larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Criminal proceedings against Alan Jeffrey Bird.
Date: 1995-11-09
10 It must be stressed that Article 12 of the Regulation forms part of Section VII, entitled "Exceptions", which follows a set of very detailed provisions regulating driving and rest periods. The Court has already held, with regard to social provisions in the field of road transport, that derogations are not to be interpreted in such a way as to extend their effects beyond what is necessary to safeguard the interests which they seek to secure (see Case 90/83 Paterson v Weddel [1984] ECR 1567, paragraph 16, and Case C-116/91 Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area v British Gas [1992] ECR I-4071, paragraph 12). In the present case, the derogation provided for in Article 12 is intended to ensure the safety of persons, of the vehicle and of its load.
Criminal proceedings v Geert Van Buynder.
Date: 1995-11-16
9 The Court has consistently held that, in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, it may not rule on the interpretation of national laws or regulations, or assess whether questions referred to it by a national court are relevant (judgment in Case C-347/89 Eurim-Pharm [1991] ECR I-1747, paragraph 16). As the Advocate General has stated at point 8 of his Opinion, it is a matter for the national court to decide on the propriety of an objection that a question in a reference for a preliminary ruling is irrelevant on the ground that it is based on a misinterpretation of national law.
10 With regard to the substance of the question submitted for a preliminary ruling, it also follows from settled case-law that the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment do not apply to purely internal situations in a Member State such as a situation where nationals of a Member State engage within its territory in a self-employed activity in respect of which they cannot rely on any previous training or experience acquired in another Member State (judgment in Joined Cases C-54/88, C-91/88 and C-14/89 Nino and Others [1990] ECR I-3537).
12 Since this situation has therefore no connection with any of the situations envisaged by Community law, the Treaty rules on freedom of establishment are not applicable.
Catherine Schiltz-Thilmann v Ministre de l'Agriculture.
Date: 1995-11-16
6 A distinction between direct sales to consumers and deliveries to dairies and other undertakings is also drawn at the level of the overall reference quantities allocated to the Member States (hereinafter the "national quotas").
15 In order to reply to this question, it is necessary to bear in mind that the purpose of the additional levy is to re-establish, by limiting Community milk production, the balance between supply and demand on the milk market, which is characterized by structural surpluses (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 84/87 Erpelding v Secrétaire d' État à l' Agriculture et à la Viticulture [1988] ECR 2647, paragraph 26).
Fédération Française des Sociétés d'Assurance, Société Paternelle-Vie, Union des Assurances de Paris-Vie and Caisse d'Assurance et de Prévoyance Mutuelle des Agriculteurs v Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche.
Date: 1995-11-16
14 In the context of competition law, the Court has held that the concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed (see, in particular, the judgments in Case C-41/90 Hoefner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 21, and Poucet and Pistre, cited above, paragraph 17).
21 Finally, the mere fact that the CCMSA is a non-profit-making body does not deprive the activity which it carries on of its economic character, since, having regard to the features referred to in paragraph 17, that activity may give rise to conduct which the competition rules are intended to penalize.
22 The answer to the national court' s question must therefore be that a non-profit-making organization which manages an old-age insurance scheme intended to supplement a basic compulsory scheme, established by law as an optional scheme and operating according to the principle of capitalization in keeping with the rules laid down by the authorities in particular with regard to conditions for membership, contributions and benefits, is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 85 et seq. of the Treaty.
Gabriel Alonso-Pérez v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.
Date: 1995-11-23
30 Finally, it must be stated that a provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not render impossible the exercise of the rights conferred by Regulation No 3427/89. It merely limits the retroactive effect of applications for the benefit in question (see the judgments in Case C-338/91 Steenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrifsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen [1993] ECR I-5475, paragraph 21, and Case C-410/92 Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer [1994] ECR I-5483).
Esso Española SA v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias.
Date: 1995-11-30
9 The Court has consistently held that it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine, having regard to the particular features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they refer to the Court (see in particular Case C-62/93 BP Supergas [1995] ECR I-1883, paragraph 10).
13 In addition, the Court has consistently held that the Treaty provisions on freedom of movement cannot be applied to activities which are confined in all respects within a single Member State, and the question whether that is the case depends on findings of fact which are for the national court to make (see in particular Case C-332/90 Steen [1992] ECR I-341, paragraph 9).
