larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
SA Biovilac NV v European Economic Community.
Date: 1984-12-06
28 IN THIS REGARD IT NEED ONLY BE OBSERVED THAT THE COURT HAS HELD IN A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS THAT AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY FOR UNLAWFUL LEGISLATIVE ACTION CANNOT SUCCEED UNLESS THE DAMAGE ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT EXCEEDS THE LIMITS OF THE ECONOMIC RISKS INHERENT IN     OPERATING IN THE SECTOR CONCERNED . THAT PRINCIPLE WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED A FORTIORI IF THE CONCEPT OF LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT WERE ACCEPTED IN COMMUNITY LAW . IN THIS CASE THOSE LIMITS WERE NOT EXCEEDED SINCE THE APPLICANT OUGHT TO HAVE ANTICIPATED WHEN MARKETING ITS PRODUCTS IN 1978 AND 1980 THAT REGULATIONS NOS 368/77 AND 443/77 , WHICH WERE SUSPENDED ONLY TEMPORARILY AND WHICH ORIGINALLY DID NOT CONTAIN ANY MECHANISM FOR PREVENTING SKIMMED-MILK POWDER SOLD UNDER THEM FROM BEING USED FOR FEEDING PIGLETS , WHICH IS NOT THE CASE NOW , WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK INTO FORCE IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THEIR ADOPTION WERE LATER TO RE-OCCUR . WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1974 THE APPLICANT ALSO OUGHT TO HAVE ANTICIPATED , OR AT ANY RATE COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED , THAT SPECIAL MEASURES WOULD BE ADOPTED UNDER THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 804/68 IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF SKIMMED-MILK POWDER WHICH COULD NOT BE MARKETED ON NORMAL TERMS DURING A MILK YEAR .
Charles Lux v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-12-13
20 THE COURT HAS HELD ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THAT ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE IN THE LAW RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF COMMUNITY OFFICIALS . THUS , AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 20 JANUARY 1974 IN CASE 148/73 ( LOUWAGE V COMMISSION , ( 1974 ) ECR 81 ), ALTHOUGH AN INTERNAL DIRECTIVE DOES NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF A RULE OF LAW WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION IS BOUND TO OBSERVE , IT NEVERTHELESS LAYS DOWN A RULE OF CONDUCT INDICATING THE PRACTICE TO BE FOLLOWED , FROM WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION MAY NOT DEPART WITHOUT GIVING THE REASONS WHICH HAVE LED IT TO DO SO , SINCE OTHERWISE THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WOULD BE INFRINGED .
Union sidérurgique du Nord et de l'Est de la France "Usinor" v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-12-13
18 AS REGARDS THE ASSURANCES WHICH USINOR CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION THROUGH EUROFER , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT ON A SPECIFIC OCCASION THE QUESTION OF THE IMPOSITION OF DOUBLE PENALTIES WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED DURING AN EXCHANGE OF VIEWS BETWEEN EUROFER AND THE OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION . HOWEVER , IT IS APPARENT FROM THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT AT NO TIME DID THE COMMISSION GIVE THE SLIGHTEST ASSURANCE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PENALTIES ATTACHING TO THE QUOTA SYSTEM . IN ANY EVENT , AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED , THE COMMISSION OR ITS OFFICERS CANNOT MODIFY THAT SYSTEM OR MITIGATE ITS HARSHNESS BY MEANS OF UNOFFICIAL STATEMENTS ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 11 . 5 . 1983 IN JOINED CASES 303 AND 312/81 KLOCKNER ( 1983 ) ECR 1507 , PARAGRAPH 34 OF THE DECISION ).
Sermide SpA v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero and others.
Date: 1984-12-13
28 IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO POINT OUT THAT UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY PRODUCERS OR CONSUMERS , WHICH IS ENSHRINED IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY AND WHICH INCLUDES THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY , COMPARABLE SITUATIONS MUST NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND DIFFERENT SITUATIONS MUST NOT BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY UNLESS SUCH TREATMENT IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS , SUCH AS PROTECTIVE MEASURES , SUBSIDIES , AID AND SO ON , MAY NOT BE DIFFERENTIATED ACCORDING TO REGION OR ACCORDING TO OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTION OR CONSUMPTION EXCEPT BY REFERENCE TO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA WHICH ENSURE A PROPORTIONATE DIVISION OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES FOR THOSE CONCERNED WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TERRITORIES OF THE MEMBER STATES .
