larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Sanders Adour SNC and Guyomarc'h Orthez Nutrition Animale SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux des Pyrenées-Atlantiques.
Date: 1992-06-11
10 As a preliminary matter, it should be recalled that the Court has consistently held that, in the context of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility with Community law of a rule of national law. The Court may, however, extract from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court, and having regard to the facts stated by the latter, those elements which concern the interpretation of Community law for the purpose of enabling that court to resolve the legal problems before it (see, in particular, Case 14/86 Pretore di Salò v Persons Unknown [1987] ECR 2545).
Second question
14 It is settled law (see Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90 Compagnie Commerciale de l' Ouest and Others v Receveur Principal des Douanes de La-Pallice Port [1992] ECR I-1847) that the provisions relating to charges having equivalent effect and those relating to discriminatory internal taxation cannot be applied together, so that under the system of the Treaty the same imposition cannot belong to both categories at the same time.
17 However, a pecuniary charge escapes classification as a charge having equivalent effect if it is levied on account of inspections carried out in order to comply with obligations laid down by Community law (see Case 46/76 Bauhuis v Netherlands State [1977] ECR 5), or if it represents payment for a service actually rendered to the importer of a sum in proportion to that service (see Case 158/82 Commission v Denmark [1983] ECR 3573), or again if it forms part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically in accordance with the same criteria to both domestic and imported products (see the judgment in Commission v Denmark). However, this will only apply if the charge is imposed on both categories of product at the same marketing stage and the chargeable event giving rise to the duty must also be identical in the case of both products (see Case 132/78 Denkavit v France [1979] ECR 1923).
18 As to the requirement that the chargeable events be identical, no difference may be discerned in the present case in the fact that the charge is levied on an imported product at the time of importation and on the domestic product when it is sold or used, for in actual economic terms the marketing stage is the same since both operations are carried out with a view to utilization of the product.
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Date: 1992-06-16
11 It should be borne in mind that it is settled case-law (see, for example, the judgment in Case 107/83 Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de Paris v Klopp [1984] ECR 2971, paragraph 19; the judgment in Case 143/87 Stanton and SA Belge d' Assurances L' Etoile 1905 v Inasti [1988] ECR 3877, paragraph 11 and the judgment in Joined Cases 154 and 155/87 Rijksinstituut voor de Sociale Verzekering der Zelfstandigen v Wolf and NV Microtherm Europe and Others [1988] ECR 3897, paragraph 11; the judgment in Case 106/91 Ramrath, not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 20), that the right of establishment entails the freedom to set up and maintain, subject to observance of the professional rules of conduct, more than one place of work within the Community.
13 As the Court acknowledged in its judgment in Case 96/85 Commission v France [1986] ECR 1475, at paragraph 10, as far as the medical and dental professions are concerned, the professional rules that must be observed are in particular those inspired by concern to protect the health of individuals as efficiently and fully as possible. The rules governing practice of the veterinary profession must be regarded as meeting the same health objective.
18 It must therefore be observed that, although the objective legal position is clear, in the sense that Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty are directly applicable in the territory of Member States, the maintenance of Article 16 of the Law in question still gives rise to an ambiguous situation by keeping the entitled persons concerned in a state of uncertainty as to the possibilities open to them to rely on Community law (see the judgment in Case 167/73 Commission v France [1974] ECR 359, at paragraph 41).
22 First, it is not essential for a practitioner, whether general practitioner, dentist or veterinary surgeon, or even a medical specialist (see the judgment in Case 96/85 Commission v France [1986] ECR 1475, at paragraph 13, cited above), to be close to the patient or client all the time. Moreover, the practitioner' s permanent availability is not necessarily guaranteed by the single-practice rule when, for example, the practitioner is travelling, or practises part-time or belongs to a group practice. Secondly, the permanent availability of care and the efficient organization of the emergency service may be achieved in less restrictive ways, such as by requiring minimum attendance or having arrangements for providing replacements.
V v European Parliament.
