larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Robert Giry v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1977-10-27
6 HOWEVER , BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF HIS LEAVE , THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED A MEASURE TERMINATING HIS SERVICE PURSUANT TO REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2530/72 OF THE COUNCIL AND THE REFUSAL OF THIS REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WAS CONTESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN A PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY APPLICATION TO THE COURT , WHICH THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER ) DISMISSED BY ITS JUDGMENT OF 21 NOVEMBER 1974 IN CASE 1/74 ( 1974 ) ECR 1269 .
7 ALTHOUGH IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT , THE APPLICANT ' S PERSISTENCE IN HIS REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF SERVICE WAS LIABLE TO CAST DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF HIS DESIRE TO MAKE HIMSELF AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION .
8 IT WAS ONLY AS FROM 21 NOVEMBER 1974 , THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT REFERRED TO , THAT THE APPLICANT CAN WITH CERTAINTY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO CLAIM HIS RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 40 ( 4 ) ( D ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
9 THE DOUBT TO WHICH THE APPLICANT ' S ATTITUDE GAVE RISE WAS FINALLY REMOVED ONLY BY THE LETTER WHICH HE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION ON 6 JANUARY 1975 CONFIRMING HIS REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT .
10 IT WAS THEREFORE AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THAT LETTER , AT THE LATEST , THAT THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER A CLEAR DUTY TO REINSTATE THE APPLICANT ON THE FIRST OCCASION ON WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WERE SATISFIED .
19 WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATION , IT MUST FIRST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE APPLICANT ' S BEHAVIOUR CONTRIBUTED TO THE DAMAGE WHICH HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SUFFERED .
Westfälischer Kunstverein v Hauptzollamt Münster.
Date: 1977-10-27
3 THE ACTION THEREFORE CONCERNS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO HEADINGS IN THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , ONE OF WHICH , SUBHEADING 49.11 B , FALLS WITHIN THE GENERAL CATEGORY ' PRINTED BOOKS , NEWSPAPERS , PICTURES AND OTHER PRODUCTS OF THE PRINTING INDUSTRY ; MANUSCRIPTS , TYPESCRIPTS AND PLANS '  ( CHAPTER 49 ) WHILE THE OTHER , HEADING 99.02 , IS COVERED BY THE CONCEPT OF ' WORKS OF ART , COLLECTORS '  PIECES , AND ANTIQUES '  ( CHAPTER 99 ).

THAT DISTINCTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE POSSIBLE ARTISTIC MERIT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ARTICLES , SOMETHING WHICH IS DEFINED ESSENTIALLY BY REFERENCE TO SUBJECTIVE AND INDETERMINATE CRITERIA , BUT MUST BE FOUNDED ON THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA ADOPTED BY THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF FOR THE PURPOSES BOTH OF ITS EFFECTIVE OPERATION AND OF LEGAL CERTAINTY .
5 BOTH THE WORDING AND THE GENERAL SCHEME OF CHAPTER 49 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF SHOW THAT SUBHEADING 49.11 B IS A RESIDUAL HEADING WHICH COVERS ALL ARTISTIC PRINTED MATTER NOT LISTED OR REFERRED TO ELSEWHERE .

THAT FINDING IS CONFIRMED BY THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE IN THE GENERAL EXPLANATORY NOTE TO CHAPTER 49 , WHICH STATES THAT :
' FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER , THE TERM ' PRINTED '  INCLUDES NOT ONLY REPRODUCTION BY THE SEVERAL METHODS OF ORDINARY HAND AND MECHANICAL PRINTING ( LITHOGRAPHY , OFF-SET PRINTING , HELIOGRAPHY , PHOTOGRAVURE , ETC .), BUT ALSO BY ENGRAVING , REPRODUCTION BY DUPLICATING MACHINES , EMBOSSING , PHOTOGRAPHY , ETC ., IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FORM OF THE CHARACTERS IN WHICH THE PRINTING IS EXECUTED ( E . G ., LETTERS OF ANY ALPHABET , FIGURES , SHORTHAND SIGNS , MORSE OR OTHER CODE SYMBOLS , BRAILLE CHARACTERS , MUSICAL NOTATIONS , PICTURES AND DIAGRAMS ) ' .

AS ARTISTIC SCREEN PRINTS ARE PRODUCED BY A PRINTING PROCESS IT MUST BE POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO FALL WITHIN SUBHEADING 49.11 B .
