larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Denkavit Nederland BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten.
Date: 1984-05-17
15 THE PROHIBITION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTS AND OF ALL MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT APPLIES , AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD , NOT ONLY TO NATIONAL MEASURES BUT ALSO TO MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ( JUDGMENT OF 20 APRIL 1978 IN JOINED CASES 80 AND 81/77 ( 1978 ) ECR 927 ).
16 ACCORDING TO WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , ARTICLE 34 RELATES TO MEASURES ' ' WHICH HAVE AS THEIR SPECIFIC OBJECT OR EFFECT THE RESTRICTION OF PATTERNS OF EXPORTS AND THEREBY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT BETWEEN THE DOMESTIC TRADE OF A MEMBER STATE AND ITS EXPORT TRADE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PROVIDE A PARTICULAR ADVANTAGE FOR NATIONAL PRODUCTION OR FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF THE STATE IN QUESTION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PRODUCTION OR OF THE TRADE OF OTHER MEMBER STATES ' '  ( SEE , FOR EXAMPLE , THE JUDGMENT OF 8 NOVEMBER 1979 IN CASE 15/89 , GROENVELD , ( 1979 ) ECR 3409 , PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE DECISION ).
22 SINCE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE METHOD BY WHICH THE AID IS PAID CORRESPONDS TO AN OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPORT SITUATION , ON THE ONE HAND , AND THAT OF TRADE WITHIN A MEMBER STATE , ON THE OTHER , IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ARTICLE WHICH REQUIRES THAT LIKE SITUATIONS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNLESS SUCH DIFFERENT TREATMENT IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED ( JUDGMENTS OF 15 JULY 1982 IN CASE 245/81 EDEKA ( 1982 ) ECR 2745 , PARAGRAPH 11 ; OF 13 JUNE 1978 IN CASE 139/77 DENKAVIT ( 1979 ) ECR 1317 ; AND 15 SEPTEMBER 1982 IN CASE 106/81 KIND ( 1982 ) ECR 2885 , PARAGRAPH 22 ).
25 BY VIRTUE OF THAT PRINCIPLE , ACCORDING TO WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , MEASURES ADOPTED BY COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS MUST NOT EXCEED WHAT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED ( JUDGMENTS OF 20 FEBRUARY 1979 IN CASE 122/78 BUITONI ( 1979 ) ECR 677 , PARAGRAPH 16 , AND OF 23 FEBRUARY 1983 IN CASE 66/82 FROMANCAIS ( 1983 ) ECR 395 , PARAGRAPH 8 ).
30 DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT RECOURSE TO ANOTHER METHOD OF CHECKING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 1725/79 , NAMELY SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS FOLLOWED , IF NECESSARY , BY REPAYMENT OF THE AID GRANTED , WOULD ENTAIL , IN PARTICULAR , EXCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK FOR THE MEMBER STATES RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT THOSE INSPECTIONS .
Estel NV v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-05-17
38 IN THE ALTERNATIVE , ESTEL SUBMITS THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE FOURTH QUARTER , IT COULD AND DID TAKE THE VIEW THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO APPLY ITS OWN METHOD OF CALCULATING THE QUOTA ADJUSTMENT . SINCE IT HAD NEITHER DOUBTS NOR CAUSE FOR DOUBTS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT METHOD , IT CONSEQUENTLY MADE AN EXCUSABLE MISTAKE , FOR WHICH IT CANNOT BE BLAMED , AS REGARDS THE CORRECT METHOD OF CALCULATION .
39 ACCORDING TO ESTEL , IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PRINCIPLE NULLA POENA SINE CULPA , A PRINCIPLE WHICH IS SAID TO FORM PART OF THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER AS IS SHOWN BY THE REPORT BY PROFESSOR TIEDEMANN ANNEXED TO THE APPLICATION , THAT NO FAULT CAN BE IMPUTED TO IT FOR THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE QUOTAS WERE EXCEEDED , AND THAT THEREFORE NO FINE CAN BE IMPOSED UPON IT IN THIS CASE .
40 AGAINST THAT , THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT A SYSTEM OF FINES MUST OF NECESSITY BE AUTOMATIC . IT FOLLOWS THAT IT LITTLE MATTERS WHETHER OR NOT ESTEL IS AT FAULT OR WHETHER IT HAS MADE AN EXCUSABLE MISTAKE .
