larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
José Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Público.
Date: 2000-12-07
19 It is settled case-law, confirmed in paragraph 20 of Case C-36/94 Siesse v Director da Alfândega de Alcântara [1995] ECR I-3573, that where Community legislation does not specifically provide for any penalty for an infringement or refers for that purpose to national legislation, Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) requires the Member States to take all the measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law. For that purpose, while the choice of penalty remains within their discretion, they must ensure in particular that infringements of Community law are penalised under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
20 As regards customs offences, the Court has pointed out that in the absence of harmonisation of the Community legislation in that field, the Member States are empowered to choose the penalties which seem appropriate to them. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with Community law and its general principles, and consequently with the principle of proportionality (see Siesse, paragraph 21).
22 As the Court of Justice observed in paragraph 22 of the judgment in Siesse, the purpose of a levy such as the surcharge at issue in the main proceedings, which is intended to penalise traders who have failed to comply with the prescribed formalities and time-limits, does not appear to be contrary to Community law. In the absence of such a measure, failure to comply with the prescribed formalities would in fact be without consequence for a trader authorised to regularise his position after the expiry of the time-limits. The penalty incurred is thus intended to encourage traders to act within the periods laid down.
23 Nor does it appear to be contrary to Community law to make the regularisation of the situation of the goods conditional upon such a payment by way of penalty. Such a requirement is merely a safeguard measure intended to ensure the actual payment of the corresponding levy (see Siesse, paragraph 23).
24 The amount of such a penalty must be determined, in accordance with the case-law cited above, under conditions which are comparable to those applicable under national law to infringements of the same nature and gravity. As the Court stated in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Siesse, it is for the national court to determine whether the 5% levy provided for in the Portuguese rules on the value of goods overdue for clearance is consistent with those principles.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2000-12-07
10 In that regard, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, inter alia, Case C-470/98 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-4657, paragraph 11).
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2000-12-12
16 As to the report on the implementation of Directive 78/176, which was sent to the Commission with the Portuguese Government's defence, it must be borne in mind that it is evident from the case-law of the Court of Justice that, in proceedings under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-348/99 Commission v Luxembourg [2000] ECR I-2917, paragraph 8). In the present case, it has been established that, at the end of that period, the report had not been provided.
Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2000-12-14
47 In this connection, it should be borne in mind first that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the final and conclusive decision on the clearance of accounts must be taken at the conclusion of a specific procedure giving effect to the audi alteram partem rule, during which the Member States concerned must be provided with all the guarantees necessary for them to present their point of view (see, to that effect, Case C-61/95 Greece v Commission [1998] ECR I-207, paragraph 39).
48 Secondly, according to settled case-law, decisions concerning the clearance of accounts do not require detailed reasons if the government concerned was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF (see Case C-50/94 Greece v Commission [1996] ECR I-3331, paragraph 9, and Case C-54/95 Germany v Commission [1999] ECR I-35, paragraph 91).
62 Furthermore, according to case-law, Article 8(1) of Regulation 729/70 imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures (see Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-2321, paragraphs 16 and 17, Case 209/96 United Kingdom v Commission [1998] ECR I-5655, paragraph 43, and Case C-44/97 Germany v Commission [1999] ECR I-7177, paragraph 55).
72 Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that the need to ensure legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them. The Commission thus cannot choose, at the time of the clearance of EAGGF accounts, an interpretation which departs from and consequently is not dictated by the normal meaning of the words used (see, to that effect, Case C-233/96 Denmark v Commission [1988] ECR I-5759, paragraph 38).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2000-12-14
11 The Court rejected those arguments and held that the only possible decisive criterion was whether the pension was paid to the worker by reason of the employment relationship between him and his former employer, that is to say, the criterion of employment based on the wording of Article 119 of the Treaty itself (Evrenopoulos, paragraph 19).
14 According to settled case-law, the Court cannot take account of measures adopted by a Member State in order to comply with its obligations once an action for failure to fulfil those obligations has been commenced (see Case C-71/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-5991, paragraph 18).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2000-12-14
27 In view of the arguments of the parties, and in order to determine whether the provisions at issue comply with the principle of proportionality, it must be recalled that according to settled case-law, with respect to products liable to create a danger to health, in the absence of harmonising rules it is for the Member States to decide on their intended level of protection of human health and life and on whether to require prior authorisation for the marketing of such products (see Case C-400/96 Harpegnies [1998] ECR I-5121, paragraph 33).
29 Nevertheless, the principle of proportionality which underlies the last sentence of Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC) requires that the power of the Member States to impose restrictions in trade in products from other Member States should be limited to what is necessary to attain the objectives of protection being legitimately pursued (see, to that effect, Harpegnies, paragraph 34).
42 It is settled case-law that a national provision which has, or is likely to have, a restrictive effect on the importation of products is compatible with the Treaty only to the extent that it is necessary for the effective protection of the health and life of humans. A national provision cannot therefore benefit from the derogation in Article 36 of the Treaty if the health and life of humans may be protected just as effectively by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade (see Case C-473/98 Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha, not yet reported in the ECR, paragraph 40).
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2000-12-14
26 In so far as an assessment of a complex economic situation is involved, it must be borne in mind that, as the Court has held, where, as in this case, the Commission enjoys significant freedom of assessment, the Community judicature, when examining the lawfulness of the exercise of such freedom, cannot substitute its own assessment of the matter for that of the competent authority but must restrict itself to examining whether the assessment of the competent authority contains a manifest error or constitutes a misuse of powers (Case C-285/94 Italy v Commission [1997] ECR I-3519, paragraph 39).
Hans Gevaert v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2001-01-11
40 As the Court has already held, the power conferred by Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations exceptionally, by way of derogation from Article 31(1), to appoint an official to the higher grade in a career bracket rather than to the basic grade, with the attendant budgetary consequences, is designed to enable the appointing authority to take account of the specific needs of the service and the professional experience of the official concerned at the time of his appointment (see, in that regard, Case C-298/93 P Klinke v Court of Justice [1994] ECR I-3009, paragraphs 14 and 15).
54 In that regard, it should be pointed out that the principle of equality of treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations is a general rule forming part of the law applicable to the Community civil service. Discrimination contrary to that rule occurs where identical or comparable situations are treated in an unequal way and the discrimination is not objectively justified (see, in that regard, Joined Cases 198/81 to 202/81 Micheli and Others v Commission [1982] ECR 4145, paragraphs 5 and 6; for the conditions of recruitment, see Joined Cases 66/83 to 68/83 and 136/83 to 140/83 Hattet and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 2459, paragraph 24, and Case 119/83 Appelbaum v Commission [1985] ECR 2423, paragraph 25).
Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale nº 24 della Sardegna and Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura (ERSAT).
Date: 2001-01-11
21 In that regard, it is clear from settled case-law that the procedure provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such Community law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate. It follows that it is for the national courts alone which are seised of the case and are responsible for the judgment to be delivered to determine, in view of the special features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to give their judgment and the relevance of the questions which they put to the Court (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 Dzodzi v Belgian State [1990] ECR I-3763, paragraphs 33 and 34; and Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bscher v Oberfinanzdirektion Köln [1990] ECR I-4003, paragraphs 18 and 19).
22 Furthermore, a reference by a national court can be rejected only if it appears that the procedure laid down by Article 177 of the Treaty has been misused and a ruling from the Court elicited by means of a contrived dispute, or it is obvious that Community law cannot apply, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstances of the case referred to the Court (Case C-28/95 Leur-Bloem v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 [1997] ECR I-4161, paragraph 26).
26 In this respect, although, by virtue of the very nature of regulations and of their function in the system of sources of Community law, the provisions of those regulations generally have immediate effect in the national legal systems without its being necessary for the national authorities to adopt measures of application, some of their provisions may none the less necessitate, for their implementation, the adoption of measures of application by the Member States.
Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2001-01-11
35 As regards the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission, it follows from Article 168a of the EC Treaty (now Article 225 EC), the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal (Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291, paragraph 34).
36 That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake (Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, cited above, paragraph 35).
50 In that regard, it should be pointed out that the principle of equality of treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations is a general rule forming part of the law applicable to the Community civil service. Discrimination contrary to that rule occurs where identical or comparable situations are treated in an unequal way and the discrimination is not objectively justified (see, in that regard, Joined Cases 198/81 to 202/81 Micheli and Others v Commission [1982] ECR 4145, paragraphs 5 and 6; for the conditions of recruitment, see Joined Cases 66/83 to 68/83 and 136/83 to 140/83 Hattet and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 2459, paragraph 24, and Case 119/83 Appelbaum v Commission [1985] ECR 2423, paragraph 25).
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Friedrich Stefan and Republik Österreich.
