larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
H. van den Bor BV v Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau.
Date: 2002-01-08
35 It should be observed at the outset that, where there is a regulation on the common organisation of the market in a given sector, the Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measures which might undermine or create exceptions to it. Rules which interfere with the proper functioning of a common organisation of the market are also incompatible with such common organisation, even if the matter in question has not been exhaustively regulated by it (Case C-1/96 Compassion in World Farming [1998] ECR I-1251, paragraph 41).
38 That provision must be interpreted in the light of its objective, which is to ensure that the health of animals and humans is protected, and of developments in scientific knowledge.
40 The same considerations mean that the Member States were entitled, at that time, to order the slaughter of calves originating from the United Kingdom present in their territory, under Article 8(1)(a) of Directive 90/425.
45 It should be noted that, under the third subsubparagraph of Article 8(1)(a) of that directive, the competent authorities of the Member State concerned are required immediately to notify the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission in writing, by the most appropriate means, of the findings arrived at, the decisions taken and the reasons for such decisions.
46 The notification must allow the Commission to verify whether a national compensation measure is compatible with the provisions regulating the common organisation of the market in the sector in question and with the applicable State aid provisions. That examination will allow it, where appropriate, to seek a suitable solution with the Member State concerned.
47 In such cases, the Commission and the Member State must, by virtue of the rule imposing on the Member States and the Community institutions a reciprocal duty of genuine cooperation, which underlies, in particular, Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), work together in good faith with a view to overcoming the difficulties whilst fully observing the Treaty and other Community provisions, in particular those regulating the common organisation of the market in the sector concerned and those relating to State aid.
48 In that regard, it is apparent from the documents provided by the Netherlands Government that it was by a letter dated 15 April 1996 from the Permanent Representation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the European Union, sent in response to a request made on 9 April 1996 by the Netherlands Ministry for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, that the Commission was advised of the adoption of the slaughter and compensation measures at issue in the main proceedings. While it is difficult to reconcile the time taken to submit that information with the obligations of a Member State under the third subsubparagraph of Article 8(1)(a) of Directive 90/425, that delay nevertheless does not affect the power of the Member State to adopt those measures.
Denkavit Nederland BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij and Voedselvoorzieningsin- en verkoopbureau.
Date: 2002-01-08
32 It should be observed at the outset that, where there is a regulation on the common organisation of the market in a given sector, the Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measures which might undermine or create exceptions to it. Rules which interfere with the proper functioning of a common organisation of the market are also incompatible with such common organisation, even if the matter in question has not been exhaustively regulated by it (Case C-1/96 Compassion in World Farming [1998] ECR I-1251, paragraph 41).
44 As to the argument alleging discrimination between producers contrary to Article 40(3) of the Treaty, it should be remembered that, in accordance with settled case-law, the general principle of equality, which is one of the fundamental principles of Community law, precludes comparable situations from being treated in a different manner unless the difference in treatment is objectively justified (see, in particular, Case C-189/01 Jippes and Others [2001] ECR I-5689, paragraph 129).
Gerry Plant and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-01-10
24 As the appellants rightly point out and as the Court made clear in SNUPAT v High Authority, cited above, it would infringe a fundamental principle of law to base a judicial decision on facts or documents of which the parties, or one of them, have not been able to take cognisance and in relation to which they have not therefore been able to state their views.
Andersen og Jensen ApS v Skatteministeriet.
Date: 2002-01-15
15 It must be borne in mind at the outset that under Article 234 EC the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the Treaty and of acts of the Community institutions.
16 It is common ground that the main proceedings are concerned with a provision of national law which applies in a purely national context.
17 However, the national court has indicated that the Danish legislature, when transposing the provisions of the directive into national law, had decided to treat purely internal situations in the same way as those governed by the directive and had therefore aligned the provisions governing purely internal situations with Community law. The national court adds that an interpretation of the terms transfer of assets and branch of activity, in their Community context, is required in order to decide the case before it, that those terms feature in the directive, that they were incorporated in the national law transposing the directive and that their application has been extended to purely internal situations.
18 According to the case-law of the Court, where, as in the case before the national court, in regulating purely internal situations, domestic legislation adopts the same solutions as those adopted in Community law in order, particularly, to avoid discrimination against foreign nationals or any distortion of competition, it is clearly in the Community interest that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, provisions or concepts taken from Community law should be interpreted uniformly, irrespective of the circumstances in which they are to apply (Leur-Bloem, paragraph 32).
19 It follows that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of the directive even though they do not directly govern the situation at issue in the main proceedings. The questions submitted by the Vestre Landsret must for that reason be answered.
The first, second and third questions
Alain Libéros v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-01-15
27 However, Article 14(2)(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that it is not possible to delegate to a single Judge cases which raise issues as to the legality of an act of general application. That provision is an exception to the first exception and requires a return to the original principle. It cannot therefore be interpreted restrictively.