FOR THAT REASON IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO APPLY GENERAL RULE NO 4 FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , ACCORDING TO WHICH GOODS NOT FALLING WITHIN ANY HEADING OF THE TARIFF SHALL BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEADING APPROPRIATE TO THE GOODS TO WHICH THEY ARE MOST ASKIN .
Régina v Pierre Bouchereau.
Date: 1977-10-27
14 THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE VERSIONS OF A COMMUNITY TEXT MUST BE GIVEN A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION AND HENCE IN THE CASE OF DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE VERSIONS THE PROVISION IN QUESTION MUST BE INTERPRETED BY REFERENCE TO THE PURPOSE AND GENERAL SCHEME OF THE RULES OF WHICH IT FORMS A PART .
27 THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE , WHICH STATES THAT ' PREVIOUS CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS SHALL NOT IN THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR THE TAKING OF SUCH MEASURES '  MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS REQUIRING THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO CARRY OUT A SPECIFIC APPRAISAL FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE INTERESTS INHERENT IN PROTECTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY , WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY COINCIDE WITH THE APPRAISALS WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION .
28 THE EXISTENCE OF A PREVIOUS CRIMINAL CONVICTION CAN , THEREFORE , ONLY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN SO FAR AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GAVE RISE TO THAT CONVICTION ARE EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL CONDUCT CONSTITUTING A PRESENT THREAT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY .
29 ALTHOUGH , IN GENERAL , A FINDING THAT SUCH A THREAT EXISTS IMPLIES THE EXISTENCE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED OF A PROPENSITY TO ACT IN THE SAME WAY IN THE FUTURE , IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PAST CONDUCT ALONE MAY CONSTITUTE SUCH A THREAT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY .
30 IT IS FOR THE AUTHORITIES AND , WHERE APPROPRIATE , FOR THE NATIONAL COURTS , TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR LEGAL POSITION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY LAW AND OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS .

THE THIRD QUESTION
33 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 4 DECEMBER 1974 ( CASE 41/74 , VAN DUYN V HOME OFFICE , ( 1974 ) ECR 1337 , AT P . 1350 ) THE COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHERE , IN PARTICULAR , IT IS USED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR DEROGATING FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS , MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY , SO THAT ITS SCOPE CANNOT BE DETERMINED UNILATERALLY BY EACH MEMBER STATE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY .
34 NEVERTHELESS , IT IS STATED IN THE SAME JUDGMENT THAT THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING RECOURSE TO THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAY VARY FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER AND FROM ONE PERIOD TO ANOTHER AND IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY IN THIS MATTER TO ALLOW THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AN AREA OF DISCRETION WITHIN THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE TREATY AND THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION .
35 IN SO FAR AS IT MAY JUSTIFY CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY LAW , RECOURSE BY A NATIONAL AUTHORITY TO THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY PRESUPPOSES , IN ANY EVENT , THE EXISTENCE , IN ADDITION TO THE PERTURBATION OF THE SOCIAL ORDER WHICH ANY INFRINGEMENT OF THE LAW INVOLVES , OF A GENUINE AND SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS THREAT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY AFFECTING ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS OF SOCIETY .
The Queen v A National Insurance Commissioner, ex parte Christine Margaret Warry.
Date: 1977-11-09
28 THAT PROVISION WAS LAID DOWN WITH THE AIM OF SIMPLIFYING ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO EXEMPT MIGRANT WORKERS , WHO HAVE RIGHTS TO ASSERT IN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES , FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO LODGE WITH THE INSTITUTIONS IN EACH OF THOSE STATES AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF THE BENEFITS WHICH THEY MAY CLAIM .
SA G.B.-INNO-B.M. v Association des détaillants en tabac (ATAB).
Date: 1977-11-16
31 ACCORDINGLY , WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ARTICLE 86 IS DIRECTED AT UNDERTAKINGS , NONETHELESS IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE TREATY IMPOSES A DUTY ON MEMBER STATES NOT TO ADOPT OR MAINTAIN IN FORCE ANY MEASURE WHICH COULD DEPRIVE THAT PROVISION OF ITS EFFECTIVENESS .
