larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL).
Date: 2005-07-14
31. Finally, it must be observed that a limited circle of persons who can receive the signals from the satellite only if they use professional equipment cannot be regarded as part of the public, given that the latter must be made up of an indeterminate number of potential listeners (see, regarding the meaning of the term public, Case C-89/04 Mediakabel  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 30).
39. Third, Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/83 requires that the programme-carrying signals are broadcast to the public by ‘an uninterrupted chain of communication leading to the satellite and down towards the earth’. Thus, that directive is concerned with a closed communications system, of which the satellite forms the central, essential and irreplaceable element, so that, in the event of malfunction of the satellite, the transmission of signals is technically impossible and, as a result, the public receives no broadcast.
48. In that context, it should be noted that the Court has already held that there is no objective reason to justify the laying down by the Community judicature of specific methods for determining what constitutes uniform equitable remuneration, which would necessarily entail its acting in the place of the Member States, which are not bound by any particular criteria under Directive 92/100. It is therefore for the Member States alone to determine, in their own territory, what are the most relevant criteria for ensuring adherence to the Community concept of equitable remuneration (Case C-245/00 SENA  [2003] ECR I-1251, paragraph 34).
49. However, the Member States must exercise their powers in this area within the limits laid down by Community law and, in particular, by Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100, which requires that such remuneration be equitable. More specifically, they must lay down rules for equitable remuneration that enable a proper balance to be achieved between the interests of performers and producers in obtaining remuneration for the broadcast of a particular phonogram and the interests of third parties in being able to broadcast the phonogram on terms that are reasonable ( SENA , paragraph 36).
50. Thus, whether the remuneration, which represents the consideration for the use of a commercial phonogram, in particular for broadcasting purposes, is equitable is to be assessed, in particular, in the light of the value of that use in trade ( SENA , paragraph 37).
Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH.
Date: 2005-07-14
10. As Heidegold states, the terms ‘Haltung’ and ‘Aufzucht’ are sometimes used in Community law in such a way as to differentiate between them. Thus, the definition of ‘holding’ given in Article 2(8) of Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (OJ 1990 L 303, p. 6), as amended by Council Directive 93/120/EEC of 22 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 35, hereinafter ‘Directive 90/539’), sets out a distinction between the two terms inasmuch as holding, within the meaning of that provision, ‘shall mean a facility … used for the rearing [“Aufzucht”] or keeping [“Haltung”] of breeding or productive poultry’. Likewise, the Court used the two terms in such a way as to differentiate between them in paragraph 2 of its judgment in Case C‑157/96 National Farmers’ Union and Others  [1998] ECR I-2211, in describing the undertakings represented by the applicant trade association as ‘undertakings engaged in the raising [“Aufzucht”] for sale, feeding, lairage [“Haltung”], transport and export of livestock’.
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 2005-07-21
41. Under Article 299(4) EC, the Treaty is to apply to Gibraltar since it is a Crown colony for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible. However, under the Act of Accession, certain Treaty provisions do not apply to Gibraltar (see Case C-30/01 Commission v United Kingdom [2003] ECR I-9481, paragraph 47). Those exceptions were introduced on account of the special legal position of that territory and, in particular, its status as a free port.
43. As an exception to the application of Community law in the territory of the Community, that provision must be given an interpretation which limits its scope to that which is strictly necessary to safeguard the interests which it allows Gibraltar to protect. It must also be read in the light of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, pursuant to which the Member States are required to facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 194/85 and 241/85 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 1037, paragraph 20).
Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 2005-07-21
31. In a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, the Court held that abuse in the sense of the reintroduction into the Community of a product previously exported cannot exist where the product has undergone substantial and irreversible processing, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Customs Code, 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. In such a situation, the payment of an export refund cannot be made conditional on fulfilment of the requirement imposed by the competent authorities of the Member States that additional evidence must be produced such as to show that the product that has undergone such processing has actually been placed on the market in the unaltered state in the non-member country of importation (see, to that effect, Roquette Frères , paragraphs 18 to 21).