Date: 1992-06-19
15 In this connection it should be noted that under Article 168a of the EEC Treaty and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and EAEC Treaties, as well as the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Protocol on the Statute on the Court of Justice of the EEC and the corresponding provisions of the Statutes on the Court of Justice of the ECSC and the EAEC, an appeal is restricted to points of law. It follows that an appeal may be based only on pleas in law relating to an infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any issue challenging the facts as established by the Court of First Instance.
21 In addition, even if the alleged defects in the Invalidity Committee' s report communicated to the appellant could be regarded as grounds for an independent plea in law, it should be observed that the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance does not relate to such defects and that, as follows from Articles 113(2) and 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure, fresh submissions not contained in the original application may not be raised in an appeal.
The plea in law alleging that the letter of 24 February 1988 from the Director-General of the Parliament to the appellant was incorrectly described
Federazione Italiana dei Consorzi Agrari v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo.
Date: 1992-06-25
7 It should be observed in that regard that in Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 Dzodzi v Belgian State [1990] ECR I-3763, which raised the question whether under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty the Court had no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a provision of Community law in the particular case where the national law of a Member State referred to the content of the provision in question in order to determine the rules applicable to a situation which was purely internal to that State, the Court held that it was manifestly in the interest of the Community legal order that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, every Community provision should be given a uniform interpretation irrespective of the circumstances in which it was to be applied.
10 It is important to note that the Court has jurisdiction to consider only the provisions of Community law. In replying to the national court' s question, it may not take account of the scheme of the contract or of the provisions of national law which may determine the scope of the contractual obligations. Consideration of the limits which national law and the contract may set to the application of Community law is a matter for the national court to assess.
Substance
Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area v British Gas plc.
Date: 1992-06-25
12 Article 4 of Regulation No 3820/85 makes provision for derogations from the general scheme laid down by that regulation. Consequently, that article may not be interpreted in such a way as to extend its effects beyond what is necessary to safeguard the interests which it seeks to secure. Furthermore, the scope of the derogations which it lays down must be determined in the light of the aims pursued by Regulation No 3820/85. It is evident from the first recital in the preamble to that regulation that the possibility of derogating from the Community rules must not undermine the objectives pursued in that area.
13 With regard to the interests which Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85 seeks to safeguard, the derogations provided for in that provision are based on the nature of the services in connection with which the vehicles are used. In that respect it is apparent from the list in Article 4(6) that the services envisaged by that provision are all general services performed in the public interest.
19 That argument cannot be accepted. The scope of Regulation No 3820/85 cannot depend on the existence and content of national legislation. Moreover, even if the drivers of vehicles belonging to an undertaking such as British Gas are subject to national rules identical to those contained in Regulation No 3820/85, that undertaking would enjoy a competitive advantage over undertakings supplying domestic gas appliances if it were exempted from the requirement to install and use a tachograph in vehicles used for the transport of such appliances. It would thus save the cost of installing and maintaining tachographs in such vehicles which other undertakings supplying domestic gas appliances have to bear.
21 Accordingly, the reply to be given to the national court' s first question should be that the derogation from the requirement to install and use a tachograph in vehicles registered in a Member State which are used for the carriage of passengers or goods by road, laid down for vehicles used in connection with the gas service under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport in conjunction with Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, applies solely to vehicles used, at the relevant time, for carriage wholly and exclusively in connection with the production, transport or distribution of gas, or the maintenance of the necessary installations for that purpose. However, that derogation does not apply to vehicles wholly or partly used at the relevant time in connection with the carriage of domestic gas appliances.
Question 2
Criminal proceedings against Michele Ferrer Laderer.
Date: 1992-06-25
6 In reply to Question 3, it should be borne in mind that, under the cooperation procedure between the national courts and the Court of Justice, laid down in Article 177, it is for the Court to provide the national court with an answer enabling the latter to resolve the dispute before it, by interpreting such provisions of Community law as may be applicable.
7 The rules of the EEC Treaty on freedom of establishment and the provisions of secondary legislation, such as those of Directive 67/43, may be relied on only by a national of a Member State of the Community who seeks to establish himself in the territory of another Member State or by a national of the Member State in question who finds himself in a situation which is connected with any of the situations contemplated by Community law.
9 Accordingly, the answer to Question 3 must be that the rules of the EEC Treaty concerning freedom of establishment apply only to nationals of a Member State of the Community.
Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria.
Date: 1992-07-07
10 Under international law, it is for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality. However, it is not permissible for the legislation of a Member State to restrict the effects of the grant of the nationality of another Member State by imposing an additional condition for recognition of that nationality with a view to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms provided for in the Treaty.
11 Consequently, it is not permissible to interpret Article 52 of the Treaty to the effect that, where a national of a Member State is also a national of a non-member country, the other Member States may make recognition of the status of Community national subject to a condition such as the habitual residence of the person concerned in the territory of the first Member State.
12 That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the consequence of allowing such a possibility would be that the class of persons to whom the Community rules on freedom of establishment were applied might vary from one Member State to another.
14 Thus, once the persons concerned have produced one of the documents mentioned in Directive 73/148 in order to establish their status as nationals of a Member State, the other Member States are not entitled to challenge that status on the ground that the persons concerned might also have the nationality of a non-member country which, under the legislation of the host Member State, overrides that of the Member State.
15 The answer to the question submitted must therefore be that the provisions of Community law on freedom of establishment preclude a Member State from denying a national of another Member State who possesses at the same time the nationality of a non-member country entitlement to that freedom on the ground that the law of the host State deems him to be a national of the non-member country.
The Queen v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission.
Date: 1992-07-07
13 Since the text of the derogation refers to "the determination of pensionable age for the purpose of granting old-age and retirement pensions", it is clear that it concerns the moment from which pensions become payable. The text does not, however, refer expressly to discrimination in respect of the extent of the obligation to contribute for the purposes of the pension or the amount thereof. Such forms of discrimination therefore fall within the scope of the derogation only if they are found to be necessary in order to achieve the objectives which the Directive is intended to pursue by allowing Member States to retain a different pensionable age for men and women.
15 Although the preamble to the Directive does not state the reasons for the derogations which it lays down, it can be deduced from the nature of the exceptions contained in Article 7(1) of the Directive that the Community legislature intended to allow Member States to maintain temporarily the advantages accorded to women with respect to retirement in order to enable them progressively to adapt their pension systems in this respect without disrupting the complex financial equilibrium of those systems, the importance of which could not be ignored. Those advantages include the possibility for female workers of qualifying for a pension earlier than male workers, as envisaged by Article 7(1)(a) of the Directive.
Belgian State v Noushin Taghavi.
Date: 1992-07-08
7 According to Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, its provisions apply to "employed or self-employed persons who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more Member States and who are nationals of one of the Member States ... as well as to the members of their families and their survivors". As the Court held in its judgment in Case 40/76 Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669, under Regulation No 1408/71, members of a worker' s family can only claim derived rights, that is to say, rights acquired through their status as members of a worker' s family.
8 It appears from the case-file that the employed person' s allowance provided for by the Belgian Law of 27 June 1969 is not granted on account of a person' s status as member of a worker' s family. On the one hand, the national court described it as a personal right in the text of the question referred for a preliminary ruling. On the other hand, the Belgian State stated, in answer to a question from the Court, that a person fulfilling all the conditions laid down by the Law of 1969, except for the fact that he is not a national of a Member State of the Community, cannot claim the allowances merely because his spouse has Belgian nationality.
"K" Line Air Service Europe BV v Eulaerts NV and Belgian State.
Date: 1992-07-09
10 It should be noted, as a preliminary matter, that in proceedings under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty the Court is not competent to make a ruling on the compatibility of national law with the Treaty. However, it is competent to provide the national court with all material relating to the interpretation of Community law which may enable it to determine the issue of compatibility for the decision in the case before it.
