larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein.
Date: 1994-02-09
21 It follows from that provision that, as the Court indicated in paragraph 13 of its judgment in Case C-154/93 Tawil-Albertini [1994] ECR I-0000, recognition by a Member State of qualifications awarded by non-member States, even if they have been recognized as equivalent in one or more Member States, does not bind the other Member States.
26 As the Court has already indicated in the judgment in Case C-340/89 (Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 15), even if applied without any discrimination on the basis of nationality, national requirements concerning qualifications may have the effect of hindering nationals of the other Member States in the exercise of their right of establishment guaranteed to them by Article 52 of the EEC Treaty. That could be the case if the national rules in question took no account of the knowledge and qualifications already acquired by the person concerned in another Member State.
27 In the same judgment (paragraph 16) the Court also held that a Member State which receives a request to admit a person to a profession to which access, under national law, depends upon the possession of a diploma or a professional qualification must take into consideration the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of qualifications which the person concerned has acquired in order to exercise the same profession in another Member State by making a comparison between the specialized knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules.
28 By application of that same principle, it should be considered in the present case that the competent national authority, in order to verify whether the training period requirement prescribed by the national rules is met, must take into account the professional experience of the plaintiff in the main proceedings, including that which he has acquired during his appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security scheme in another Member State.
29 The reply to the third question should therefore be that it is not permissible under Article 52 of the Treaty for the competent authorities of a Member State to refuse appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security scheme to a national of another Member State who has none of the qualifications mentioned in Article 3 of Directive 78/686/EEC, but who has been authorized to practise, and has been practising, his profession both in the first and in another Member State, on the ground that he has not completed the preparatory training period required by the legislation of the first State, without examining whether and, if so, to what extent, the experience already established by the person concerned corresponds to that required by that provision.
Abdullah Tawil-Albertini v Ministre des Affaires Sociales.
Date: 1994-02-09
13 Accordingly, recognition by a Member State of qualifications awarded by non-member States does not bind the other Member States.
Mund & Fester v Hatrex Internationaal Transport.
Date: 1994-02-10
11 The fourth indent of Article 220 of the EEC Treaty provides that the Member States shall, so far as is necessary, enter into negotiations with each other with a view to securing for the benefit of their nationals the simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts or tribunals, although it is not intended to lay down a legal rule directly applicable as such but merely to mark out the framework of negotiations between the Member States (see judgment in Case 137/84 Mutsch [1985] ECR 2681, at paragraph 11). Its purpose is this: to facilitate the working of the common market through the adoption of rules of jurisdiction for disputes relating thereto and through the elimination, as far as is possible, of difficulties concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments in the territory of the Contracting States.
12 It is on the basis of that article and within the framework defined by it that the Member States concluded the Brussels Convention. Consequently, the provisions of that Convention relating to jurisdiction and to the simplification of formalities concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments and also the national provisions to which the Convention refers are linked to the EEC Treaty.
14 The Court has consistently held that that provision prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the field of application of the Treaty. The article forbids not only overt forms of discrimination based on 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 judgment in Case 22/80 Boussac [1980] ECR 3427 at paragraph 9).
16 While examination of Paragraph 917(2) of the ZPO reveals no overt discrimination based on nationality, since it applies in all cases where a judgment is to be enforced abroad, even if the assets forming the subject of the seizure belong to a German national, it is nevertheless the case that, as the Commission correctly points out, the latter situation is rare, the great majority of enforcements abroad being against persons who are not of German nationality or against legal persons not established in the Federal Republic of Germany. It follows that the national provision in question leads in fact to the same result as discrimination based on nationality.
17 However, that finding is not sufficient to conclude that a provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with Article 7 of the Treaty. For that it would also be necessary that the provision in question should not be justified by objective circumstances.
Comitato di Coordinamento per la Difesa della Cava and others v Regione Lombardia and others.
Date: 1994-02-23
8 The Court has consistently held (see in particular the judgments in Case 8/81 Becker v Finanzamt Muenster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53 and Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo v Commune di Milano [1989] ECR 1839) that wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon by an individual against the State where the State fails to implement the directive in national law by the end of the period prescribed or where it fails to implement the directive correctly.
9 A Community provision is unconditional where it is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the taking of any measure either by the institutions of the Community or by the Member States (see in particular the judgment in Case 28/67 Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen v Hauptzollamt Paderborn [1968] ECR 143).
10 Moreover, a provision is sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the court where the obligation which it imposes is set out in unequivocal terms (judgments in Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Health Authority [1986] ECR 723 and Case 71/85 Netherlands v Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging [1986] ECR 3855).
12 Considered in its context, Article 4 of the directive, which essentially repeats the terms of the third recital in the preamble, indicates a programme to be followed and sets out the objectives which the Member States must observe in their performance of the more specific obligations imposed on them by Articles 5 to 11 of the directive concerning planning, supervision and monitoring of waste-disposal operations.