32 THUS ARTICLE 90 PROVIDES THAT , IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS AND UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH MEMBER STATES GRANT SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS , MEMBER STATES SHALL NEITHER ENACT NOR MAINTAIN IN FORCE ANY MEASURE CONTRARY INTER ALIA TO THE RULES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 85 TO 94 .
35 IN ANY CASE , A NATIONAL MEASURE WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF FACILITATING THE ABUSE OF A DOMINANT POSITION CAPABLE OF AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WILL GENERALLY BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLES 30 AND 34 , WHICH PROHIBIT QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AND ALL MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT .
50 ARTICLE 99 OF THE TREATY , WHICH IMPOSES ON THE COMMISSION THE DUTY TO LOOK FOR WAYS OF HARMONIZING THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATES ON THIS POINT IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMON MARKET , IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 100 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF LAWS , RELATES TO THE OBSTACLES TO TRADE RESULTING FROM INDIRECT TAXES .
63 TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITION IMPLY A SYSTEM OF FREELY FORMED PRICES FOR ALL GROUPS OF MANUFACTURED TOBACCO , THE COUNCIL PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE THAT MANUFACTURERS AND IMPORTERS SHALL BE FREE TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM RETAIL SELLING PRICE FOR EACH OF THEIR PRODUCTS .
64 TAKEN IN CONTEXT , THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS AIMING TO PROHIBIT THE MEMBER STATES FROM INTRODUCING OR MAINTAINING IN FORCE A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE WHEREBY A SELLING PRICE , NAMELY THE PRICE STATED ON THE TAX LABEL , IS IMPOSED FOR THE SALE TO THE CONSUMER OF IMPORTED OR HOME-PRODUCED TOBACCO PRODUCTS , ALWAYS PROVIDED THAT THAT PRICE HAS BEEN FREELY DETERMINED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR IMPORTER .
Enka BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen Arnhem.
Date: 1977-11-23
11 IT EMERGES FROM THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY THAT THE CHOICE LEFT TO THE MEMBER STATES AS REGARDS THE FORM OF THE MEASURES AND THE METHODS USED IN THEIR ADOPTION BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES DEPENDS UPON THE RESULT WHICH THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION WISHES TO SEE ACHIEVED .
Elisabeth Beerens v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening.
Date: 1977-11-29
9 THE FACT THAT A NATIONAL LAW OR REGULATION HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE DECLARATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE REGULATION IS NOT OF ITSELF PROOF THAT LAW OR REGULATION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE SAID REGULATION ; ON THE OTHER HAND , THE FACT THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS SPECIFIED A LAW IN ITS DECLARATION MUST BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF THAT THE BENEFITS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THAT LAW ARE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
Leonce Cayrol v Giovanni Rivoira & Figli.
Date: 1977-11-30
32 HOWEVER , IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO ASSESS WHETHER QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY A NATIONAL COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY ARE RELEVANT TO THE NATURE AND SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ACTION BEFORE THAT COURT , SINCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROCEDURE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING SUCH ASSESSMENT COMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL COURT .
Mario Torri v Office national des pensions pour travailleurs salariés.
Date: 1977-11-30
5 ARTICLE 50 COVERS CASES WHERE THE PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE WORKER UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATES TO WHICH HE WAS SUBJECT WERE RELATIVELY SHORT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE BY THOSE STATES DOES NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF LIVING .
6 IN ORDER TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF RESIDENCE LAYS DOWN A MINIMUM BENEFIT , THE BENEFIT PAYABLE BY THAT STATE SHALL BE INCREASED BY A SUPPLEMENT EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL OF THE BENEFITS PAYABLE BY THE DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES TO THE LEGISLATION OF WHICH THE WORKER WAS SUBJECT AND THE MINIMUM BENEFIT .
Carlsen Verlag GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Köln.
Date: 1977-12-08
3 THE DECISIVE CRITERION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES IS IN GENERAL TO BE SOUGHT IN THEIR CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES AS DEFINED IN THE WORDING OF THE RELEVANT HEADING OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND OF THE NOTES TO THE SECTIONS OR CHAPTERS .
Theodorus Engelbertus Sanders v Ronald van der Putte.
Date: 1977-12-14
9 THE CONVENTION ADMITS OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE BY ALLOWING THE PLAINTIFF IN CERTAIN CASES TO SUE THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE LATTER IS DOMICILED OR BEFORE THE COURT OF ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE , ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN ARTICLES 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION .
10 ON THE OTHER HAND , ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONVENTION PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION , REGARDLESS OF DOMICILE .
11 AS REGARDS THE MATTERS LISTED UNDER SUBPARAGRAPHS ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ) AND ( 5 ) OF THAT ARTICLE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURTS WHICH ARE GIVEN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ARE THOSE WHICH ARE THE BEST PLACED TO DEAL WITH THE DISPUTES IN QUESTION .
12 THE SAME APPLIES TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE COURTS OF THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN MATTERS RELATING TO RIGHTS IN REM IN , OR TENANCIES OF , IMMOVABLE PROPERTY .
13 IN FACT , ACTIONS CONCERNING RIGHTS IN REM IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ARE TO BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS SITUATED SINCE THE DISPUTES WHICH ARISE RESULT FREQUENTLY IN CHECKS , INQUIRIES AND EXPERT ASSESSMENTS WHICH MUST BE CARRIED OUT ON THE SPOT , WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION SATISFIES THE NEED FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .
15 THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS EXPLAIN THE ASSIGNMENT OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN THE CASE OF DISPUTES RELATING TO TENANCIES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PROPERLY SO-CALLED , THAT IS TO SAY , IN PARTICULAR , DISPUTES BETWEEN LESSORS AND TENANTS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR INTERPRETATION OF LEASES OR TO COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE TENANT AND TO GIVING UP POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES .
16 THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT APPLY WHERE THE PRINCIPAL AIM OF THE AGREEMENT IS OF A DIFFERENT NATURE , IN PARTICULAR , WHERE IT CONCERNS THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS .
17 FURTHERMORE , THE ASSIGNMENT , IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE , OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE COURTS OF ONE CONTRACTING STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONVENTION RESULTS IN DEPRIVING THE PARTIES OF THE CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE THEIRS AND , IN CERTAIN CASES , RESULTS IN THEIR BEING BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT WHICH IS NOT THAT OF THE DOMICILE OF ANY OF THEM .
18 HAVING REGARD TO THAT CONSIDERATION THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 16 MUST NOT BE GIVEN A WIDER INTERPRETATION THAN IS REQUIRED BY THEIR OBJECTIVE .
Fritz Fuss KG, Elektrotechnische Fabrik v Oberfinanzdirektion de Munich.
Date: 1977-12-15
5 NOTE 3 READS : ' UNLESS THE HEADINGS OTHERWISE REQUIRE , COMPOSITE MACHINES CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE MACHINES FITTED TOGETHER TO FORM A WHOLE AND OTHER MACHINES ADAPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING TWO OR MORE COMPLEMENTARY OR ALTERNATIVE FUNCTIONS ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS IF CONSISTING ONLY OF THAT COMPONENT OR AS BEING THAT MACHINE WHICH PERFORMS THE PRINCIPAL FUNCTION ' . ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE RELATING TO THAT NOTE , FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID TARIFF HEADINGS , ' MACHINES OF DIFFERENT KINDS ARE TAKEN TO BE FITTED TOGETHER TO FORM A WHOLE WHEN INCORPORATED ONE IN THE OTHER OR MOUNTED ONE ON THE OTHER '  OR , GENERALLY SPEAKING , WHERE THE MACHINES ARE FIRMLY FIXED TOGETHER AND THUS FORM A PHYSICAL UNIT . THE EXPLANATORY NOTES MOREOVER STATE THAT THE EXPRESSION ' COMPOSITE MACHINES '  FOR THE PURPOSES OF NOTE 3 DOES NOT COVER MACHINES OR APPLIANCES CONSISTING ' OF SEPARATE COMPONENTS WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO CONTRIBUTE TOGETHER TO A SINGLE CLEARLY DEFINED FUNCTION ' , INCLUDING INTER ALIA ' BURGLAR ALARMS ' . IT APPEARS FROM THOSE EXPLANATORY NOTES THAT WHERE SEPARATE COMPONENT PARTS ARE JOINED TOGETHER AND DESIGNED TO FORM A FUNCTIONAL UNIT , SUCH AS A BURGLAR ALARM , THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ' PARTS OF MACHINES '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF NOTE 2 TO SECTION XVI OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND TO BE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE RULES CONTAINED IN LETTERS ( A ), ( B ) AND ( C ) OF THAT NOTE . IT IS A CONDITION