17 The reply to the first question must therefore be that Articles 3(c), 52 and 53 of the Treaty are not applicable to circumstances which are confined to a Member State, such as where a company which has its head office in a Member State and pursues its activities there is subject to rules whereby the regional authorities of a Member State responsible for governing an archipelago forming part of that State' s territory require all wholesale petroleum product suppliers wishing to extend their activities to that part of the national territory to supply a certain number of islands in the archipelago, having regard to the problems of supplying insular regions.
As regards Article 85, read in conjunction with Article 5, second paragraph, and Article 6 of the Treaty
18 It must be borne in mind that for the purposes of interpreting Article 3(f), the second paragraph of Article 5 and Article 85 of the Treaty, Article 85 taken on its own is concerned only with the conduct of undertakings and not with legislative or regulatory measures of the Member States. However, according to settled case-law, Article 85, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Treaty, requires the Member States to refrain from introducing or maintaining in force measures, even of a legislative or regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings. Such is the case, according to that case-law, if a Member State requires or favours the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 85 or reinforces their effects, or deprives its own legislation of its official character by delegating to private traders responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere (see in particular Case C-379/92 Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453, paragraph 21).
24 Although such rules require petroleum product wholesalers to supply a certain number of islands forming part of the territory of a Member State, the restrictions they may impose on the free movement of such goods between Member States are too uncertain and indirect for the obligation they lay down to be regarded as being capable of hindering trade between Member States (see the judgment in Peralta, cited above, paragraph 24).
Criminal proceedings against Denis Gervais, Jean-Louis Nougaillon, Christian Carrard and Bernard Horgue.
Date: 1995-12-07
24 It is settled case-law that the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services do not apply to purely internal situations in a Member State (see most recently the judgment of 16 November 1995 in Case C-152/94 Openbaar Ministerie v Van Buynder [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 10).
28 Consequently the reply to the first and second questions must be that Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty and Directives 78/1026 and 78/1027 do not apply to situations which are purely internal to a Member State such as those of nationals of a Member State wishing to carry out the activity of artificial insemination within that State without having previously trained for or carried out that activity in another Member State.
The third and fourth questions
32 It is clear from the content and the objective of Directives 77/504 and 87/328 that those directives seek to harmonize the conditions of the acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species and of their semen with a view to eliminating zootechnical impediments to the free movement of bovine semen. Those directives do not govern the conditions regarding actual insemination or the training of inseminators; nor do they cover the issue of certificates or licences authorizing the holders to carry out the regulated functions of inseminators.
37 In paragraphs 11 and 12 of Mialocq, concerning the same legislation as that at issue in the main proceedings in this case, the Court found that the circumstances referred to in the judgment making the reference and those which had come to light in the course of the proceedings before it were not sufficient to support the view that such legislation indirectly established a monopoly hindering the free movement of goods, since any individual breeder was free to request the insemination centre for his area to supply him with semen from a production centre of his choice, in France or abroad.
38 It must however be added that the question whether the operation of approved centres does in practice lead to discrimination against imported bovine semen should be assessed in the light of Article 30 of the EC Treaty. It is for the referring court to determine the relevant facts (see Case C-323/93 Centre d' Insémination de la Crespelle v Coopérative de la Mayenne [1994] ECR I-5077, paragraph 39).
39 As regards Article 59 of the Treaty, given the answer to the first question there is no need to reply to that aspect of the fifth question.
Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Ceuta v Ayuntamiento de Ceuta.
Date: 1995-12-07
16 It is settled case-law that a measure dealing with customs duties but not expressly mentioning charges having equivalent effect may be understood as being intended also to refer to such charges (see, in particular, Case C-260/90 Leplat v Territory of French Polynesia [1992] ECR I-643, paragraph 15).
26 In that connection, it must be stressed that it is for the national court to resolve any question of fact relevant to the disposal of the case before it, to assess the scope of the national provisions and the manner in which they must be applied. The Court of Justice may, however, infer from the questions referred the various possible hypotheses and indicate, for each of them, the criteria of Community law which it will be for the national court to apply.