28 The term act of general application has been interpreted by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance in connection with the application of Articles 230 EC and 249 EC. According to settled case-law, an act is regarded as being of general application if it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract (see, in particular, Joined Cases 789/79 and 790/79 Calpak and Società Emiliana Lavorazione Frutta v Commission [1980] ECR 1949, paragraph 9, and Case C-41/99 P Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [2001] ECR I-4239, paragraph 24).
29 It is also apparent from that case-law that the general applicability of an act is not called into question by the fact that it is possible to determine more or less exactly the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time, as long as it applies to them by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question in relation to its purpose (Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council, cited above, paragraph 29).
30 In the interest of consistency, Article 14(2)(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance should be interpreted in the light of that well-established case-law.
35 In a judgment concerning internal measures adopted by the administration, the Court of Justice has already held that, although those measures may not be regarded as rules of law which the administration is always bound to observe, they nevertheless form rules of practice from which the administration may not depart without giving the reasons which led it to do so, which must be compatible with the principle of equal treatment. Consequently, the officials and other staff concerned may invoke their illegality in support of an action against the individual decisions taken on the basis of the measures (Joined Cases 181/86 to 184/86 Del Plato and Others v Commission [1987] ECR 4991, paragraph 10).
45 It is important at the outset to note that, although Article 31 of the Staff Regulations does not expressly mention the term professional experience, it is nevertheless evident from settled case-law that the professional experience of a person recruited as an official is one of the factors which the appointing authority may take into consideration in order to determine his classification in grade, particularly in connection with the application of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations (see, to that effect, Case C-298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice [1994] ECR I-3009, paragraph 15, and Case C-155/98 P Alexopoulou v Commission [1999] ECR I-4069, paragraph 13).
Lutz GmbH and Others.
Date: 2002-01-15
12 In this regard, in order to determine whether a referring body is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC, which is a question governed by Community law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited therein, Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 Gabalfrisa and Others [2000] ECR I-1577, paragraph 33, and Case C-178/99 Salzmann [2001] ECR I-4421, paragraph 13).
13 Furthermore, while Article 234 EC does not make a reference to the Court subject to there having been an inter partes hearing in the proceedings in the course of which the national court refers a question for a preliminary ruling (see Case C-18/93 Corsica Ferries [1994] ECR I-1783, paragraph 12), it follows none the less from that article that a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (see orders in Case 138/80 Borker [1980] ECR 1975, paragraph 4, and in Case 318/85 Greis Unterweger [1986] ECR 955, paragraph 4, and judgments in Case C-111/94 Job Centre [1995] ECR I-3361, paragraph 9, and Salzmann, cited above, paragraph 14).
14 Thus, when it makes an administrative decision without being required to resolve a legal dispute, the referring body, even if it satisfies the other conditions mentioned in paragraph 12 of the present judgment, cannot be regarded as exercising a judicial function. Such is the case, for example, when it determines an application for registration of a company according to a procedure, the object of which is not the annulment of a measure adversely affecting the applicant (Job Centre, cited above, paragraph 11, and Salzmann, paragraph 15).
Commission of the European Communities v Grand-duché de Luxembourg.
Date: 2002-01-15
8 It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the 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, inter alia, Case C-261/98 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5905, paragraph 25).
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 2002-01-17
11 It must in this connection be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State's obligations under the Treaty (see, in particular, Case C-315/98 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-8001, paragraph 10, and Case C-254/00 Commission v Netherlands [2001] ECR I-7567, paragraph 7).
12 Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the question whether a Member State has 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 that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-435/99 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-11179, paragraph 16, and Case C-111/00 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I-7555, paragraph 13).
13 In the present case it is not disputed that, at the end of the period of two months fixed in the reasoned opinion, Directive 96/82 had not in fact been transposed into Irish law and, that being so, the action brought by the Commission must be considered to be well founded.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2002-01-17
14 It should be observed that it is settled law that 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, in particular, Case C-435/99 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-11179, paragraph 16, and Case C-111/00 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I-7555, paragraph 13).
16 Furthermore, according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see Case C-236/99 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-5657, paragraph 23, and Commission v Austria, cited above, paragraph 12).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2002-01-24
14 It should be noted that in its judgment in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial et Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-4941, paragraph 27) the Court held that the system of protection laid down by the Directive is based on the notion that the imbalance between the consumer and the seller or supplier may only be corrected by positive action unconnected with the actual parties to the contract. That is why Article 7 of the Directive, paragraph 1 of which requires Member States to implement adequate and effective means to prevent the continued use of unfair terms, specifies in paragraph 2 that those means are to include allowing authorised consumer associations to take action in order to obtain a decision as to whether contract terms drawn up for general use are unfair and, where appropriate, to have them prohibited.
15 The deterrent nature and dissuasive purpose of the measures to be adopted, together with their independence from any particular dispute mean, as the Court held, that such actions may be brought even though the terms which it is sought to have prohibited have not been used in specific contracts, but have only been recommended by suppliers and sellers or their associations (Océano Groupe Editorial, cited above, paragraph 27).