32. In arriving at that interpretation, the Court took account of Article 20 of Regulation No 800/1999, even though the latter had entered into force after the events of the main proceedings. Article 20(4) provides inter alia that the refund is regarded as unwarranted in particular if the product is reimported into the Community without having undergone substantial working or processing within the meaning of Article 24 of the Customs Code. The Court considered that that provision made it possible to refute the suspicion that the product in question had been reimported into the Community by showing that the product in respect of which a non-differentiated refund was paid had, after leaving the Community customs territory, undergone such working or processing ( Roquette Frères , paragraph 20).
39. Furthermore, the Court has already held that evidence of an abusive practice requires, first, a combination of objective circumstances in which, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by the Community rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved, and, second, a subjective element consisting in the intention to obtain an advantage from the Community rules by creating artificially the conditions laid down for obtaining it (see Case C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke  [2000] ECR I-11569, paragraphs 52 and 53).
40. It is for the national court to verify in accordance with the rules of evidence of national law, provided that the effectiveness of Community law is not undermined, whether action constituting such an abusive practice has taken place in the case before it.
Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
Date: 2005-07-21
23. In order to answer that question, it must be recalled that the Court held in paragraph 22 of the judgment in Stinco and Panfilo that Article 46(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution, in determining the theoretical amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro rata pension is based, is required to take into account a supplement intended to bring the pension to the level of the minimum pension under national legislation.
24. In that case the INPS had aw arded Mr Stinco and Mr Panfilo pro rata pensions, in accordance with Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, calculated by reference to the notional pensions which they would have received if they had worked in Italy throughout their working life. The amount of the notional pensions was such that, had they in fact been entitled to domestic pensions of that amount, they would have been awarded the statutory Italian pension supplement so as to reach the minimum pension level (see paragraph 8 of Stinco and Panfilo ).
27. It is clear from the express provisions of Article 46(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 that the theoretical amount must be calculated as if the insured person had worked exclusively in the Member State concerned (Case 793/79 Menzies  [1980] ECR 2085, paragraph 10).
28. As to the purpose of that article, the Court has already held that the calculation to be made pursuant to that provision is intended to give a worker the maximum theoretical amount which he could claim if all periods of insurance had been completed in the State concerned ( Menzies , paragraph 11).
35. The Court has consistently held that a national rule must be regarded as a provision on reduction of benefit, within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, if the calculation which it requires to be made has the effect of reducing the amount of the pension which the person concerned may claim, because he receives a benefit from another Member State (see, in particular, Case C-143/97 Conti  [1998] ECR I-6365, paragraph 25, and Case C-107/00 Insalaca  [2002] ECR I-2403, paragraph 16).
Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona.
Date: 2005-07-21
22.  The concept of pay, referred to in Article 141 EC, comprises, according to settled case-law, any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer (see, inter alia, Case C‑262/88 Barber  [1990] ECR I‑1889, paragraph 12, and Case C‑167/97 Seymour-Smith and Perez [1999] ECR I-623, paragraph 23).
23. The advantage at issue before the national court, namely a tax concession, is not paid by the employer. Such an advantage is therefore not covered by Article 141 EC.
24. The judgments of the Court which Mr Vergani cites in support of the opposite proposition (Case 12/81 Garland [1982] ECR 359, paragraph 4; Barber , paragraph 10; and Case C‑33/89 Kowalska [1990] ECR I-2591, paragraph 7) are not at variance with that finding, since they concerned consideration which the worker received in respect of his employment from his employer.
26. Read in the light of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 76/207, by virtue of which Member States must take the measures necessary to ensure that any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished, Article 5(1) of the directive must be taken to mean that it also covers the conditions governing dismissal which obtain in those States.
27. In the context of Directive 76/207, the term ‘dismissal’ must be widely construed so as to include termination of the employment relationship between an employee and his employer, even as part of a voluntary redundancy scheme (see, to that effect, Case 19/81 Burton [1982] ECR 555, paragraph 9).
33. It is clear from settled case-law that, given the fundamental importance of the principle of equal treatment, the exception to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex, provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7, must be interpreted strictly (see, in particular, Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 36, and Case C‑328/91 Thomas and Others [1993] ECR I‑1247, paragraph 8). That provision can apply only to the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and to the consequences thereof for other social security benefits (Case 151/84 Roberts [1986] ECR 703, paragraph 35; also to that effect, Case C‑303/02 Haackert [2004] ECR I‑2195, paragraph 30). That exception to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex is therefore not applicable in the case of a tax concession such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is not a social security benefit.