Eberhard Haug-Adrion v Frankfurter Versicherungs-AG.
Date: 1984-12-13
9 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS , ALTHOUGH IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT NATIONAL COURTS EXPLAIN THE REASONS WHY THEY CONSIDER THAT A REPLY TO THEIR QUESTIONS IS NECESSARY FOR THEIR DECISION IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , AND DEFINE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION , WHERE QUESTIONS ARE COUCHED IN IMPRECISE TERMS IT IS FOR THE COURT TO EXTRACT FROM ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL COURT AND FROM THE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS THE ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY LAW THAT NEED TO BE INTERPRETED , HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE DISPUTE .
14 WITH REGARD FIRST TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 7 AND THE IMPLEMENTING RULES IN ARTICLES 48 , 59 AND 65 , IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THOSE PROVISIONS ARE INTENDED TO ELIMINATE ALL MEASURES WHICH , IN THE FIELDS OF FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS AND FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES , TREAT A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE MORE SEVERELY OR PLACE HIM IN A SITUATION LESS ADVANTAGEOUS , FROM A LEGAL OR FACTUAL POINT OF VIEW , THAN THAT OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATE ' S OWN NATIONALS IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES .
Monique Roumengous Carpentier v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-01-15
8 AS STATED ABOVE , THE APPLICANT FURTHER REQUESTED THE COURT TO HOLD THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE SUMS DUE TO HER BY WAY OF ARREARS OF REMUNERATION .

DEFAULT INTEREST
Jan Amesz and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-01-15
11 AS STATED ABOVE , THE APPLICANTS FURTHER REQUESTED THAT THE COMMUNITY BE ORDERED TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% ON THE ARREARS , TO RUN FROM THE DATE ON WHICH EACH AMOUNT OF ARREARS FELL DUE TO THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT .

DEFAULT INTEREST
Dino Battaglia v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-01-15
6 IN VIEW OF THE BACK-PAYMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION UNDER REGULATION NO 3681/83 , IT SHOULD BE HELD , IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY , THAT THE APPLICANT ' S PRINCIPAL CLAIM , INASMUCH AS IT RELATES TO ARREARS OF REMUNERATION PAYABLE AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1976 , NO LONGER HAS ANY PURPOSE .

SUBSIDIARY CLAIM ( INTEREST )
Erich Rösler v Horst Rottwinkel.
Date: 1985-01-15
19 THE RAISON D ' ETRE OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ) ON THE COURTS OF THE CONTRACTING STATE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IS THE FACT THAT TENANCIES ARE CLOSELY BOUND UP WITH THE LAW OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND WITH THE PROVISIONS , GENERALLY OF A MANDATORY CHARACTER , GOVERNING ITS USE , SUCH AS LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE LEVEL OF RENTS AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF TENANTS , INCLUDING TENANT FARMERS .
23 ACCOUNT MUST ALSO BE TAKEN OF THE UNCERTAINTY WHICH WOULD BE CREATED IF THE COURTS ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS TO BE MADE TO THE GENERAL RULE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ), WHICH HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF PROVIDING FOR A CLEAR AND CERTAIN ATTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION COVERING ALL CIRCUMSTANCES , THUS FULFILLING THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION , WHICH IS TO ASSIGN JURISDICTION IN A CERTAIN AND PREDICTABLE WAY .
24 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROVISION IN QUESTION APPLIES TO ALL TENANCIES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS .
25 THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION APPLIES TO ALL LETTINGS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY , EVEN FOR A SHORT TERM AND EVEN WHERE THEY RELATE ONLY TO THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF A HOLIDAY HOME .
