larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Criminal proceedings against Graeme Edgar Hume.
Date: 2000-09-28
16 In so far as Article 8(5) of the Regulation allows a weekly rest period to be postponed and thus constitutes a derogation from the general scheme, it is not to be interpreted broadly. Furthermore, its scope must be determined in the light of the aims pursued by the Regulation (see, to that effect, Case C-387/96 Sjöberg [1998] ECR I-1225, paragraph 14).
Angelo Ferlini v Centre hospitalier de Luxembourg.
Date: 2000-10-03
39 It should be recalled at the outset that, according to settled case-law, the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty, which lays down as a general principle the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the Treaty lays down no specific rules prohibiting discrimination (see, inter alia, Case C-179/90 Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova v Siderurgica Gabrielli [1991] ECR I-5889, paragraph 11; Case C-379/92 Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453, paragraph 18; and Case C-176/96 Lehtonen and Castors Braine v FRBSB [2000] ECR I-2681, paragraph 37).
41 As the Advocate General pointed out in point 49 of his Opinion, EC officials and members of their families who are affiliated to the Joint Scheme cannot be characterised as workers within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71. They are not subject to national legislation on social security, as required under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71.
42 On the other hand, there can be no doubt that an EC official has the status of a migrant worker. Indeed, according to settled case-law, a Community national working in a Member State other than his State of origin does not lose his status of worker within the meaning of Article 48(1) of the Treaty through occupying a post within an international organisation, even if the rules relating to his entry into and residence in the country in which he is employed are specifically governed by an international agreement (Joined Cases 389/87 and 390/87 Echternach and Moritz v Minister for Education and Science [1989] ECR 723, paragraph 11; and Case C-310/91 Schmid v Belgian State [1993] ECR I-3011, paragraph 20).
43 It follows that a worker who is a Member State national, such as Mr Ferlini, may not be refused the rights and social advantages which Article 48 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1612/68 afford him (see Case 152/82 Forcheri v Belgian State [1983] ECR 2323, paragraph 9; Echternach and Moritz, paragraph 12; and Schmid, paragraph 22).
50 According to the case-law of the Court, the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty also applies in cases where a group or organisation such as the EHL exercises a certain power over individuals and is in a position to impose on them conditions which adversely affect the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Treaty (see, to that effect, Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others [1974] ECR 1405; Case 43/75 Defrenne v SABENA [1976] ECR 455; and Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and Others v Bosman and Others [1995] ECR I-4921).
57 The Court has held that the rules regarding equal treatment forbid not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result (Case 152/73 Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153, paragraph 11; and Case C-151/94 Commission v Luxembourg [1995] ECR I-3685, paragraph 14).
Echirolles Distribution SA v Association du Dauphiné and Others.
Date: 2000-10-03
15 According to settled case-law, in proceedings brought under Article 177 of the Treaty, the only questions which may be validly referred to the Court are those on the interpretation and validity of Community law, appraisal of provisions of national law being a matter for the national court, having regard to the preliminary ruling given (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 Sodiprem and Others v Direction Générale des Douanes [1998] ECR I-2039, paragraph 22).
22 In answering the question submitted by the national court, it must first be pointed out, as the Court has already done in its judgment in Case C-341/95 Bettati v Safety Hi-Tech [1998] ECR I-4355, paragraph 75, that Article 3 of the Treaty, which determines the fields and objectives to which the activities of the Community are to relate, lays down the general principles of the common market, which are to be applied in conjunction with the respective chapters of the Treaty devoted to their implementation.
24 As the Commission has rightly pointed out, those provisions also define general objectives and must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Treaty designed to implement those objectives. Since Articles 30, 36 and 85 of the Treaty have not been amended, the Court's interpretation of them in Leclerc, in conjunction with Article 5 of the Treaty, cannot be called in question.
25 As regards Articles 3a, 102a and 103 of the Treaty, which refer to economic policy, the implementation of which must comply with the principle of an open market economy with free competition (Articles 3a and 102a), those provisions do not impose on the Member States clear and unconditional obligations which may be relied on by individuals before the national courts. What is involved is a general principle whose application calls for complex economic assessments which are a matter for the legislature or the national administration.
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2000-10-05
108 That interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Directive which is to open up the contracts to which it applies to Community competition. That purpose would be undermined if a contracting entity could organise a tendering procedure in such a way that contractors from Member States other than that in which the contracts are awarded were discouraged from tendering.
109 It follows that Article 4(2) of the Directive, in prohibiting any discrimination between tenderers, also protects those who are discouraged from tendering because they have been placed at a disadvantage by the procedure followed by a contracting entity.
The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte J.H. Cooke & Sons.
Date: 2000-10-12
42 It should be noted that it is only exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the Community legal order, be moved to restrict for any person concerned the opportunity of relying upon a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling in question legal relationships established in good faith (Case C-104/98 Buchner and Others v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern [2000] ECR I-3625, paragraph 39). Two essential criteria must be fulfilled before such a limitation can be imposed, namely that those concerned should have acted in good faith and that there should be a risk of serious difficulties (Case C-57/93 Vroege v NCIV [1994] ECR I-4541, paragraph 21).