34. Given, first, that the difference in treatment provided for by the provision at issue in the main proceedings is directly on grounds of sex and, second, that Directive 76/207 contains no exception, applicable in the present case, to the principle of equal treatment, it must be concluded that that difference in treatment constitutes discrimination on grounds of sex.
J. E. J. Blanckaert v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen.
Date: 2005-09-08
35. It is settled case-law that capital movements within the meaning of Article 56 EC include investments in property on the territory of a Member State by non-residents (see Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer [1999] ECR I-1661, paragraph 21, Case C-464/98 Stefan [2001] ECR I-173, paragraph 5, and Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99 Reisch and Others [2002] ECR I-2157, paragraph 30).
38. The criterion of insurance chosen by the Netherlands legislation favours, in the majority of cases, persons resident in that Member State. Taxpayers who are not insured under that system are more often than not non-residents.
39. Less favourable tax treatment for non-residents only might deter the latter from investing in property in the Netherlands. That legislation is therefore capable of hindering the free movement of capital.
42. However, unequal treatment permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC must be distinguished from arbitrary discrimination, which is prohibited  under Article 58(3) EC. According to case-law, a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings could be regarded as compatible with the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital provided that the difference in treatment applies to situations which are not objectively comparable or is justified by overriding reasons in the general interest (Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071, paragraph 43, and Case C-319/02 Manninen  [2004] ECR I-7477, paragraphs 28 and 29).
47. However, granting the tax advantage in question in the main proceedings to persons who are not insured under the Netherlands social security system would amount to treating different situations in the same way, since insured persons under that system are entitled only in exceptional circumstances to tax credits in respect of social security. It is only in a situation where an insured person cannot set off reductions in contributions against contributions due that he can seek to obtain such tax credits. On the other hand, non-insured persons, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, would always automatically be entitled to a tax credit by virtue of the grant of reductions in contributions in respect of social security. As there is no obligation to pay contributions, such a person can never offset those reductions against social security contributions due.
49. Since Community law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their own social security systems (Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and Van Riet  [2003] ECR I-4509, paragraph 100), in the absence of harmonisation at Community level it is for the legislation of the Member State concerned to determine the range of insured persons and the level of contributions payable by insured persons to the national social security system and the respective reductions. Further, it falls within the internal process of such a system to allow entitlement to reductions in contributions only to persons liable to pay them, that is to say, persons insured under that system.
Criminal proceedings against Syuichi Yonemoto.
Date: 2005-09-08
55. In particular, it should be borne in mind that Member States may adopt, notwithstanding the prohibition on quantitative restrictions on imports, laid down in Article 28 EC, measures justified on one of the grounds of public interest listed in Article 30 EC or by one of the overriding requirements referred to in the case-law of the Court, such as protection of health, provided in particular that those measures are appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, to that effect, Case C-14/02 ATRAL  [2003] ECR I-4431, paragraph 64 and case-law cited). Those limits also apply to obligations of cooperation that a Member State may impose on importers of machines manufactured in another Member State.
The system of penalties
57. Directive 98/37 does not impose any specific obligations on the Member States as regards the system of penalties. That does not mean, however, that national provisions which impose criminal penalties for infringements of legislation implementing that directive are incompatible with the latter (see, to that effect Joined cases C-58/95, C-75/95, C-112/95, C-119/95, C-123/95, C-135/95, C-140/95, C-141/95, C-154/95 and C-157/95 Gallotti and others  [1996] ECR I-1435, paragraph 14 and case-law cited).
Espace Trianon SA and Société wallonne de location-financement SA (Sofibail) v Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionnelle et de l'emploi (FOREM).
Date: 2005-09-08
21. In contrast to other cases submitted to the Court (see, in particular, Case C-230/02 Grossmann Air Service [2004] ECR I-1829, paragraph 28, and Case C-26/03 Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 41), nothing in the case in the main proceedings prevented the members of the consortium from together bringing, in their capacity as associates or in their own names, an action for annulment of the decisions of 22 December 1998 and 8 January 1999.