13 It must also be noted that the Court has already held, in relation to the Member States' obligations under Article 10 of the directive, that that provision does not lay down any particular requirement restricting the freedom of the Member States regarding the way in which they organize the supervision of the activities referred to therein but that that freedom must be exercised having due regard to the objectives mentioned in the third recital in the preamble to the directive and Article 4 thereof (see the judgment in Joined Cases 372 to 374/85 Ministère Public v Traen [1987] ECR 2141).
Ingetraut Scholz v Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda.
Date: 1994-02-23
6 It should be borne in mind, first of all, that Article 7 of the Treaty, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, does not apply independently where the Treaty lays down, as it does in Article 48(2) in relation to the free movement of workers, a specific prohibition of discrimination (see the judgment in Case 305/87 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 1476, at paragraphs 12 and 13). In addition, Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 1612/68 merely clarify and give effect to the rights already conferred by Article 48 of the Treaty. Accordingly, that provision alone is relevant to this case.
7 The Court has consistently held (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-111/91 Commission v Luxembourg [1993] ECR I-817, at paragraph 9) that Article 48 of the Treaty prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result.
8 In this case, it should be noted first of all that the fact that the plaintiff in the main proceedings has acquired Italian nationality has no bearing on the application of the principle of non-discrimination.
9 Any Community national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and who has been employed in another Member State, falls within the scope of the aforesaid provisions.
11 Finally, it must be stated that the refusal to take into consideration the plaintiff' s employment in the public service of another Member State, for the purposes of the award of the additional points provided for, in order to determine her place on the list, constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination.
12 The answer to the question submitted must therefore be that Article 48 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that, where a public body of a Member State, in recruiting staff for posts which do not fall within the scope of Article 48(4) of the Treaty, provides for account to be taken of candidates' previous employment in the public service, that body may not, in relation to Community nationals, make a distinction according to whether such employment was in the public service of that particular State or in the public service of another Member State.
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1994-03-02
8 It should be noted that it is settled law that an action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects (see the judgment in Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263, at paragraph 42).
10 Secondly, the Council submits that the Parliament may not plead that its prerogatives were infringed since it was in fact consulted, albeit as an optional step.
12 It is for the Court to protect that institutional balance by ensuring the full application of the Treaty provisions concerning the distribution of powers. In paragraph 27 of its judgment in Parliament v Council, cited above, the Court accordingly held that an action for annulment brought by the Parliament against an act of the Council or the Commission is admissible provided that the action seeks only to safeguard its prerogatives and that it is founded only on submissions alleging their infringement.
13 That condition is satisfied where the Parliament indicates in an appropriate manner the substance of the prerogative to be safeguarded and how that prerogative is allegedly infringed.
14 In this case the Parliament claims that its prerogative consisted in a requirement that it be consulted on the adoption of the financial regulation whose legal basis should have been Article 209 of the Treaty, which requires that the Parliament be consulted. By adopting that regulation on the basis of Article 32 of the Internal Agreement, which does not require such consultation, the Council infringed that prerogative.
16 The right to be consulted in accordance with a provision of the Treaty is a prerogative of the Parliament. Adopting an act on a legal basis which does not provide for such consultation is liable to infringe that prerogative, even if there has been optional consultation.
17 Proper consultation of the Parliament where required by the Treaty is one of the means allowing it to play an actual part in the legislative process of the Community (see the judgments in the Isoglucose cases, Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, at paragraph 33, and Case 139/79 Maizena v Council [1980] ECR 3393, at paragraph 34).
26 The Community' s competence in that field is not exclusive. The Member States are accordingly entitled to enter into commitments themselves vis-à-vis non-member States, either collectively or individually, or even jointly with the Community.
Hilti AG v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1994-03-02
10 It should be pointed out, before considering Hilti' s pleas, that the Court of Justice has consistently held that pursuant to Article 168A of the EEC Treaty and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts (see, in particular, the judgments in Case C-283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I-4339, paragraph 12, and in Case C-346/90 P F. v Commission [1992] ECR I-2691, paragraph 7).
The first plea
11 Hilti' s first plea is that the Court of First Instance concluded that there was a market for Hilti nails by basing itself solely on the uncontested fact that Hilti nails and Hilti cartridge strips were manufactured and sold specifically for use in Hilti tools (paragraphs 66 and 67 of the contested judgment), without considering whether or not the PAF systems were interchangeable with other products, as required by the case-law of the Court of Justice (see the judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffman-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 28). Hilti claims that in order to find that there is a separate market for Hilti nails, the Court of First Instance, applying the rules laid down by the Court of Justice in Case 22/78 Hugin v Commission [1979] ECR 1869, would have to have found that the purchasers of nails were different from the purchasers of nail guns, which the documents before it showed was not the case.
42 It should be pointed out that the appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it does not constitute (save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted) a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.
Nicole Vaneetveld v Le Foyer SA and Le Foyer SA v Fédération des Mutualités Socialistes et Syndicales de la Province de Liège.
Date: 1994-03-03
14 In this regard, it should be noted that the case-file forwarded by the national court and the written observations submitted by the parties to the main proceedings have given the Court enough information to enable it to interpret the rules of Community law in respect of the situation which is the subject of the main proceedings (see the judgment in Telemarsicabruzzo, cited above).