Finsider v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-01-15
8 AS THE COURT HAS SAID , INTER ALIA IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 JULY 1962 IN JOINED CASES 17 AND 20/61 KLOCKNER-WERKE V HIGH AUTHORITY (( 1962 ) ECR 325 ), FOR THE COMMISSION TO BE ACCUSED OF DISCRIMINATION , IT MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE TREATED LIKE CASES DIFFERENTLY , THEREBY SUBJECTING SOME TO DISADVANTAGES AS OPPOSED TO OTHERS , WITHOUT SUCH DIFFERENTIATION BEING JUSTIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF WHICH THE APPLICANT ACCUSES THE COMMISSION MAY CONSTITUTE A MISUSE OF POWERS IN ITS CASE , IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE TREATMENT IS BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES HAVING REGARD TO THE AIMS WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY LAWFULLY PURSUE AS PART OF ITS INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN STEEL INDUSTRY .
F. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-01-29
30 THAT SUBMISSION IS MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED . IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 4 FEBRUARY 1970 IN CASE 13/69 ( VAN EICK V COMMISSION ( 1970 ) ECR 3 ), THE COURT HELD THAT THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE TRANSMISSION OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD ' S OPINION WHICH THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 OF ANNEX IX TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS GIVES THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR TAKING ITS FINAL DECISION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A MANDATORY TIME-LIMIT , IN THE SENSE THAT ANY MEASURES ADOPTED AFTER ITS EXPIRY ARE VOID , BUT CONSTITUTES A RULE OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION , WITH THE RESULT THAT A FAILURE TO OBSERVE IT MAY RENDER THE INSTITUTION LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED TO THOSE CONCERNED . THE SAME REMARKS APPLY TO THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 . AS THE PRESENT CASE SHOWS , THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD MAY REQUIRE A LONGER PERIOD IN ORDER TO UNDERTAKE AN INQUIRY WHICH IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE AND WHICH AFFORDS THE PERSON CONCERNED ALL THE GUARANTEES INTENDED BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING ANY CRITICISM OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN THAT RESPECT .
Gesamthochschule Duisburg v Hauptzollamt München - Mitte.
Date: 1985-01-29
20 IN THAT CONNECTION , IT MAY BE RECALLED THAT THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY REQUIRES THAT A REGULATION SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY , REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH AN APPLICATION MIGHT PRODUCE FAVOURABLE OR UNFAVOURABLE EFFECTS FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED , UNLESS A SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR INDICATION CAN BE FOUND , EITHER IN THE TERMS OF THE REGULATION OR IN ITS STATED OBJECTIVES , WHICH ALLOWS THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN THAT THE REGULATION WAS NOT MERELY PROVIDING FOR THE FUTURE .
Bureau national interprofessionnel du cognac v Guy Clair.
Date: 1985-01-30
15 THAT ARGUMENT MUST BE REJECTED . AS APPEARS FROM ANNEX II TO THE TREATY ( EX . 22.09 ), POTABLE SPIRITS ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THE CATEGORY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS . CONSEQUENTLY , THEY MUST BE REGARDED AS INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS AND THAT CLASSIFICATION CANNOT BE CALLED IN QUESTION BY THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE THAT THE PRODUCTS MAY HAVE FOR FARMERS IN THE REGION CONCERNED .
17 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . ARTICLE 85 STATES THAT IT APPLIES TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN UNDERTAKINGS AND DECISIONS BY ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS . AS THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS AND THE COMMISSION HAVE RIGHTLY OBSERVED , THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE MADE AND SUCH DECISIONS ARE TAKEN AND THE CLASSIFICATION GIVEN TO THAT FRAMEWORK BY THE VARIOUS NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS ARE IRRELEVANT AS FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY RULES ON COMPETITION AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY ARE CONCERNED .
21 THE BOARD MAINTAINS , MOREOVER , THAT AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED WITHIN IT ARE NOT BINDING AND THAT ITS ROLE IS SOLELY TO ADVISE THE CENTRAL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES , WHICH ALONE MAY MAKE THE SAID AGREEMENTS BINDING BY MEANS OF MINISTERIAL ORDERS .
22 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT IN THAT RESPECT THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) IT IS UNNECESSARY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE ACTUAL EFFECTS OF AN AGREEMENT WHERE ITS OBJECT IS TO RESTRICT , PREVENT OR DISTORT COMPETITION . BY ITS VERY NATURE , AN AGREEMENT FIXING A MINIMUM PRICE FOR A PRODUCT WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR THE     PURPOSE OF OBTAINING APPROVAL FOR THAT MINIMUM PRICE , SO THAT IT BECOMES BINDING ON ALL TRADERS ON THE MARKET IN QUESTION , IS INTENDED TO DISTORT COMPETITION ON THAT MARKET .
23 AS THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS AND THE COMMISSION HAVE RIGHTLY CONTENDED , THE ADOPTION OF A MEASURE BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY MAKING AN AGREEMENT BINDING ON ALL THE TRADERS CONCERNED , EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT , CANNOT REMOVE THE AGREEMENT FROM THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark.
Date: 1985-01-30
8 IT IS TRUE THAT MEMBER STATES MAY LEAVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO REPRESENTATIVES OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR . THAT POSSIBILITY DOES NOT , HOWEVER , DISCHARGE THEM FROM THE OBLIGATION OF ENSURING , BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS , THAT ALL WORKERS IN THE COMMUNITY ARE AFFORDED THE FULL PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR IN THE DIRECTIVE . THAT     STATE GUARANTEE MUST COVER ALL CASES WHERE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION IS NOT ENSURED BY OTHER MEANS , FOR WHATEVER REASON , AND IN PARTICULAR CASES WHERE THE WORKERS IN QUESTION ARE NOT UNION MEMBERS , WHERE THE SECTOR IN QUESTION IS NOT COVERED BY A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT OR WHERE SUCH AN AGREEMENT DOES NOT FULLY GUARANTEE THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY .
9 IN THAT RESPECT THE DANISH LAW IN QUESTION DOES NOT EXHIBIT THE CLARITY AND PRECISION NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORKERS CONCERNED . EVEN ACCEPTING THE ASSERTIONS OF THE DANISH GOVERNMENT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR MEN AND WOMEN , IN THE BROAD SENSE REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTIVE , IS IMPLEMENTED IN COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS , IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE SAME IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE IS GUARANTEED FOR WORKERS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE NOT DEFINED IN SUCH AGREEMENTS .
10 SINCE THOSE WORKERS ARE NOT UNIONIZED AND WORK IN SMALL OR MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES , PARTICULAR CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO GUARANTEE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE DIRECTIVE . THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS THUS REQUIRE AN UNEQUIVOCAL WORDING WHICH WOULD GIVE THE PERSONS CONCERNED A CLEAR AND PRECISE UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND WOULD ENABLE THE COURTS TO ENSURE THAT THOSE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARE OBSERVED .
13 THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SUCH UNILATERAL DECLARATIONS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY MEASURES , SINCE THE OBJECTIVE SCOPE OF RULES LAID DOWN BY THE COMMON INSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY RESERVATIONS OR OBJECTIONS WHICH MEMBER STATES MAY HAVE MADE AT THE TIME THE RULES WERE BEING FORMULATED .
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1985-01-30
14 AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ACTUAL WORDING OF ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ), AID NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE FINANCED FROM STATE RESOURCES TO BE CLASSIFIED AS STATE AID . IN ADDITION , AS THE COURT RULED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 22 MARCH 1977 ( CASE 78/76 , STEINIKE & WEINLIG ( 1977 ) ECR 595 ) THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 92 COVERS ALL AID GRANTED BY A MEMBER STATE OR THROUGH STATE RESOURCES AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO DRAW ANY DISTINCTION ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE AID IS GRANTED DIRECTLY BY THE STATE OR BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE BODIES ESTABLISHED OR APPOINTED BY IT TO ADMINISTER THE AID .
17 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) PROVIDES ALL THE PARTIES CONCERNED WITH GUARANTEES WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY ADAPTED TO THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS     CREATED BY STATE AID WITH REGARD TO COMPETITION IN THE COMMON MARKET AND WHICH GO MUCH FURTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED IN THE PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY IN WHICH ONLY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED PARTICIPATE . ACCORDINGLY , ALTHOUGH THE EXISTENCE OF THAT SPECIFIC PROCEDURE IN NO WAY PREVENTS THE COMPATIBILITY OF AN AID SCHEME IN RELATION TO COMMUNITY RULES OTHER THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 92 FROM BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 169 , THE COMMISSION MUST , HOWEVER , USE THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) IF IT WISHES TO ESTABLISH THAT THAT SCHEME , AS AID , IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET .
Knud Wendelboe and others v L.J. Music ApS, in liquidation.
Date: 1985-02-07
13 IT FOLLOWS FROM A TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGE VERSIONS THAT IT REFERS ONLY TO THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF WORKERS WHOSE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP IS IN FORCE ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER AND NOT TO THOSE WHO HAVE CEASED TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE UNDERTAKING IN QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER . THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT IN THE DUTCH , FRENCH , GERMAN , GREEK AND ITALIAN VERSIONS THE PHRASE ' EXISTING ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER '  RELATES UNEQUIVOCALLY TO THE EXPRESSION ' CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR . . . EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP '  AND THAT , IN THE ENGLISH AND DANISH LANGUAGE VERSIONS , THE SAME INTERPRETATION IS IN ANY EVENT POSSIBLE .
15 THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) IS ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SCHEME AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DIRECTIVE , WHICH IS INTENDED TO ENSURE , AS FAR AS     POSSIBLE , THAT THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP CONTINUES UNCHANGED WITH THE TRANSFEREE , IN PARTICULAR BY OBLIGING THE TRANSFEREE TO CONTINUE TO OBSERVE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ( ARTICLE 3 ( 2 )) AND BY PROTECTING WORKERS AGAINST DISMISSALS MOTIVATED SOLELY BY THE FACT OF THE TRANSFER ( ARTICLE 4 ( 1 )). THOSE PROVISIONS RELATE ONLY TO EMPLOYEES IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNDERTAKING ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER , TO THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY LEFT THE UNDERTAKING ON THAT DATE .
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1985-02-07
7 SUCH AN ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS , THE FRENCH LEGISLATION CONTAINS AN IMPLICIT PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPORTING WASTE OILS TO OTHER COUNTRIES , INCLUDING THE OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY , BY NOT PROVIDING FOR ANY EXEMPTION FOR THE RESALE OF WASTE OILS TO COLLECTORS OR DISPOSAL UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE OBTAINED IN THOSE STATES THE PERMIT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 6 OF DIRECTIVE NO 75/439 . THE PRINCIPLE PLEADED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT CANNOT APPLY IN THIS CASE , WHICH INVOLVES LEGAL PROVISIONS CONTAINING AN IMPLICIT YET CLEAR PROHIBITION . FURTHERMORE , EVEN IF SUCH A PRINCIPLE WERE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE , IT WOULD STILL LEAVE SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THE LEGAL POSITION . THE FRENCH LEGISLATION WOULD THEREFORE IN ANY CASE HAVE AN INHIBITORY EFFECT ON EXPORT TRADE .
Arie Botzen and others v Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij BV.
Date: 1985-02-07
6 DIRECTIVE NO 77/187 , WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON THE BASIS OF , IN PARTICULAR , ARTICLE 100 OF THE TREATY , IS INTENDED , IN THE TERMS OF ITS PREAMBLE , ' TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES IN THE EVENT OF A CHANGE OF EMPLOYER , IN PARTICULAR , TO ENSURE THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE SAFEGUARDED ' . FOR THAT PURPOSE , ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) THEREOF PROVIDES THAT : ' THE TRANSFEROR ' S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR FROM AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTING ON THE DATE OF A TRANSFER ... SHALL , BY REASON OF SUCH TRANSFER , BE TRANSFERRED TO THE TRANSFEREE . '  ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PROVIDES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORKERS CONCERNED AGAINST DISMISSAL BY THE TRANSFEROR OR THE TRANSFEREE , BUT DOES NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF ' DISMISSALS THAT MAY TAKE PLACE FOR ECONOMIC , TECHNICAL OR ORGANIZATIONAL REASONS ENTAILING CHANGES IN THE WORK-FORCE ' . IN ADDITION , ARTICLE 6 OF THE DIRECTIVE REQUIRES THE TRANSFEROR AND THE TRANSFEREE TO INFORM AND CONSULT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WORKERS AFFECTED BY THE TRANSFER . FINALLY , ARTICLE 7 PROVIDES THAT THE DIRECTIVE IS NOT TO ' AFFECT THE RIGHT OF MEMBER STATES TO APPLY OR INTRODUCE LAWS , REGULATIONS OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE MORE FAVOURABLE TO EMPLOYEES ' .
15 THE COMMISSION ' S VIEW MUST BE UPHELD . AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP IS ESSENTIALLY CHARACTERIZED BY THE LINK EXISTING BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE AND THE PART OF THE UNDERTAKING OR BUSINESS TO WHICH HE IS ASSIGNED TO CARRY OUT HIS DUTIES . IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP ARE TRANSFERRED UNDER DIRECTIVE NO 77/187 BY REASON OF A TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) THEREOF , IT IS THEREFORE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH TO WHICH PART OF THE UNDERTAKING OR BUSINESS THE EMPLOYEE WAS ASSIGNED .
16 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND AND THIRD QUESTIONS MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF DIRECTIVE NO 77/187 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS NOT COVERING THE TRANSFEROR ' S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTING ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER AND ENTERED INTO WITH EMPLOYEES WHO , ALTHOUGH NOT EMPLOYED IN THE TRANSFERRED PART OF THE UNDERTAKING , PERFORMED CERTAIN DUTIES WHICH INVOLVED THE USE OF ASSETS ASSIGNED TO THE PART TRANSFERRED OR WHO , WHILST BEING EMPLOYED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNDERTAKING WHICH HAS NOT ITSELF BEEN TRANSFERRED , CARRIED OUT CERTAIN DUTIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PART TRANSFERRED .
Procureur de la République v Association de défense des brûleurs d'huiles usagées (ADBHU).
Date: 1985-02-07
3 ARTICLES 2 TO 4 OF DIRECTIVE NO 75/439/EEC REQUIRE MEMBER STATES TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SAFE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE OILS , PRE    FERABLY BY RECYCLING . ARTICLE 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS : ' WHERE THE AIMS DEFINED IN ARTICLES 2 , 3 AND 4 CANNOT OTHERWISE BE ACHIEVED , MEMBER STATES SHALL TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT ONE OR MORE UNDERTAKINGS CARRY OUT THE COLLECTION AND/OR DISPOSAL OF THE PRODUCTS OFFERED TO THEM BY THE HOLDERS , WHERE APPROPRIATE IN THE ZONE ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES . '  ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) THEREOF FURTHER PROVIDES THAT ' ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH DISPOSES OF WASTE OILS MUST OBTAIN A PERMIT ' . IN ADDITION , ARTICLES 13 AND 14 PROVIDE THAT AN INDEMNITY , FINANCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ' POLLUTER PAYS '  PRINCIPLE AND NOT EXCEEDING THE ACTUAL YEARLY COSTS , MAY BE GRANTED TO UNDERTAKINGS COLLECTING AND/OR DISPOSING OF WASTE OILS , AS COMPENSATION FOR THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED ON THEM UNDER ARTICLE 5 .
13 THERE IS NO REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DIRECTIVE HAS EXCEEDED THOSE LIMITS . THE DIRECTIVE MUST BE SEEN IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION , WHICH IS ONE OF THE COMMUNITY ' S ESSENTIAL OBJECTIVES . IT IS EVIDENT , PARTICULARLY FROM THE THIRD AND SEVENTH RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE DIRECTIVE , THAT ANY LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE OILS MUST BE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE HARMFUL EFFECTS CAUSED BY THE DISCHARGE , DEPOSIT OR TREATMENT OF SUCH PRODUCTS . IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE AS A WHOLE THAT CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION WILL BE OBSERVED IF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS SHOULD PROVE NECESSARY . IN PARTICULAR , ARTICLE 5 OF THE DIRECTIVE PERMITS THE CREATION OF A SYSTEM OF ZONING ' WHERE THE AIMS DEFINED IN ARTICLES 2 , 3 AND 4 CANNOT OTHERWISE BE ACHIEVED ' .
18 IN THAT RESPECT THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL , IN THEIR OBSERVATIONS , RIGHTLY ARGUE THAT THE INDEMNITIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 92 ET SEQ OF THE EEC TREATY , BUT RATHER CONSIDERATION FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE COLLECTION OR DISPOSAL UNDERTAKINGS .