41 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED WITH REFERENCE TO THE MAIN HEAD OF ESTEL ' S SECOND SUBMISSION , ESTEL , IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS RECITED ABOVE , DID IN FACT KNOWINGLY ASSUME THE RISK OF A POSSIBLE MISTAKE . THAT MISTAKE IS NOT EXCUSABLE , BECAUSE THE APPLICANT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN INTERPRETATION FOR THE COMMISSION ' S OPINION .
42 IT ALSO FOLLOWS FROM THE FACTS THAT ESTEL COULD HAVE AVOIDED EXCEEDING ITS QUOTAS AND BEING FINED IN CONSEQUENCE , SINCE IT WAS STILL IN A POSITION TO ADAPT ITS PRODUCTION PROGRAMME EVEN ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT IT BECAME COGNIZANT OF THE COMMISSION ' S POSITION ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE LATTER ' S LETTER TO EUROFER DATED 10 NOVEMBER 1981 .
43 CONSEQUENTLY , IT MUST BE DECLARED THAT ANY MISTAKE MADE BY ESTEL REGARDING THE METHOD FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF ITS QUOTAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 10 OF DECISION NO 1831/81 WAS NOT EXCUSABLE , AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT COMMITTED A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE INVOKED .
Raad van Arbeid v P.B. Brusse.
Date: 1984-05-17
15 IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT AIM ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) LAYS DOWN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT A WORKER IS TO BE SUBJECT , WITH REGARD TO SOCIAL SECURITY MATTERS , TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY HE IS EMPLOYED .
16 NEVERTHELESS THAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS STATED TO BE ' ' SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 14 TO 17 ' ' . IN FACT , IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THE UNRESERVED APPLICATION OF THE RULE SET OUT IN ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) MIGHT CREATE , INSTEAD OF PREVENT , ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLICATIONS FOR WORKERS AS WELL AS FOR EMPLOYERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES , WHICH WOULD ENTAIL DELAYS IN THE FORWARDING OF EMPLOYEES '  FILES AND , THEREFORE , PLACE OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF THEIR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT . SPECIAL RULES GOVERNING SUCH SITUATIONS ARE SET OUT IN ARTICLES 14 TO 16 .
20 THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 17 TO INDICATE THAT RECOURSE TO THE DEROGATION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBER STATES BY THAT PROVISION IS POSSIBLE ONLY AS REGARDS THE FUTURE .
21 ON THE CONTRARY , IT FOLLOWS FROM THE SPIRIT AND SCHEME OF ARTICLE 17 THAT AN AGREEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION MUST ALSO BE CAPABLE , IN THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKER OR WORKERS CONCERNED , OF COVERING PAST PERIODS . SINCE ARTICLE 17 PROVIDES FOR AN EXCEPTION INTENDED TO MITIGATE THE DIFFICULTIES RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 13 TO 16 TO SPECIAL SITUATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENVISAGED IN REGULATION NO 1408/71 , IT MAY BE USED NOT ONLY TO ENSURE THAT A CERTAIN SITUATION DOES NOT ARISE BUT ALSO TO REMEDY AN EXISTING SITUATION THE INJUSTICE OF WHICH APPEARS ONLY AFTER IT HAS ARISEN .
30 THAT ARTICLE CREATES , IN FAVOUR OF A WORKER WHO , AS IN THE CASE ENVISAGED IN THE ORDER MAKING THE REFERENCE , IS SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY RESIDE , A REAL ENTITLEMENT TO THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES PROVIDED FOR BY THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION . THAT ENTITLEMENT CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY THE APPLICATION OF A PROVISION OF THAT LEGISLATION BY VIRTUE OF WHICH PERSONS NOT RESIDING IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION ARE NOT TO RECEIVE FAMILY ALLOWANCES .
