relating to the purchase of imported goods are not to be included in the customs value even where the finance is provided by the seller himself. Finance provided by a seller of goods for the purchase of those goods generally consists of allowing the buyer time to pay for the goods in question. Accordingly, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, it must be considered that where a seller of goods allows the buyer time to pay, that constitutes a "financing arrangement" within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1495/80 as soon as the buyer accepts the deferred payment.
19 In that connection, it is not necessary for the deferred payment to be the subject of a specific agreement between the seller and the buyer, separate from the agreement relating to the sale of the imported goods. Article 3 of Regulation No 1495/80, both in its original version and as amended by Regulation No 220/85, requires the charges for interest under a financing arrangement to be distinguished from the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. Where charges for interest payable as consideration for the deferred payment agreed by the seller are a separate item on the invoice sent to the buyer, it must be considered that, where there is no objection on the part of the buyer, he has in effect agreed to the charges for interest relating to the deferred payment.
Établissements Delhaize frères and Compagnie Le Lion SA v Promalvin SA and AGE Bodegas Unidas SA.
Date: 1992-06-09
12 As the Court held in Case 237/83 Jongeneel Kaas v Netherlands [1984] ECR 483, Article 34 concerns national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a special advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question.
17 In that connection, it must be observed that the specific function of a registered designation of origin is to guarantee that the product bearing it comes from a specified geographical area and displays certain particular characteristics.
18 Consequently, the requirement that the wine be bottled in the region of production, in so far as it constitutes a condition for the use of the name of that region as a registered designation of origin, would be justified by the concern to ensure that that designation of origin fulfilled its specific function if bottling in the region of production endowed the wine originating in that region with particular characteristics, of such a kind as to give it individual character, or if bottling in the region of production were essential in order to preserve essential characteristics acquired by that wine.
19 However, it has not been shown that the bottling of the wine in question in the region of production was an operation which endowed it with particular characteristics or was essential in order to maintain the specific characteristics acquired by it.
21 That argument cannot be accepted. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 986/89 of 10 April 1989 on the accompanying documents for carriage of wine products and the relevant records to be kept (OJ 1989 L 106, p. 1) establishes an adequate system for verifying that the authenticity of the wine is not affected during transport. Article 9 of that regulation lays down rules specifically relating to the bulk transport of the wines covered by Regulation No 823/87, such as wines bearing the registered designation "denominación de origen calificada".
23 That justification is not acceptable. It has not been established that the confinement of bottling to a specified area was, in itself, capable of affecting the quality of the wine.
26 However, Article 18 of Regulation No 823/87 cannot be interpreted as authorizing the Member States to impose conditions contrary to the Treaty rules on the movement of goods.
28 As the Court held in Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board v Redmond [1978] ECR 2347, paragraph 66, Article 34 of the Treaty is directly applicable and as such confers on individuals rights which the courts of Member States must protect.
Jean Lestelle v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-06-09
21 As the Court acknowledged in the context of the regulation adopted on the accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom (judgment in Case 28/74 Gillet v Commission [1975] ECR 463, paragraph 6), the reason why the Community legislature provided for specific financial arrangements in the case of officials who had been recruited under the Staff Regulations of the ECSC was to prevent them from finding themselves financially in a less favourable position than if they had left the service before the entry into force of the new system.
28 In that connection, it should be emphasized that if the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law but the operative part appears well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1992-06-09
10 As the Court has consistently held, in the field covered by the Directive, the Member States retain only the limited powers granted them by the actual provisions of the Directive and of those directives amending it (Case 158/80 REWE [1981] ECR 1805, at paragraph 36, Case 278/82 REWE [1984] ECR 721, at paragraph 31, Case C-158/88 Commission v Ireland [1990] ECR I-2367, at paragraph 7, and Case 208/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4445, at paragraph 7).
12 It is true that Article 22 of the Sixth Directive, concerning obligations of taxable persons fpr the purposes of VAT under the internal system and relating, inter alia, to the details of invoicing, contains a provision authorizing Member States to impose obligations not provided for by the Directive. Paragraph 8 of that article states "Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary for the correct levying and collection of the tax and for the prevention of fraud". However, as specified by the Court in a judgment cited by both parties, the exercise of that power must be limited to what is necessary to ensure the correct levying of value added tax and permit supervision by the tax authorities and the detailed requirements on the invoice must not render the exercise of the right to deduction practically impossible or excessively difficult (Joined Cases 123 and 330/87 Léa Jeunehomme [1988] ECR 4517, at paragraphs 15, 16 and 17).
Office national des pensions v Emilio Di Crescenzo and Angela Casagrande, widow of Romeo Barel.
Date: 1992-06-11
15 However, it should be pointed out that, as the Court has consistently held (see, most recently, Case C-5/91 Di Prinzio v Office National des Pensions [1992] ECR I-897), where a migrant worker receives a pension by virtue of the legislation of a single Member State' s national legislation alone, the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not preclude that national legislation from being applied to him in its entirety, including any rules in that legislation against the overlapping of benefits.
16 It follows from the same case-law that if the application of the legislation of the Member State in question alone proves less favourable to the worker than that of the Community scheme set out in Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 the provisions of that article must be applied in their entirety.
17 Consequently, it is for the competent institution to compare the benefits which would be due under national law alone, including its provisions against the overlapping of benefits, with those which would be due under Community law, including the provision against overlapping set out in Article 46(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, and to ensure that the migrant worker receives whichever benefit is the higher.
18 Pursuant to Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, the provisions for reduction of benefits laid down in the legislation of a Member State where a benefit overlaps with other social security benefits acquired under the legislation of another Member State are not applicable where the person concerned receives old-age benefits of the same kind paid in accordance with Article 46 of that regulation.
19 The calculation of the amount of the benefits in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 must be carried out in three stages. First, the competent institution calculates the "independent" benefit in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 46(1) of the regulation. Secondly, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 46(1), it calculates the amount of the "pro rata" benefit in accordance with Article 46(2). Thirdly, in accordance with the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 46(1), the competent institution compares the independent benefit and the pro rata benefit and takes into consideration the higher of those two amounts. Fourthly, it applies the Community rule against overlapping set out in Article 46(3).
20 At the first stage, that is when calculating the independent benefit, the competent institution is to determine, according to its own legislation, the amount of the benefit corresponding to the total length of periods of insurance or residence to be taken into account under that legislation alone. In accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, the national provisions for reduction of benefit are not applicable.