OF CLASSIFICATION UNDER LETTER ( A ) OF THAT NOTE THAT THE PARTS OF MACHINES IN QUESTION ARE GOODS OF A KIND DESCRIBED IN ANY OF THE HEADINGS OF CHAPTERS 84 AND 85 . LETTER ( B ) OF THE NOTE RELATES TO PARTS ' IF SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF MACHINE , OR WITH A NUMBER OF MACHINES FALLING WITHIN THE SAME HEADING ' . IT IS NOT A CONDITION OF TARIFF CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THAT PROVISION THAT THE PARTS IN QUESTION SHOULD INCLUDE ALL THE COMPONENT PARTS WHICH NORMALLY GO TO MAKE UP THE COMPLETE APPLIANCE . RULE 2 ( A ) OF THE RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF PROVIDES : ' ANY REFERENCE IN A HEADING TO AN ARTICLE SHALL BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THAT ARTICLE INCOMPLETE OR UNFINISHED , PROVIDED THAT , AS IMPORTED , THE INCOMPLETE OR UNFINISHED ARTICLE HAS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMPLETE OR FINISHED ARTICLE ' . THE NECESSARY COMPONENT PARTS OF AN APPLIANCE COVERED BY A TARIFF HEADING , WHICH FORM A FUNCTIONAL UNIT AND WHEN FITTED TOGETHER HAVE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE COMPLETE ARTICLE , ARE THEREFORE COVERED BY THE EXPRESSION ' PARTS '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF NOTE 2 TO SECTION XVI OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET OUT AT LETTER ( B ) OF THAT NOTE .
Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutor) of the Kingdom of the v Jacobus Philippus van Tiggele.
Date: 1978-01-24
14THUS IMPORTS MAY BE IMPEDED IN PARTICULAR WHEN A NATIONAL AUTHORITY FIXES PRICES OR PROFIT MARGINS AT SUCH A LEVEL THAT IMPORTED PRODUCTS ARE PLACED AT A DISADVANTAGE IN RELATION TO IDENTICAL DOMESTIC PRODUCTS EITHER BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROFITABLY BE MARKETED IN THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN OR BECAUSE THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE CONFERRED BY LOWER COST PRICES IS CANCELLED OUT .
19THIS IS THE CONCLUSION WHICH MUST BE DRAWN EVEN THOUGH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM THE FIXED MINIMUM PRICE AND THOUGH THIS POWER IS FREELY APPLIED TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS , SINCE THE REQUIREMENT THAT IMPORTERS AND TRADERS MUST COMPLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES INHERENT IN SUCH A SYSTEM MAY IN ITSELF CONSTITUTE A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION .
23ARTICLE 92 STATES THAT ANY AID GRANTED BY A MEMBER STATE OR THROUGH STATE RESOURCES IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER WHICH DISTORTS OR THREATENS TO DISTORT COMPETITION BY FAVOURING CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS OR THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN GOODS SHALL , IN SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET .
24WHATEVER DEFINITION MUST BE PLACED UPON THE CONCEPT OF AN ' AID '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT ARTICLE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE WORDING THEREOF THAT A MEASURE CHARACTERIZED BY THE FIXING OF MINIMUM RETAIL PRICES WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF FAVOURING DISTRIBUTORS OF A PRODUCT AT THE EXCLUSIVE EXPENSE OF CONSUMERS CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 92 .
25THE ADVANTAGES WHICH SUCH AN INTERVENTION IN THE FORMATION OF PRICES ENTAILS FOR THE DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PRODUCT ARE NOT GRANTED , DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY , THROUGH STATE RESOURCES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 92 .
Fratelli Zerbone Snc v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato.
Date: 1978-01-31
24BY REASON OF THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE TREATY MEMBER STATES MUST NOT IMPEDE THE DIRECT EFFECT OF REGULATIONS OR OTHER RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW .
25THE SCRUPULOUS OBSERVATION OF THIS DUTY IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY REGULATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE COMMUNITY .
26ACCORDINGLY MEMBER STATES MUST NOT ADOPT OR ALLOW NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WITH A LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ADOPT A MEASURE BY WHICH THE COMMUNITY NATURE OF A LEGAL RULE AND THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH ARISE FROM IT ARE CONCEALED FROM THE PERSONS CONCERNED .
27ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE EVENT OF DIFFICULTY OF INTERPRETATION THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION MAY BE LED TO ADOPT DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF A COMMUNITY REGULATION AND AT THE SAME TIME TO CLARIFY ANY DOUBTS RAISED , IT CAN DO SO ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES CANNOT ISSUE BINDING RULES OF INTERPRETATION .
Johann Lührs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 1978-02-01
6IT FOLLOWS FROM THE STATED CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REGULATION NO 348/76 WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AN OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST , WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE RULES ADOPTED SHOULD ENTER INTO FORCE IMMEDIATELY .

INDEED , THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET REQUIRED A MEASURE TO RESTRAIN A DEVELOPMENT WHEREBY RISING PRICES AND ABNORMAL EXPORTS TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES WERE STIMULATING EACH OTHER .

MOREOVER THAT MEASURE COULD NOT SURPRISE TRADE CIRCLES WHICH , EVEN IF THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN AWARE OF THE ABNORMAL SITUATION , HAD AT ALL EVENTS BEEN WARNED BY EARLIER COMMUNITY MEASURES ( SUSPENSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES ON IMPORTS ) AND BY MEASURES ALREADY ADOPTED BY THE MEMBER STATES WHICH WERE TRADITIONAL EXPORTERS OF POTATOES .

CONSEQUENTLY THE ADOPTION OF STRICTER MEASURES WAS TO BE FORESEEN BY PRUDENT AND DISCRIMINATING TRADERS SO THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THEY CANNOT PLEAD LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION .
SA Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche and SARL François Delquignies v Administration Française des Douanes.
Date: 1978-02-15
48ACCORDING TO A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE A LAW AMENDING A LEGISLATIVE PROVISION APPLIES , SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED , TO THE FUTURE EFFECTS OF SITUATIONS WHICH AROSE UNDER THE PREVIOUS LAW .
55THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 MAY 1975 IN CASE 74/74 , COMPTOIR NATIONAL TECHNIQUE AGRICOLE ( CNTA ) S.A . V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ( 1975 ) ECR 549 , PARAGRAPH 39 : ' THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE APPLICATION AND ABOLITION OF THE SYSTEM OF COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS IN A SPECIFIC SECTOR DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS OF TRADERS AND DO NOT GUARANTEE THEM A CONTINUOUS APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM ' .
An Bord Bainne Co-Operative v Minister for Agriculture.
Date: 1978-02-23
36THE REASONS ON WHICH A PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS BASED MAY APPEAR NOT ONLY FROM ITS OWN WORDING , BUT ALSO FROM THE WHOLE BODY OF THE LEGAL RULES GOVERNING THE FIELD UNDER CONSIDERATION .
37SITUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RULES GOVERNING INTERVENTION ARRANGEMENTS LAID DOWN BY REGULATIONS NO 804/68 AND NO 985/68 OF THE COUNCIL , AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THAT OF PRIVATE STORAGE AID , REGULATION NO 2517/74 MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO DISCERN THE REASONS JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION OF THE LAST SUBPARAGRAPH TO ARTICLE 29 OF REGULATION NO 685/69 .
Société Azienda Avicola Sant'Anna v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) and Servizio Contributi Agricoli Unificati (SCAU).
Date: 1978-02-28
8 ON THE OTHER HAND SINCE THE TREATY CONTAINS NO PRECISE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE AND STILL LESS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDING , IT IS FOR THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS TO WORK OUT , WHERE APPROPRIATE , FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RULES DERIVING FROM THE TREATY SUCH A DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDING .
9ALTHOUGH THE WORDS ' ' AGRICULTURAL HOLDING ' '  ARE USED IN VARIOUS PLACES IN THE COMMUNITY RULES , INCLUDING THE REGULATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER FOR REFERENCE , ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OR IN CERTAIN CASES BY THE COMMISSION , IN THE SPHERE OF AGRICULTURE , THE DEFINITION OF THESE WORDS IS FAR FROM BEING UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THESE RULES , WHICH ARE IN ANY CASE HETEROGENEOUS , BUT ON THE CONTRARY VARIES ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THE COMMUNITY RULES IN QUESTION .
14IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OR IN THE RULES OF SECONDARY COMMUNITY LAW ANY GENERAL UNIFORM COMMUNITY DEFINITION OF ' ' AGRICULTURAL HOLDING ' '  UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN BY LAW AND REGULATION RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION .