larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm).
Date: 2002-11-19
39 In addition, the Court has held, with regard to the integrated system established by Regulations Nos 3508/92 and 3887/92, that an effective administrative and control procedure requires the information to be provided by an applicant for aid to be complete and accurate from the outset in order that he may make a proper application for the grant of compensatory payments and avoid the imposition of penalties (see, to that effect, Case C-369/98 Fisher [2000] ECR I-6751, paragraphs 27 and 28, and Case C-63/00 Schilling and Nehring [2002] ECR I-4483, paragraph 34).
43 The provisions establishing the integrated system make it clear that the national authorities are not required, or even able, to carry out checks to verify all statements made in aid applications submitted to them (see, to that effect, Schilling and Nehring, cited above, paragraph 37). With regard, in particular, to the on-the-spot checks provided for in Article 6(3) of Regulation No 3887/92, those checks are to relate to a significant percentage of applications, which may, however, represent only 5% of the applications for `area' aid submitted by farmers.
46 Since an inaccurate declaration of the eligible area in the application for aid referred to in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 constitutes an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95, and since the reduction in the area actually determined and, consequently, the reduction in the amount of aid calculated on that basis constitute an administrative penalty for the purposes of Article 2(2) of that regulation, the latter is plainly applicable to a dispute such as that in the main proceedings.
50 It must here be borne in mind, first, that the Community institutions have a wide measure of discretion in agricultural matters and, second, that Regulation No 3887/92 provides for penalties graduated according to the seriousness and magnitude of the irregularity committed (Schilling and Nehring, cited above, paragraph 39).  With regard to the penalties concerning applications for `area' aid, Article 9(2) of that regulation lays down penalties ranging from reduction of the unitary amount of the aid to complete exclusion from the aid scheme.
57 It is settled case-law that the Court can provide the national court with an interpretation of Community law which may assist it in deciding the case in the main proceedings (Case C-175/99 Mayeur [2000] ECR I-7755, paragraph 22).
58 The Court of Justice may therefore deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national court has not referred in the text of its question (Case 35/85 Tissier [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 9).
62 The fourth paragraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 provides that if an application for aid has been accurately based on information recognised by the competent authority the penalties provided for in the first and second paragraphs of that provision must not be imposed.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2002-11-19
14 The Court has consistently held, first, 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 (see, in particular, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26) and, second, that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, inter alia, Case C-374/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-10799, paragraph 13).
Transposition of Directive 97/11 by the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
Antonio Testa and Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale per la Società e la Borsa (Consob).
Date: 2002-11-21
27 First, it should be remembered that it is settled law that in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.  Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling.  The latter may decline a reference from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose (see, in particular, Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, paragraph 18, and Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 38).
43 If that examination by the court making the reference raises doubt as to the compliance of the Italian legislation with Directive 93/22, it must be noted that it is settled case-law that, when applying national law, whether adopted before or after that directive, the national court called upon to interpret that law must do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of that directive so as to achieve the result pursued by the directive and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8, Case C-334/92 Wagner Miret [1993] ECR I-6911, paragraph 20, Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I-3325, paragraph 26, and Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-4941, paragraph 30).
Robelco NV v Robeco Groep NV.
Date: 2002-11-21
31 It follows that reinforced protection of a trade mark's distinctive character or reputation against certain uses of a sign other than for the purpose of distinguishing goods or services is not covered by Community harmonisation.
34 Accordingly, where, as in the main proceedings, the sign is not used for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services, it is necessary to refer to the legal orders of the Member States to determine the extent and nature, if any, of the protection afforded to owners of trade marks who claim to be suffering damage as a result of use of that sign as a trade name or company name.
European Community, represented by the Commission of the European Communities v First NV and Franex NV.
Date: 2002-11-26
43 It is settled case-law that, while national courts retain jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for compensation for damage caused to private persons by national authorities in the application of Community law, Article 235 EC gives the Community Courts exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for reparation of damage brought under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC against the European Community (see Granaria, cited above, paragraph 14, Asteris and Others, paragraph 15, and Cato v Commission, paragraph 17).
49 However, it should be remembered that relations between the Member States and the Community institutions are governed, under Article 10 EC, by a principle of loyal cooperation. That principle not only requires the Member States to take all the measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law, but also imposes on the Community institutions and the Member States mutual duties of loyal cooperation (see order in Zwartveld and Others, cited above, paragraph 17). Therefore, if a national court needs information that only the Commission can provide, the principle of loyal cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC will, in principle, require the Commission when requested to do so by the national court to provide that information as soon as possible, unless refusal to provide such information is justified by overriding reasons relating to the need to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the Community or to safeguard its interests (see, to that effect, order in Zwartveld and Others, cited above, paragraphs 24 and 25; Case C-234/89 Delimitis [1991] ECR I-935, paragraph 53; and Case C-39/94 SFEI and Others [1996] ECR I-3547, paragraph 50).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2002-11-26
25 As regards the plea of inadmissibility, it should be recalled that according to Article 19 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC and Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, the application must state, inter alia, the grounds on which the application is based.  Accordingly, in any application made under Article 226 EC, the Commission must indicate the specific complaints on which the Court is called upon to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal particulars on which those complaints are based (see Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, paragraph 28).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2002-11-28
17 It is appropriate to observe, first of all, that whilst, as the French Government submits, it is clear from the Court's case-law that legislative action on the part of each Member State is not necessarily required in order to implement a directive, the Court has held that such can only be the case if the national law in question effectively guarantees the application in full of the directive concerned, if the legal position under national law is sufficiently precise and clear, and if individuals are made fully aware of their rights and, where appropriate, may rely on them before the national courts (see, in particular, Case C-114/99 Commission v Netherlands [2001] ECR I-3541, paragraph 17).
18 Secondly, it is established case-law that the maintenance of national legislation which is in itself incompatible with Community law, even if the Member State concerned acts in accordance with Community law,  gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs by maintaining, as regards the persons concerned, a state of uncertainty as to the possibility of relying on Community law (Case C-185/96 Commission v Greece [1998] ECR I-6601, paragraph 32, and the case-law cited).
19 It must, finally, be borne in mind that it is clear from the Court's case-law with regard to the implementation of directives that 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 EC Treaty (see, in particular, Case C-394/00 Commission v Ireland [2002] ECR I-581, paragraph 13).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2002-11-28
9 It is sufficient to point out that, according to settled case-law, 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 (see, in particular, Case C-148/00 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-9823, paragraph 7) and that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its own legal order to justify failure to implement a directive within the prescribed period (see, to that effect, Case C-276/98 Commission v Portugal [2001] ECR I-1699, paragraph 20).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2002-11-28
11 According to settled case-law, 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 (see, in particular, Case C-384/99 Commission v Belgium [2000] ECR I-10633, paragraph 16).  It is clear that, on expiry of the period of two months prescribed by the reasoned opinion, the implementation of Directive 97/7 in Spanish law had not been completed.
12 It also follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order to justify its failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by Community directives, nor therefore the late or incomplete implementation of a directive (see, in particular, Case C-364/00 Commission v Netherlands [2002] ECR I-4177, paragraph 10).
Overland Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise.
Date: 2002-12-05
17.  Articles 29, 32 and 33 of the Customs Code can be construed only as meaning that a buying commission which is included in the customs value declared and is not shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the import declaration must be considered to be part of the transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of that code and is, therefore, dutiable.
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Date: 2002-12-05
18.  First of all, it should be pointed out that 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 that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see,   inter alia  , Case C-148/00   Commission   v   Italy   [2001] ECR I-9823, paragraph 7, and Case C-177/01   Commission   v   France   [2002] ECR I-5137, paragraph 13).
25.  There is no doubt, therefore, that in order to satisfy fully the obligations arising from the first indent of Article 11(1) of the Directive, the plan drawn up must be specific and in conformity with the system for the disposal of PCBs laid down by the Directive as a whole (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95   Commission   v   Greece   [1998] ECR I-3343, paragraphs 34 to 36, and Case C-207/97   Commission   v   Belgium   [1999] ECR I-275, paragraph 39).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2002-12-05
18.  In that respect, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, each of the Member States to which a directive is addressed is obliged to adopt, within the framework of its national legal system, all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective it pursues (see in particular Case C-336/97   Commission   v   Italy   [1999] ECR I-3771, paragraph 19; Case C-97/00   Commission   v   France   [2001] ECR I-2053, paragraph 9; and Case C-478/99   Commission   v   Sweden   [2002] ECR I-4147, paragraph 15).
27.  However, in the absence of any national measure requiring the application to special protected areas created pursuant to Directive 79/409 of the system of protection for special areas of conservation defined in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the Directive, the attainment of the objective set out in Article 7 cannot be satisfactorily ensured. In order to ensure the full application of that provision in law and not only in fact and to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, the Member States must provide a precise legal framework for the field in question (see, to that effect, Case C-360/87   Commission   v   Italy   [1991] ECR I-791, paragraphs 11 and 13).
Criminal proceedings against Paul der Weduwe.
Date: 2002-12-10
31.  It is settled case-law that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts established by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see,inter alia  , Case C-415/93   Bosman   [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 59; Case C-379/98   PreussenElektra   [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 38, and Case C-390/99   Canal Satélite Digital   [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 18).
32.  However, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction (PreussenElektra  , paragraph 39, and   Canal Satélite Digital  , paragraph 19). The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in preliminary ruling proceedings requires the national court for its part to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to contribute to the administration of justice in the Member States and not to give opinions on general or hypothetical questions (Bosman  , paragraph 60, and C-451/99   Cura Anlagen   [2002] ECR I-3193, paragraph 26).
33.  Accordingly, the Court can decline to rule on a question submitted by a national court  where, for example, the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a helpful answer to the questions submitted to it (see to that effect,   PreussenElektra  , paragraph 39, and   Canal Satélite Digital  , paragraph 19).
34.  Moreover, in order to enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law, it is essential for the national court to explain why it considers that an answer to its questions is necessary for resolving the dispute (see Joined Cases 98/85, 162/85 and 258/85   Bertini   [1986] ECR 1885, paragraph 6, and Case C-343/90   Lourenço Dias   [1992] ECR I-4673, paragraph 19).
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 2002-12-10
16.  The purpose of the pre-litigation procedure laid down in Article 226 EC is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law or to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the complaints made by the Commission (judgment in Case 293/85   Commission   v   Belgium   [1988] ECR 305, paragraph 13; order in   Commission   v   Spain  , cited above, paragraph 16, and judgment in Case C-1/00   Commission   v   France   [2001] ECR I-9989, paragraph 53).
17.  The proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the EC Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also so as to ensure that the contentious procedure will have as its subject-matter a clearly defined dispute (Commission   v   France  , cited above, paragraph 53).
18.  Thus, the pre-litigation procedure pursues the following three objectives: to allow the Member State to put an end to any infringement, to enable it to exercise its rights of defence and to define the subject-matter of the dispute with a view to bringing an action before the Court.
19.  It has been established that the Commission received the observations of the Irish Government seven days before sending it a reasoned opinion.  No provision of Community law penalises failure to respond to the letter of formal notice within the period fixed by the Commission by rendering the Member State's observations inadmissible.  In principle, therefore, the Commission was required to set out, in its reasoned opinion, its assessment of those observations before specifying which complaints it intended to pursue, instead of wrongly claiming not to have received any official response from Ireland.
20.  The Commission did not, however, make it impossible for the Member State to put an end to its infringement and did not compromise its rights of defence.  Furthermore, the fact that the Commission failed to take account of Ireland's observations had no effect on the definition of the subject-matter of the dispute.  Paragraph 4 above makes it clear that, in its reply to the Commission's letter of formal notice, Ireland did no more than announce that it would in the future be adopting implementing measures which were then under consideration.
21.  In those circumstances, while the manner in which the pre-litigation procedure may appear to have been conducted is to be regretted, the reasoned opinion cannot be regarded as vitiated by a substantive defect capable of rendering the Commission's action under Article 226 EC inadmissible.
Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA v Ministero delle Finanze.
Date: 2002-12-12
41.  It must be observed that the purpose of the Directive is to lay down a number of rules on the holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to excise duty (Case C-296/95   EMU Tabac and Others   [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 22).
42.  The suspension arrangement defined in Article 4(c) of the Directive is the tax arrangement applied to the production, processing, holding and movement of products, excise duty being suspended.  It is a feature of that arrangement that the excise duty on the products covered by it is not yet payable, although the chargeable event for taxation purposes has already taken place.
43.  By virtue of Article 6(1) of the Directive, excise duty on products subject to it, such as alcohol, becomes chargeable in particular when they are released for consumption.  The term   "release for consumption"   covers not only any manufacture or importation of products subject to excise duty outside a suspension arrangement but also any departure, including irregular departure, from such an arrangement (Case C-325/99   van de Water   [2001] ECR I-2729, paragraph 35).
46.  The national authorities being required to ensure that the duty, once chargeable, is in fact collected (see   Van de Water  , cited above, paragraph 41), the purpose of Article 20 of the Directive is in particular to determine the Member State entitled to collect the excise duty on the products where, in the course of a movement, an offence or infringement has been committed.
51.  Respect for the rights of defence, as the Court has frequently held, is in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person and, in particular, in proceedings which may lead to the imposition of penalties, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the proceedings in question.  That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views (Case C-32/95 P   Commission   v   Lisrestal and Others   [1996] ECR I-5373, paragraph 21, and Case C-462/98 P   Mediocurso   v   Commission   [2000] ECR I-7183, paragraph 36).