24 Furthermore, as the Court pointed out in its judgment in Case 324/82 Commission v Belgium [1984] ECR 1861, national measures designed to prevent tax evasion or avoidance may not in principle derogate from the basis for charging VAT laid down in Article 11, except within the limits strictly necessary for achieving that aim. In the same judgment, the Court considered that the contested Belgian derogation, which set the minimum basis for charging VAT on the supply or import of new cars as the catalogue price of the car in question, did not fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth Directive. It took the view that the Belgian legislation at issue entailed such a complete and general amendment of the basis of assessment that it was impossible to accept that it contained only the derogations needed to avoid the risk of tax evasion or avoidance. Moreover, the measures at issue were disproportionate to the aim in view in so far as they departed in a general and systematic way from the rules laid down in Article 11 of the Sixth Directive.
25 Measures of the kind at issue in the present case derogate from the general rules laid down in Article 11 of the Sixth Directive even more completely and generally than those on which the Court had occasion to adjudicate in its judgment in Commission v Belgium. In that case, the Belgian State was criticized for not taking into account, in determining the basis of assessment, the discounts or rebates allowed on prices. In the present case, it is the price itself as agreed between the parties which was not taken into account and was replaced by the minimum basis of assessment.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1992-07-16
8 In deciding on this action it should be recalled that according to the case-law of the Court (see Case 247/84 Motte [1985] ECR 3887, at paragraph 25; Case 304/84 Muller [1986] ECR 1511, at paragraph 26; and Case C-42/90 Bellon [1990] ECR I-4863, at paragraphs 16 and 17), rules making the use of an additive subject to authorization are in compliance with Community law if two conditions are satisfied.
11 As far as technological need is concerned, according to the Court' s settled case-law (see "Purity requirement for beer case" Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227, at paragraph 52), in evaluating the need to use an additive account must be taken of the findings of international scientific research and the assessment made by the authorities of the other Member States.
12 It is not sufficient, for the purpose of showing that an additive does not meet a genuine need, to rely on the fact that a product could be manufactured using another substance. Such an interpretation of the concept of technological need could result in favouring national production methods, which would constitute a disguised means of restricting trade between Member States (see the "Purity requirement for beer case", cited above, at paragraph 51, and the judgment in Joined Cases C-13/91 and C-113/91 Debus [1992] ECR I-3617, at paragraph 28).
13 With regard to the safeguarding of public health, the Court has held (see in particular Muller, at paragraph 26, and Bellon, at paragraph 17) that the existence of a risk arising from the use of an additive must be assessed in the light of international scientific research, in particular the work of the Scientific Committee for Food and the eating habits in the Member State concerned.
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1992-07-16
8 In deciding on this action it should be recalled that according to the case-law of the Court (see Case 247/84 Motte [1985] ECR 3887, at paragraph 25; Case 304/84 Muller [1986] ECR 1511, at paragraph 26; and Case C-42/90 Bellon [1990] ECR I-4863, at paragraphs 16 and 17), rules making the use of an additive subject to authorization are in compliance with Community law if two conditions are satisfied.
11 As far as technological need is concerned, according to the Court' s consistent case-law (see the "Purity requirement for beer case" Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227, at paragraph 52), in evaluating the need to use an additive account must be taken of the findings of international scientific research and the assessment made by the authorities of the other Member States.
12 It is not sufficient, for the purpose of showing that an additive does not meet a genuine need, to rely on the fact that a product could be manufactured using another substance. Such an interpretation of the concept of technological need could result in favouring national production methods, which would constitute a disguised means of restricting trade between Member States (see the "Purity requirement for beer case", cited above, at paragraph 51, and Joined Cases C-13/91 and C-113/91 Debus [1992] ECR I-3617, at paragraph 28).
13 With regard to the safeguarding of public health, the Court has held (see in particular Muller, at paragraph 26, and Bellon, at paragraph 17) that the existence of a risk arising from the use of an additive must be assessed in the light of international scientific research, in particular the work of the Scientific Committee for Food, and the eating habits in the Member State concerned.