Eximo Molkereierzeugnisse Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-05-30
18 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS SUCCEEDED IN SHOWING THAT THE COMMUNITY INCURRED LIABILITY BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT BY ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 1669/82 THE COMMISSION EXCLUDED THE ADJUSTMENT OF REFUNDS FIXED IN ADVANCE FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH EXIMO APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED THE EXPORT LICENCE WHICH IT DID NOT USE . THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS WELL FOUNDED MUST IN THIS REGARD BE EXAMINED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO WHICH ACTIONS AGAINST LEGISLATIVE ACTS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE SUBJECT , ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT ( SEE MOST RECENTLY THE JUDGMENT OF 17 . 12 . 1981 , JOINED CASES 197 TO 200 , 243 , 245 AND 247/80 ( LUDWIGSHAFENER WALZMUHLE ( 1981 ) ECR 3211 , PARAGRAPHS 17 TO 19 OF THE DECISION ).
Criminal proceedings against CMC Melkunie BV.
Date: 1984-06-06
7 ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY TO RULE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL     LEGISLATION ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY , IT MAY PROVIDE THE NATIONAL COURT WITH ALL SUCH CRITERIA FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAY ENABLE IT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION .
18 SECONDLY , THE DATA AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH DO NOT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THE PRECISE NUMBER OF NON-PATHOGENIC MICRO-ORGANISMS ABOVE WHICH A PASTEURIZED MILK PRODUCT BECOMES A SOURCE OF DANGER TO HUMAN HEALTH . IN THE ABSENCE OF HARMONIZATION IN THIS FIELD , IT IS FOR THE MEMBER STATES TO DETERMINE , WITH DUE REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS , THE LEVEL AT WHICH THEY WISH TO ENSURE THAT HUMAN LIFE AND HEALTH ARE PROTECTED . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , NATIONAL LEGISLATION SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT AT THE TIME OF CONSUMPTION THE MILK PRODUCT IN QUESTION DOES NOT CONTAIN MICRO-ORGANISMS IN A QUANTITY WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE A RISK MERELY TO THE HEALTH OF SOME , PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE CONSUMERS , MUST BE CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 36 .
Partenreederei ms. Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- & Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout.
Date: 1984-06-19
24 IN SO FAR AS A JURISDICTION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN A BILL OF LADING IS VALID UNDER ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONVENTION AS BETWEEN THE SHIPPER AND THE CARRIER , AND IN SO FAR AS A THIRD PARTY , BY ACQUIRING THE BILL OF LADING , HAS SUCCEEDED TO THE SHIPPER ' S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE RELEVANT NATIONAL LAW , THE FACT OF ALLOWING THE THIRD PARTY TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE COMPULSORY JURISDICTION PROVIDED FOR IN THE BILL OF LADING ON THE GROUND THAT HE DID NOT SIGNIFY HIS CONSENT THERETO WOULD BE ALIEN TO THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 17 , WHICH IS TO NEUTRALIZE THE EFFECT OF JURISDICTION CLAUSES THAT MIGHT PASS UNNOTICED IN CONTRACTS .
25 IN FACT , IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED ABOVE , ACQUISITION OF THE BILL OF LADING COULD NOT CONFER UPON THE THIRD PARTY MORE RIGHTS THAN THOSE ATTACHING TO THE SHIPPER UNDER IT . THE THIRD PARTY HOLDING THE BILL OF LADING THUS BECOMES VESTED WITH ALL THE RIGHTS , AND AT THE SAME TIME BECOMES SUBJECT TO ALL THE OBLIGATIONS , MENTIONED IN THE BILL OF LADING , INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT ON JURISDICTION .
Charles Lux v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-06-21
17 AS A PRELIMINARY REMARK , IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS HAVE A BROAD DISCRETION TO ORGANIZE THEIR DEPARTMENTS TO SUIT THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO THEM AND TO ASSIGN THE STAFF AVAILABLE TO THEM IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH TASKS , ON CONDITION HOWEVER THAT THE STAFF ARE ASSIGNED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF ASSIGNMENT TO AN EQUIVALENT POST .
30 AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD ( SEE , IN PARTICULAR , ITS JUDGMENT OF 5 MAY 1966 IN JOINED CASES 18 AND 35/65 , GUTMANN , ( 1966 ) ECR 103 ), A DECISION MAY AMOUNT TO A MISUSE OF POWERS ONLY IF IT APPEARS , ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE , RELEVANT AND CONSISTENT , TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE STATED .