28 The Court has consistently held that any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the Treaty. However, such a charge may not be so characterized if it forms part of a general system of internal dues applying systematically to categories of products according to objective criteria applied without regard to the origin of the products (see, to that effect, Case 15/81 Schul v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] ECR 1409, paragraph 20).
29 Since the aim of Article 95 is to ensure free movement of goods between the Member States in normal conditions of competition by the elimination of all forms of protection which may result from the application of internal taxation that discriminates against products from other Member States, that article must guarantee complete neutrality of internal taxation as regards competition between domestic products and imported products. The prohibition which it lays down applies whenever a fiscal levy is likely to discourage imports of goods originating in other Member States to the benefit of national production (see Case 252/86 Bergandi v Directeur-Général des Impôts [1988] ECR 1343, paragraphs 24 and 25).
Council of the European Union v European Parliament.
Date: 1995-12-07
23 As the Court has previously stated, although the Treaty provides that the maximum rate must be fixed by the Commission on the basis of objective factors, no criterion has been laid down for the modification of that rate. According to the fifth subparagraph of Article 203(9), it is sufficient for the Council and the Parliament to come to an agreement. In view of the importance of such an agreement, which confers on the two institutions, acting in concert, the freedom to increase the appropriations in respect of non-compulsory expenditure in excess of the rate declared by the Commission, the existence of that agreement may not be inferred from the presumed intention of one or other of those institutions (judgment in Case 34/86 Council v Parliament [1986] ECR 2155, paragraph 34).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1995-12-07
28 First, as regards the statistical system in operation in 1991, it has consistently been held (see Case C-62/89 Commission v France [1990] ECR I-925, paragraph 23) that a Member State cannot rely on practical difficulties in order to justify its failure to adopt appropriate control measures. On the contrary, it is for the Member States responsible for implementing Community regulations in the fishery products sector to overcome those difficulties by adopting appropriate measures.
29 Secondly, in Case C-52/91 Commission v Netherlands [1993] ECR I-3069, paragraph 26, the Court held that Article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the Member States (OJ 1982 L 220, p. 1), which has been repealed but whose terms were identical to those of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87, required the Member States to adopt binding measures to prohibit on a provisional basis all fishing activity even before quotas were exhausted.
30 Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 imposes the same requirement on the Member States.
35 If the competent authorities of a Member State were systematically to refrain from taking action against the persons responsible for such infringements, both the conservation and management of fishery resources and the uniform application of the common fisheries policy would be jeopardized.
36 Consequently, as from the dates fixed by the Commission for prohibition of the fishing in question, the French Republic was required to take penal or administrative action against persons responsible for continuing the fishing activities in question and related activities, as defined in the third subparagraph of Article 11(3) of Regulation No 2241/87 and in Article 5 of both Regulation No 3926/90 and Regulation No 3882/91.
38 That argument cannot be accepted. Mere apprehension of internal difficulties cannot justify a failure to apply the rules in question.
Hendrik Evert Dijkstra v Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie BA and Cornelis van Roessel and others v De coöperatieve vereniging Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie VA and Willem de Bie and others v De Coöperatieve Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie BA.
Date: 1995-12-12
22 Consequently, where it is found that an agreement or a decision falls within the scope of Article 85(1), that the criteria for exemption referred to in the second sentence of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 26 are not fulfilled and that it does not qualify for exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty, it is void in accordance with Article 85(2). Such nullity has retroactive effect (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 48/72 Brasserie de Haecht [1973] ECR 77, paragraph 27).
26 On the other hand, the Commission does not have exclusive competence to apply Article 85(1). As the Court previously noted in its judgment in Case C-234/89 Delimitis [1991] ECR I-935, paragraph 45, the Commission shares that competence with the national courts. In its judgment in Case 127/73 BRT [1974] ECR 51, the Court stated that Article 85(1) produces direct effects in relations between individuals and creates direct rights in respect of the individuals concerned which those national courts must safeguard.
H. G. Oude Luttikhuis and others v Verenigde Coöperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA.
Date: 1995-12-12
10 It is settled case-law that in defining the criteria for the application of Article 85(1) to a specific case, account should be taken of the economic context in which the undertakings operate, the products or services covered by the agreements, the structure of the market concerned and the actual conditions in which it functions.
12 With regard first to the object of the agreements or the clauses in the statutes at issue in the main proceedings, organizing an undertaking in the specific legal form of a cooperative association does not in itself constitute anti-competitive conduct. As the Advocate General noted in point 30 of his Opinion, that legal form is favoured both by national legislators and by the Community authorities because it encourages modernization and rationalization in the agricultural sector and improves efficiency.
13 However, it does not follow that the provisions in the statutes governing relations between the association and its members, in particular those relating to the termination of the contractual link and those requiring the members to reserve their milk production for the association, automatically fall outside the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
14 In order to escape that prohibition, the restrictions imposed on members by the statutes of cooperative associations intended to secure their loyalty must be limited to what is necessary to ensure that the cooperative functions properly and in particular to ensure that it has a sufficiently wide commercial base and a certain stability in its membership (see Case C-250/92 Gottrup-Klim v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [1994] ECR I-5641, paragraph 35).
15 With regard, next, to the effects of the agreements or the clauses in the statutes, a combination of clauses such as those requiring exclusive supply and payment of excessive fees on withdrawal, tying the members to the association for long periods and thereby depriving them of the possibility of approaching competitors, could have the effect of restricting competition.
18 An agreement between undertakings is to be regarded as liable to affect trade between Member States if in the light of certain considerations of law or fact it is capable of influencing the pattern of trade between Member States directly, indirectly, actually or potentially in a manner which may prejudice the aims of a single market between States (see Gottrup-Klim, cited above, paragraph 54).
23 As a preliminary point, it must be noted that any derogation from or exception to a general rule must be interpreted strictly.
25 The second derogation applies to agreements necessary for attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. That description implies that it must be demonstrated that the agreement is necessary for attainment of all those objectives (see Case 71/74 Frubo v Commission [1975] ECR 563, paragraphs 24, 25 and 26).
Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgian State.
Date: 1995-12-14
12 As regards the first part of the question, as thus reworded, the Court has consistently held that, under the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty, it is for the Member States to ensure the legal protection which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law. In the absence of Community rules governing a matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law. However, such rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions nor render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (see, in particular, the judgments in Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer fuer das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5, Case 45/76 Comet v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, paragraphs 12 to 16, Case 68/79 Hans Just v Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs [1980] ECR 501, paragraph 25, Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, paragraph 14, Joined Cases 331/85, 376/85 and 378/85 Bianco and Girard v Directeur Général des Douanes des Droits Indirects [1988] ECR 1099, paragraph 12, Case 104/86 Commission v Italy [1988] ECR 1799, paragraph 7, Joined Cases 123/87 and 330/87 Jeunehomme and EGI v Belgian State [1988] ECR 4517, paragraph 17, Case C-96/91 Commission v Spain [1992] ECR I-3789, paragraph 12, and Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v Italian Republic [1991] ECR I-5357, paragraph 43).
13 The Court has also held that a rule of national law preventing the procedure laid down in Article 177 of the Treaty from being followed must be set aside (see the judgment in Case 166/73 Rheinmuehlen v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle fuer Getreide und Futtermittel [1974] ECR 33, paragraphs 2 and 3).
14 For the purposes of applying those principles, each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders application of Community law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances. In the light of that analysis the basic principles of the domestic judicial system, such as protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of procedure, must, where appropriate, be taken into consideration.
16 Whilst a period of 60 days so imposed on a litigant is not objectionable per se, the special features of the procedure in question must be emphasized.
Criminal proceedings against Patrick Colin and Daniel Dupré.
Date: 1995-12-14
21 There are also explanatory notes drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council ("CCC") (as regards the CCT) and by the Harmonized System Committee ("HSC") (as regards the CN) which, as the Court has already stated, may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see the judgments in Case 200/84 Daiber [1985] ECR 3363, and Case C-35/93 Develop Dr Eisbein [1994] ECR I-2655).
The questions referred by the Cour d' Appel, Bourges
22 It is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CCT and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-459/93 Thyssen Haniel Logistic [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 8).
Throat pastilles
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1995-12-14
8 As regards Article 7(4) of the directive, it is established case-law that Member States are obliged to ensure that the provisions of a directive are applied exactly and in full (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-287/91 Commission v Italy [1992] ECR I-3515, paragraph 7).