Roquette Frères SA v Office national interprofessionnel des céréales (ONIC).
Date: 2000-10-17
17 In that regard, the Court points out that it is necessary to bear in mind the purpose of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, which, according to the fourth recital in the preamble thereto, is to prevent abuses which, in the case referred to in Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation, consists, inter alia, in the risk that the exported product may be re-introduced into the Community (see, in that regard, Case C-54/95 Germany v Commission [1999] ECR I-35, paragraphs 45 and 46).
18 In order to combat those abuses, the competent authorities of the Member States are entitled, under the fourth subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, to require additional evidence such as to satisfy them that the product has actually been placed on the market in the non-member country of import in the unaltered state. Such evidence may be required where there is suspicion or proof that abuses have been committed (see Case C-347/93 Boterlux [1994] ECR I-3933, paragraphs 25 and 27).
19 Abuse in the sense of the re-introduction into the Community of the product previously exported cannot exist where the product has undergone substantial and irreversible processing, as a result of which it has ceased to exist as such and a new product, coming under a different tariff heading, has been created.
20 The interpretation resulting from paragraphs 17 to 19 of this judgment, namely that there is no abuse for the purposes of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 3665/87 where the product concerned has undergone substantial processing, is also supported by Article 20(1) of Regulation No 800/1999, which replaced it. That provision makes it possible to refute the suspicion that the product in question has been re-imported by showing that the product in respect of which a non-differentiated refund was paid has, after leaving the Community customs territory, undergone working or substantial processing within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), namely economically justified processing ... in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture.
Peacock AG v Hauptzollamt Paderborn.
Date: 2000-10-19
9 As the Court has repeatedly held, the decisive criterion for the customs classification of goods must be sought generally in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the relevant heading of the Common Customs Tariff and in the notes to the sections or chapters (see, in particular, Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf [1994] ECR I-1945, paragraph 11, and Case C-382/95 Techex [1997] ECR I-7363, paragraph 11).
10 Both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council are important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (see judgments in Siemens Nixdorf, cited above, paragraph 12, and Techex, cited above, paragraphs 12).
16 As the national court has observed, network cards are designed solely for automatic information processing machines, they are directly connected to those machines and their function is to supply and accept data in a form which those machines can use. Network cards are thus comparable with any other medium whereby an automatic information processing machine accepts or delivers data in the sense that they have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine.
17 It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether network cards could be classified as machines within the meaning of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, since they cannot in any event be regarded as performing a specific function.
18 Consequently, Note 5(B) to the Combined Nomenclature does not preclude network cards from being classified under heading No 8471.
19 It is also necessary to consider whether network cards are to be classified in the Combined Nomenclature under heading No 8471 as units of automatic data-processing machines or under heading No 8473 as parts or accessories of machines of that type.
20 In that regard, network cards satisfy the conditions relating to units set out in Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, since they can be connected to the central unit and are specifically designed as parts of an automatic data-processing system.
21 The word part, on the other hand, implies a whole for the operation of which the part is essential and this is not so in the case of network cards. In that respect, it appears from the documents before the Court that network cards, which come in the form of slot-in cards, may also take other forms, in particular that of a standalone unit.
23 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that network cards must be classified under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature as units of automatic data processing machines.
The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd, interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and Avon Wildlife Trust.
Date: 2000-11-07
19 It should be noted that the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive provides for the setting up of a coherent European ecological network of SACs to be known as Natura 2000, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II, to enable them to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
20 Moreover, Article 4 of the Habitats Directive sets out the procedure for classifying natural sites as SACs, divided into several stages with corresponding legal effects, which is intended in particular to enable the Natura 2000 network to be realised, as provided for by Article 3(2) of the directive.
22 To produce a draft list of sites of Community importance, capable of leading to the creation of a coherent European ecological network of SACs, the Commission must have available an exhaustive list of the sites which, at national level, have an ecological interest which is relevant from the point of view of the Habitats Directive's objective of conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. To that end, that list is drawn up on the basis of the criteria laid down in Annex III (Stage 1) to the directive.
23 Only in that way is it possible to realise the objective, in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive, of maintaining or restoring the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, which may lie across one or more frontiers inside the Community. It follows from Article 1(e) and (i), read in conjunction with Article 2(1), of the directive that the favourable conservation status of a natural habitat or a species must be assessed in relation to the entire European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. Having regard to the fact that, when a Member State draws up the national list of sites, it is not in a position to have precise detailed knowledge of the situation of habitats in the other Member States, it cannot of its own accord, whether because of economic, social or cultural requirements or because of regional or local characteristics, delete sites which at national level have an ecological interest relevant from the point of view of the objective of conservation without jeopardising the realisation of that objective at Community level.
Ingmar GB Ltd v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc.
Date: 2000-11-09
20 In that respect, it should be borne in mind, first, that the Directive is designed to protect commercial agents, as defined in the Directive (Case C-215/97 Bellone v Yokohama [1998] ECR I-2191, paragraph 13).