16 It should be noted first that a directive can be relied on by individuals before national courts only after the expiry of the time-limit laid down for its transposition into national law.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1994-03-09
6 As the Commission points out, the Court has consistently held (see in particular the judgment in Case C-101/91 Commission v Italy [1993] ECR I-191, paragraph 20) that even though Article 171 of the EEC Treaty does not specify the period within which a judgment must be complied with, the interest in the immediate and uniform application of Community law requires that the process of compliance with a judgment must be initiated immediately and must be completed as soon as possible.
Banco de Crédito Industrial SA, now Banco Exterior de España SA v Ayuntamiento de Valencia.
Date: 1994-03-15
11 In this regard, it must be recalled that it follows from Article 90 of the Treaty that, save for the reservation in Article 90(2), Article 92 covers all private and public undertakings and all their production (judgment in Case 78/76 Steinike und Weinlig v Germany [1977] ECR 595, at paragraph 18).
12 The aim of Article 92 of the Treaty is to prevent trade between Member States from being affected by advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, distort or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or certain products (judgment in Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, at paragraph 26).
13 As the Court has already held in the context of the ECSC Treaty (judgment in Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority [1961] ECR 1), the concept of aid is thus wider than that of a subsidy because it embraces not only positive benefits, such as subsidies themselves, but also interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect.
14 It follows that a measure by which the public authorities grant to certain undertakings a tax exemption which, although not involving a transfer of State resources, places the persons to whom the tax exemption applies in a more favourable financial situation than other taxpayers constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty.
16 However, it is settled law (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases C-72/91 and C-73/91 Sloman Neptun [1993] ECR I-887, paragraph 11) that in providing through Article 93 for aid to be kept under constant review and supervised by the Commission the intention of the Treaty is that the finding that an aid may be incompatible with the common market is to be made, subject to review by the Court, by means of an appropriate procedure which it is the Commission' s responsibility to set in motion.
20 Existing aid may be implemented as long as the Commission has not found it to be incompatible with the common market (see the judgment in Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1992] ECR I-4145, paragraph 25).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1994-03-15
10 It follows from the foregoing that the Spanish rules on admission to State museums entail discrimination affecting only foreign tourists over 21 years of age which, for Community nationals, is prohibited by Articles 7 and 59 of the EEC Treaty and the Kingdom of Spain has thereby failed to comply with its obligations under those articles.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1994-03-22
13 That examination procedure must enable the authorities of the host Member State to assure themselves, on an objective basis, that the foreign diploma certifies that its holder has knowledge and qualifications which are, if not identical, at least equivalent to those certified by the national diploma. That assessment of the equivalence of the foreign diploma must be carried out exclusively in the light of the level of knowledge and qualifications which its holder can be assumed to possess in the light of that diploma, having regard to the nature and duration of the studies and practical training to which the diploma relates (see judgments in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou v Ministerium fuer Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden- Wuerttemberg [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraphs 16 and 17, and Case C-104/91 Aguirre Borrell and Others v Colegio Oficial de Agentes de la Propriedad Immobiliaria [1992] ECR I-3003).
18 In those circumstances, it should be held that, by failing to establish a procedure for examining qualifications acquired by a Community national who holds a diploma as tourist guide or guide-interpreter issued in another Member State and comparing them with those required by Spain, the Spanish State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the Treaty.
The third complaint
24 In that respect, it should be pointed out that the Spanish Government produced the text of those regulations for the Court only when it lodged its defence.
25 Moreover, it should be noted that the failure to reply to the Commission' s requests has made the achievement of its task under the Treaty more difficult, and that it therefore breaches the obligation of cooperation laid down by Article 5 of the Treaty.
26 It follows that, by failing to provide the Commission with the information requested, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the EEC Treaty.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1994-03-23
5 In that connection, it should first of all be observed that Directive 87/18 was to be transposed by 30 June 1988 at the latest, that is to say before the end of the period prescribed for transposing Directive 88/320. The Kingdom of Spain may not, therefore, justify the failure to transpose that last-mentioned directive by the delay in implementing Directive 87/18.
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 1994-03-24
15 In this context, it is to be noted that the Court held in Case C-372/88 Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales v Cricket St Thomas [1990] ECR I-1345 that the scope of the exclusive purchasing rights relating to "milk which [producers] produce and market without processing" within the meaning of Article 25(1)(a) of Regulation No 804/68 is defined by Community law by reference to a criterion based on the main characteristics of the product in question and its intended commercial use. The Court pointed out that the relevant question is whether the product concerned can still be regarded as milk or whether it is a different product, derived from milk.
27 As the Court has already held, the scheme underlying all the Community provisions authorizing the MMBs is based on the principle that their activities should be subject to very strict control (judgment in Case 23/84 Commission v United Kingdom [1986] ECR 3581, paragraph 40). That obligation to exercise control is particularly important since there are five separate bodies responsible for the implementation of those marketing schemes.