36 THUS , THE REASONS STATED IN THE DECISION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF 14 APRIL 1980 , VIEWED IN THEMSELVES , ARE CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT . HOWEVER , IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 25 HAVE BEEN SATISFIED , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY THE CONTESTED DECISION BUT ALSO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ITS ADOPTION . SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE     DUTY TO STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED IS BOTH TO PERMIT THE PERSON CONCERNED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION CONTAINS A DEFECT ALLOWING ITS LEGALITY TO BE CHALLENGED AND TO ENABLE IT TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT , IT FOLLOWS THAT THE EXTENT OF THAT DUTY MUST BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF EACH CASE .
Hans Moser v Land Baden-Württemberg.
Date: 1984-06-28
10 IT MUST HOWEVER BE STATED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT RELATE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT . CONSEQUENTLY , WHILST THEY MAY BE RELEVANT TO AN ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS , THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO RULE ON THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING .
15 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS AND PARTICULARLY ARTICLE 48 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE WHOLLY INTERNAL TO A MEMBER STATE , IN OTHER WORDS WHERE THERE IS NO FACTOR CONNECTING THEM TO ANY OF THE SITUATIONS ENVISAGED BY COMMUNITY LAW .
18 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE UPHELD . A PURELY HYPOTHETICAL PROSPECT OF EMPLOYMENT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE DOES NOT ESTABLISH A SUFFICIENT CONNECTION WITH COMMUNITY LAW TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY .
Regina v Kent Kirk.
Date: 1984-07-10
21 WITHOUT EMBARKING UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE GENERAL LEGALITY OF THE RETROACTIVITY OF ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF THAT REGULATION , IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT SUCH RETROACTIVITY MAY NOT , IN ANY EVENT , HAVE THE EFFECT OF VALIDATING EX POST FACTO NATIONAL MEASURES OF A PENAL NATURE WHICH IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR AN ACT WHICH , IN FACT , WAS NOT PUNISHABLE AT THE TIME AT WHICH IT WAS COMMITTED . THAT WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE AT THE TIME OF THE ACT ENTAILING A CRIMINAL PENALTY , THE NATIONAL MEASURE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
22 THE PRINCIPLE THAT PENAL PROVISIONS MAY NOT HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT IS ONE WHICH IS COMMON TO ALL THE LEGAL ORDERS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND IS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ; IT TAKES ITS PLACE AMONG THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW WHOSE OBSERVANCE IS ENSURED BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
STS Consorzio per Sistemi di Telecomunicazione via Satellite SpA v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-07-10
16 IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ' S REPRESENTATIVES DURING THAT PROCEDURE , WHETHER APPROVALS OR REFUSALS TO APPROVE , ENDORSEMENTS OR REFUSALS TO ENDORSE , ARE SOLELY INTENDED TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNITY FINANCING ARE MET . THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION REMAIN NATIONAL CONTRACTS WHICH THE ACP STATES ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING , NEGOTIATING AND CONCLUDING , AND THEY CANNOT HAVE THAT EFFECT .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1984-07-11
4 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PURPOSE ASSIGNED TO THE PRELIMINARY STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 169 THAT THE INITIAL LETTER IS INTENDED TO DEFINE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE AND TO INDICATE TO THE MEMBER STATE WHICH IS INVITED TO SUBMIT ITS OBSERVATIONS THE FACTORS ENABLING IT TO PREPARE ITS DEFENCE .
5 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 17 FEBRUARY 1970 ( CASE 31/69 , COMMISSION V ITALY , ( 1970 ) ECR 25 ) AND OF 15 DECEMBER 1982 ( CASE 211/81 , COMMISSION V DENMARK ( 1982 ) ECR 4547 ), THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO SUBMIT ITS OBSERVATIONS CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL GUARANTEE REQUIRED BY THE TREATY AND , EVEN IF THE MEMBER STATE DOES NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO AVAIL ITSELF THEREOF , OBSERVANCE OF THAT GUARANTEE IS AN ESSENTIAL FORMAL REQUIREMENT OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 169 .