AB v Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk.
Date: 2005-09-08
31. That conclusion is confirmed by the case-law of the Court, according to which the conferment of the status of official or servant may only reside in a formal act of the institution concerned and cannot be based on a decision of a national legal or administrative authority. That would constitute an encroachment on the autonomy of the Community institutions (Case 65/74 Porrini and Others  [1975] ECR 319, paragraph 15 and point 2 of the operative part, and Case 232/84 Tordeur and Others  [1985] ECR 3223, paragraphs 27 and 28).
34. In accordance with the case‑law of the Court, given the incompatibility between the conditions of employment for officials, temporary and auxiliary staff on the one hand and those for local staff on the other, the transition from being a local member of staff to a post as an official, temporary or auxiliary member of staff automatically terminates the previous employment relationship, and, conversely, the resumption of the previous activities would constitute a new employment and not the continuation of the previous employment relationship (Case 105/80 Desmedt  [1981] ECR 1701, paragraph 15 and operative part). Thus, if the applicant’s employment relationship could be regarded as that of a temporary or auxiliary staff member, that employment relationship would have to be classified as a new employment, which, in accordance with the judgments in Porrini  and Tordeur , would exclude the possibility of such a new employment having arisen from the action of a body other than a Community one.
Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Stradella.
Date: 2005-09-08
12. In this respect it is appropriate to state that under Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34, a national provision of a Member State prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a product must be regarded as a category of technical regulation (see Case C-267/03 Lindberg [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 54).
18. Secondly, it is settled case-law that the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8),  which is essentially reproduced in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, imposes on Member States the duty to notify the Commission of any draft technical regulation (see, in particular, Case C-289/94 Commission  v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraphs 52 and 53, and Case C-145/97 Commission  v Belgium  [1998] ECR I-2643, paragraph 10).
22. In this connection, it is settled case-law that Directive 98/34 is designed to protect, by means of preventive monitoring, the free movement of goods, which is one of the foundations of the Community and that this control serves a useful purpose in that technical regulations falling within the scope of that directive may constitute obstacles to trade in goods between Member States, such obstacles being permissible only if they are necessary to satisfy compelling requirements relating to the public interest (see, to that effect, Case C-194/94 CIA Security International [1996] ECR I-2201, paragraph 40, and Case C-226/97 Lemmens  [1998] ECR I-3711, paragraph 32).
23. As the obligation to notify referred to, inter alia, in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 is essential for achieving that Community control, the effectiveness of such control will be that much greater if that directive is interpreted as meaning that failure to observe the obligation to notify constitutes a substantial procedural defect such as to render the technical regulations in question inapplicable and therefore unenforceable against individuals ( CIA Security International , paragraphs 44, 48 and 54, and Lemmens , paragraph 33).
Cindu Chemicals BV and Others (C-281/03) and Arch Timber Protection BV (C-282/03) v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen.
Date: 2005-09-15
35. However, as observed by the Advocate General in paragraph 62 of his Opinion, it is established that, at the material time, Annexes I and IA to Directive 98/8 had not yet been adopted. Consequently, the Member States could not in any way regulate the authorisation of the biocidal products in question on the basis of that directive since, at that time, the harmonisation provided for by the latter had not been completed (see, to that effect, Case C-443/02 Schreiber  [2004] ECR I-7275, paragraph 20).
44. As observed by the Advocate General in paragraph 37 of his Opinion, the objective of Directive 76/769 would not be attainable if the Member States were free to widen the obligations provided for therein. The provisions of that directive have exhaustive character and the retention or adoption by the Member States of measures other than those laid down by the directive is incompatible with its objective (see, to that effect, Case 148/78 Ratti [1979] ECR 1629, paragraphs 25 to 27, and Case 278/85 Commission  v Denmark  [1987] ECR 4069, paragraph 22).
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2005-09-15
51. It must be recalled that the Court has consistently held that the question whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations must be examined on the basis of the position in which the Member State found itself at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C‑103/00 Commission  v Greece  [2002] ECR I-1147, paragraph 23, and Case C-323/01 Commission  v Italy  [2002] ECR I‑4711, paragraph 8).