21 The purpose of Articles 17 to 19 of the Directive, in particular, is to protect the commercial agent after termination of the contract. The regime established by the Directive for that purpose is mandatory in nature. Article 17 requires Member States to put in place a mechanism for providing reparation to the commercial agent after termination of the contract. Admittedly, that article allows the Member States to choose between indemnification and compensation for damage. However, Articles 17 and 18 prescribe a precise framework within which the Member States may exercise their discretion as to the choice of methods for calculating the indemnity or compensation to be granted.
23 Second, it should be borne in mind that, as is apparent from the second recital in the preamble to the Directive, the harmonising measures laid down by the Directive are intended, inter alia, to eliminate restrictions on the carrying-on of the activities of commercial agents, to make the conditions of competition within the Community uniform and to increase the security of commercial transactions (see, to that effect, Bellone, paragraph 17).
24 The purpose of the regime established in Articles 17 to 19 of the Directive is thus to protect, for all commercial agents, freedom of establishment and the operation of undistorted competition in the internal market. Those provisions must therefore be observed throughout the Community if those Treaty objectives are to be attained.
25 It must therefore be held that it is essential for the Community legal order that a principal established in a non-member country, whose commercial agent carries on his activity within the Community, cannot evade those provisions by the simple expedient of a choice-of-law clause. The purpose served by the provisions in question requires that they be applied where the situation is closely connected with the Community, in particular where the commercial agent carries on his activity in the territory of a Member State, irrespective of the law by which the parties intended the contract to be governed.
Edmund Thelen v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.
Date: 2000-11-09
14 In paragraph 22 of Rönfeldt, cited above, which is concerned with the way in which a retirement pension is to be calculated, the Court first pointed out that, as it had already held in Case 82/72 Walder v Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1973] ECR 599, Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation make it clear that replacement by it of the provisions of social security conventions concluded between Member States is mandatory and is subject to no exception beyond the cases expressly mentioned in the Regulation.
16 In paragraphs 25 and 26 of Thévenon, cited above, the Court stated that that principle could not, however, apply to workers who had not exercised their right to freedom of movement until after the entry into force of the Regulation.
Roberto Vitari v European Training Foundation.
Date: 2000-11-09
23 It may not, however, be concluded from Article 79 of the Conditions that the national law of the State in which a member of the local staff performs his duties is to be applied, as it stands, to the employment relationship between a Community institution and a member of the local staff. That article clearly states that the conditions of employment of local staff are to be determined by each institution in accordance with current rules and practice in the Member State where the worker is to perform his duties, which merely means that the rules adopted by each institution may not conflict with the fundamental rules of the applicable national law.
29 The Court held that while a temporary worker cannot be denied social protection solely on the ground that he has been placed at the disposal of a Community institution, such protection cannot be provided by means which encroach upon the sphere of autonomy of the Community institutions (Tordeur, paragraph 27).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2000-11-16
22 In order to decide whether this complaint of the Commission is well founded, it must be recalled that, according to the Court's case-law, the fact that an activity referred to in a directive does not exist in a particular Member State cannot release that State from its obligation to adopt laws or regulations in order to ensure that all the provisions of the directive are properly transposed (see, to that effect, Case C-339/87 Commission v Netherlands [1990] ECR I-851, paragraph 22).
23 In paragraphs 22 and 25 of Commission v Netherlands the Court held that both the principle of legal certainty and the need to secure the full implementation of directives in law and not only in fact require that Member States reproduce the rules of the directive in question in mandatory legal provisions.
27 Such an obligation applies to the Member State concerned, not only in order to anticipate any change in the purely factual situation existing at a given point in time which that Member State relies on in its defence, but also above all in order to establish a framework of laws or regulations which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to ensure in law, in all circumstances, the full application of Directive 93/118 and to enable individuals to know their rights and obligations.
42 It is settled case-law that in the context of proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty for failure to fulfil obligations it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged failure, and it may not rely on any presumption for that purpose (see, inter alia, Case C-217/97 Commission v Germany [1999] ECR I-5087, paragraph 22).
49 It must be observed, second, that the Court has indeed held that transposing a directive does not necessarily require the provisions of the directive to be enacted in precisely the same words in a specific express provision of a law or regulation, and that the general legal context may be sufficient if it actually ensures the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner (see, inter alia, Commission v Germany, paragraph 31).
50 However, according to the case-law, it is necessary that the legal situation should be sufficiently precise, clear and transparent for the persons concerned to be able to know the full extent of their rights and obligations (see, to that effect, Commission v Germany, paragraph 32).
56 It follows from the settled case-law of the Court that mere national practices which, even if they are consistent with the provisions of a directive, are by their nature alterable at will by the authorities, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of the obligation which Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) imposes on Member States to which a directive is addressed (see, in particular, Commission v Netherlands, paragraph 29, and Case C-221/94 Commission v Luxembourg [1996] ECR I-5669, paragraph 22).