6 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE COMMISSION SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER OF 24 MARCH 1982 THAT THE DEFAULT WITH WHICH THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC WAS CHARGED CONSISTED IN THE RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF EDIBLE GELATIN IN THE MANUFACTURE AND MARKETING OF CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS . AFTER THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT HAD SUBMITTED ITS OBSERVATIONS ON THAT POINT THE COMMISSION , IN ITS REASONED OPINION OF 24 NOVEMBER 1982 AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE APPLICATION TO THE COURT , ENLARGED THE SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT MADE AGAINST THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC BY INCLUDING PRESERVED MEAT PRODUCTS AND ICE-CREAM AND THEREBY ACTED IN BREACH OF ITS DUTY TO GIVE THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT A FAIR HEARING .
7 THAT IRREGULARITY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN CURED BY THE FACT THAT THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS ON THE REASONED OPINION OF 24 NOVEMBER 1982 .
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Dimex Nahrungsmittel Im- und Export GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 1984-07-11
8 IT SHOULD FIRST BE NOTED IN THAT REGARD THAT , AS THE COURT POINTED OUT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 2 JUNE 1976 ( CASE 125/75 , EIER-KONTOR , ( 1976 ) ECR 771 ), THE SYSTEM OF VARIABLE EXPORT REFUNDS IS INTENDED TO GAIN AND MAINTAIN ACCESS FOR COMMUNITY EXPORTS TO THE MARKETS OF THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES CONCERNED AND THE VARIATION IN THE REFUND IS BASED ON THE DESIRE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH IMPORT MARKET IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY WISHES TO PLAY A PART .
9 IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT AND IN LATER JUDGMENTS ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 2 . 3 . 1977 IN CASE 44/76 , EIER-KONTOR , ( 1977 ) ECR 393 ), THE COURT HELD THAT IF IT SUFFICED , IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR PAYMENT OF THE REFUND AT A HIGHER RATE , FOR THE GOODS SIMPLY TO BE UNLOADED , WITHOUT REACHING THE MARKET OF THE TERRITORY OF DESTINATION , THE RAISON D ' ETRE OF THE SYSTEM OF VARYING THE REFUND WOULD BE DISREGARDED .
11 THE FACT THAT THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 ( 1 ) OF THE REGULATION PERMITS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES TO REQUIRE OTHER DOCUMENTS WHEN THEY CONSIDER , IN VIEW OF THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION , THAT PROOF OF COMPLETION OF CUSTOMS FORMALITIES IS INSUFFICIENT SHOWS THAT SUCH PROOF AMOUNTS ONLY TO REBUTTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE VARIABLE EXPORT REFUNDS HAS IN FACT BEEN ATTAINED .
16 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT BELOW THAT , IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SYSTEM OF VARIABLE REFUNDS , IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT PRODUCTS SUBSIDIZED BY SUCH REFUNDS SHOULD ACTUALLY REACH THE MARKET OF DESTINATION AND BE MARKETED THERE .
17 SINCE ACTUAL ACCESS TO THE MARKET OF DESTINATION IS GENERALLY SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF FORMALITIES FOR RELEASE INTO FREE CIRCULATION IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION , THE FACT THAT THE PRODUCT IS DESTROYED OR RE-EXPORTED BEFORE BEING RELEASED INTO FREE CIRCULATION MEANS THAT IT CANNOT , FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE VARIABLE REFUND , BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN IMPORTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 876/68 AND ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 192/75 .
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-07-12
30 IT IS TRUE THAT , IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EAGGF FINANCING FOR THE STORAGE AID IN QUESTION , THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT HAD TO DEMONSTRATE , NOT ONLY THAT THE WINE STORED WAS ACTUALLY TABLE WINE AT THE TIME WHEN THE STORAGE CONTRACTS WERE CONCLUDED , BUT ALSO THAT IT WAS NEVER RECOGNIZED AS QUALITY WINE PSR . HOWEVER , IN VIEW OF THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES , THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED WHETHER THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SATISFIED THAT EVIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT .
Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Paris v Onno Klopp.