18 Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Law No 281/98 does not provide any means of overcoming that problem. Firstly, as the measures laid down by this provision are of a more general nature than those in Article 1469e of the Civil Code, the latter must take precedence in cases involving unfair terms. Next, even if the proceedings provided for by Article 3 of Law No 281/98 can be brought against persons recommending the use of unfair terms, this would involve an interpretation which is either strained or directly contradicts the wording of the provision, which would not satisfy the demands of clarity and precision required in respect of national implementing measures. Finally, the definition in Article 3 of the category of persons with locus standi to bring actions is more limited than that in Article 1469e, thus involving a disparity in treatment, between those using unfair terms and those recommending their use, contrary to Article 7 of the Directive.
20 In this respect, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law of the Court, the scope of national laws, rules or administrative provisions must be assessed in the light of the of the interpretation given to them by national courts (see, in particular, Case C-382/92 Commission v United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435, paragraph 36, and C-300/95 Commission v United Kingdom [1997] ECR I-2649, paragraph 37).
Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. arl v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-01-24
74 Since the complaint alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is based on the premiss that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 has been infringed and the argument which the applicant derives from the alleged infringement of that provision is unfounded for the reasons set out above, it must also be rejected.
- Falsification of a contract for the purchase of a packing machine
88 It must therefore be held that it is Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 as amended which constitutes the legal basis for any claim for recovery by the Commission. That provision would be partly deprived of its effectiveness if the Commission could not cancel the entirety of the assistance, even though the prior examination conducted under Article 24(1) of that regulation had revealed that the assistance was unjustified in its entirety.
89 Furthermore, limiting the possibilities open to the Commission to a reduction of the assistance in proportion exclusively to the amount to which the irregularities found to exist relate would have the effect of encouraging fraud on the part of applicants for aid, since they would then only risk loss of the benefit of the sums unduly paid.
100 As regards, first of all, the alleged infringement of the principle of proportionality, it must be observed that it is essential for the proper functioning of the system of controls set up to ensure proper use of Community funds that applicants for aid provide the Commission with information which is reliable and not liable to mislead it.
101 It is settled case-law that by virtue of the principle of proportionality ... the measures adopted by Community institutions must not exceed what is appropriate and necessary for attaining the objective pursued ... .
102 The Court of Justice has held, furthermore, that where the evaluation of a complex situation is involved, which is the case with respect to the common agricultural policy, the Community institutions enjoy a wide measure of discretion (see, to this effect, in particular Case 29/77 Roquette [1977] ECR 1835, at paragraph 19). In reviewing the legality of the exercise of such discretion, the Court must confine itself to examining whether it discloses a manifest error or constitutes a misuse of powers or whether the institution has clearly exceeded the limits of its discretion ... .
République de Finlande v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-01-24
26 Regulation No 1663/95, which is the implementing regulation for Regulation No 729/70, provides, in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1), what that written communication must contain. According to that article, that communication must indicate the corrective measures to be taken to ensure future compliance with the rules concerned, must give an evaluation of any expenditure which it may propose to exclude and must make reference to Regulation No 1663/95.
34 It must be held that the Commission is bound, in its relations with the Member States, to respect the conditions it has imposed on itself by implementing regulations. However, the Member States cannot, in their relations with the Commission, adopt purely formalist positions, when it is clear from the circumstances that their rights were fully protected. In the present case, as was pointed out at paragraph 31 of this judgment, the document of 20 May 1997 informed the Finnish Government fully about the Commission's reservations and the corrections which would probably be made to the premiums in question, so that it fulfilled the warning function conferred on a written communication by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95. In those circumstances, the mere omission, in that document, of a reference to Regulation No 1663/95 does not appear to be a breach of an essential formal requirement.
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2002-01-30
29 It follows that Ireland, as intervener, had no standing to raise a plea of inadmissibility and the Court is thus not bound to adjudicate on such a plea (see Case C-313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraphs 20 to 22, and Case C-225/91 Matra v Commission [1993] ECR I-3203, paragraph 12).
45 The Court has already held that defects similar to those by which the contested decision is vitiated, that is to say relating to the lack of authentication of the act, without there being any serious doubt that the Commission had actually decided to adopt the instrument in question, are not sufficiently serious for the decision to be regarded as non-existent (see Case C-137/92 P Commission v BASF and Others [1994] ECR I-2555, paragraphs 48 to 53). However, the Court has also held that such defects may entail annulment of a decision for infringement of essential procedural requirements (Commission v BASF, cited above, paragraphs 72 to 78).
47 As the Court has already held in Case C-286/95 P Commission v ICI [2000] ECR I-2341, paragraph 42, it is the mere failure to authenticate an act which constitutes the infringement of an essential procedural requirement and it is not necessary also to establish that the act is vitiated by some other defect or that the lack of authentication resulted in harm to the person relying on it. Moreover, it is indispensable for authentication of the act to precede its notification because otherwise there would always be a risk that the notified text would not be identical to the text adopted by the Commission (Commission v ICI, cited above, paragraph 62).