Date: 1984-07-12
17 IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT INCLUDES ACCESS TO AND THE PURSUIT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS ' ' UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR ITS OWN NATIONALS BY THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY WHERE SUCH ESTABLISHMENT IS EFFECTED . ' '  IT FOLLOWS FROM THAT PROVISION AND ITS CONTEXT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC COMMUNITY RULES IN THE MATTER EACH MEMBER STATE IS FREE TO REGULATE THE EXERCISE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN ITS TERRITORY .
19 THAT FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT CONFINED TO THE RIGHT TO CREATE A SINGLE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IS CONFIRMED BY THE VERY WORDS OF ARTICLE 52 OF THE TREATY , ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PROGRESSIVE ABOLITION OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT APPLIES TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE SETTING UP OF AGENCIES , BRANCHES OR SUBSIDIARIES BY NATIONALS OF ANY MEMBER STATE ESTABLISHED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE . THAT RULE MUST BE     REGARDED AS A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE , APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO THE LIBERAL PROFESSIONS , ACCORDING TO WHICH THE RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT INCLUDES FREEDOM TO SET UP AND MAINTAIN , SUBJECT TO OBSERVANCE OF THE PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT , MORE THAN ONE PLACE OF WORK WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .
20 IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION , HOWEVER , THE SECOND MEMBER STATE MUST HAVE THE RIGHT , IN THE INTERESTS OF THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE , TO REQUIRE THAT LAWYERS ENROLLED AT A BAR IN ITS TERRITORY SHOULD PRACTISE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH THEIR CLIENTS AND THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AND ABIDE BY THE RULES OF THE PROFESSION . NEVERTHELESS SUCH REQUIREMENTS MUST NOT PREVENT THE NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES FROM EXERCISING PROPERLY THE RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT GUARANTEED THEM BY THE TREATY .
21 IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT MODERN METHODS OF TRANSPORT AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITATE PROPER CONTACT WITH CLIENTS AND THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES . SIMILARLY , THE EXISTENCE OF A SECOND SET OF CHAMBERS IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE DOES NOT PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF ETHICS IN THE HOST MEMBER STATE .
Hydrotherm Gerätebau GmbH v Compact del Dott. Ing. Mario Andreoli & C. Sas.
Date: 1984-07-12
11 IN COMPETITION LAW , THE TERM ' ' UNDERTAKING ' '  MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS DESIGNATING AN ECONOMIC UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION EVEN IF IN LAW THAT ECONOMIC UNIT CONSISTS OF SEVERAL PERSONS , NATURAL OR LEGAL . THE REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 67/67 IS THEREFORE FULFILLED IF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT IS MADE UP OF UNDERTAKINGS HAVING IDENTICAL INTERESTS AND CONTROLLED BY THE SAME NATURAL PERSON , WHO ALSO PARTICIPATES IN THE AGREEMENT . FOR IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES COMPETITION BETWEEN THE PERSONS PARTICIPATING TOGETHER , AS A SINGLE PARTY , IN THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION IS IMPOSSIBLE .
Firma P v Firma K.
Date: 1984-07-12
11 IT IS NONETHELESS TRUE THAT THE CONVENTION FORMALLY REQUIRES THAT BOTH PARTIES SHOULD BE GIVEN A HEARING AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL , WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SCOPE OF THE DECISION IN THE LOWER COURT . THAT PROVISION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CONVENTION , WHICH SEEKS TO RECONCILE THE NECESSARY SURPRISE EFFECT IN PROCEEDINGS OF THIS NATURE WITH RESPECT FOR THE DEFENDANT ' S RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING ( SEE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 21 . 5 . 1980 , CASE 125/79 , DENILAULER V COUCHET FRERES , ( 1980 ) ECR 1553 ). THAT IS WHY THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD IN THE LOWER COURT , WHEREAS ON APPEAL HE MUST BE GIVEN A HEARING . THERE CAN BE NO EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE IN A SITUATION WHERE , FOR REASONS WHICH MAY BE ASCRIBED TO THE PLAINTIFF , THE LOWER COURT HAS DISMISSED AN APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT ON PURELY FORMAL GROUNDS . THERE IS NO GROUND FOR APPROACHING THIS MATTER DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT ' S HABITUAL RESIDENCE OR REGISTERED OFFICE IS IN THE STATE WHERE ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT OR IN ANOTHER STATE .