Date: 2001-01-11
5 The notion of capital movements is not defined by the EC Treaty. However, inasmuch as Article 73b of the Treaty substantially reproduces the contents of Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5), the nomenclature in respect of movements of capital used in Annex I to that directive still has the same indicative value, for the purposes of defining the notion of capital movements, as it did before the entry into force of Article 73b et seq. of the Treaty, subject to the qualification, contained in the introduction to the nomenclature, that the list set out therein is not exhaustive (Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer [1999] ECR I-1661, paragraph 21).
18 In paragraph 34 of the judgment in Trummer and Mayer, cited above, the Court held that Article 73b of the Treaty precludes the application of national rules requiring a mortgage securing a debt payable in the currency of another Member State to be registered in the national currency.
Siples Srl, in liquidation v Ministero delle Finanze and Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi - Concessione Provincia di Genova - San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA.
Date: 2001-01-11
17 However, that provision cannot limit the right to effective judicial protection. The requirement of judicial control of any decision of a national authority reflects a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Case 222/86 Unectef v Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 14, and Case C-97/91 Oleificio Borelli v Commission [1992] ECR I-6313, paragraph 14).
18 In the exercise of their control, it is for the national courts, pursuant to the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), to ensure the legal protection which persons derive from the direct effect of provisions of Community law (Case C-213/89 Factortame and Others [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 19).
19 With more specific regard to the possibility of suspending implementation of a decision of a customs authority, it should be pointed out that a court seised of a dispute governed by Community law must be in a position to grant interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under Community law (Factortame, cited above, paragraph 21).
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2001-01-18
31 In that regard, as the Court has held in previous decisions, in interpreting a provision of Community law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it forms part (see, in particular, Case 337/82 St Nikolaus Brennerei [1984] ECR 1051, paragraph 10).
32 It is clear from the 1st, 2nd and 19th recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2408/92 that the purpose of that regulation is, inter alia, to define the conditions for applying in the air transport sector the principle of the freedom to provide services which is enshrined in, inter alia, Articles 59 and 61 of the Treaty, so that all matters of market access are dealt with in the same regulation.
33 It should also be pointed out that it is settled case-law that Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services who are established in another Member State but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit, impede or render less advantageous the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services (see Case C-76/90 Säger [1991] ECR I-4221, paragraph 12; and Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Arblade and Others [1999] ECR I-8453, paragraph 33).
48 As regards the second part of the second plea, alleging the lack of an overriding reason in the general interest, it is common ground that aims of a purely economic nature cannot justify a barrier to the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services (see Case C-158/96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, paragraph 41).
Herta Schmid, acting as insolvency administrator for P.P. Handels GmbH, in liquidation v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland.
Date: 2001-01-18
19 It must first be noted in this regard that the transactions mentioned in Article 4 of Directive 69/335, to which Article 10(a) and (b) thereof refers, are transactions involving the transfer of capital or assets to a capital company in the taxing Member State or resulting in an effective increase in the company's capital or assets (Case C-4/97 Nonwoven v Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana [1998] ECR I-6469, paragraph 20).
21 Next, it should be borne in mind that Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335 prohibits, in addition to capital duty, taxes in respect of registration or any other formality required before the commencement of business, to which a company may be subject by reason of its legal form. That prohibition is justified by the fact that even though the taxes in question are not levied on capital contributions as such, they are nevertheless levied on account of formalities connected with the company's legal form, that is to say, on account of the instrument employed for raising capital, so that their continued existence would similarly risk frustrating the aims of Directive 69/335 (see, inter alia, Case C-19/99 Modelo Continente v Fazenda Pública [2000] ECR I-7213, paragraph 24, and Case C-134/99 IGI Investimentos Imobiliários v Fazenda Pública [2000] ECR I-7717, paragraph 22).
24 Finally, it should be noted that, according to its title, the directive concerns only indirect taxes on the raising of capital and that, in accordance with the Court's case-law, the harmonisation provided for by Directive 69/335 does not extend to direct taxes, such as corporation tax, which are a matter for the Member States themselves (Case C-287/94 Frederiksen v Skatteministeriet [1996] ECR I-4581, paragraphs 17 and 21).
25 Since the national court found that the minimum corporation tax at issue in the main proceedings before it might, in certain cases, be classified as an indirect tax, it must be pointed out that, according to the Court's settled case-law, the nature of a tax, duty or charge falls to be determined by the Court, under Community law, according to the objective characteristics by which it is levied, irrespective of its classification under national law (see, in particular, Nonwoven, cited above, paragraph 19).
27 It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that a minimum tax on capital companies, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not have the same characteristics as the taxes prohibited under Article 10 of Directive 69/335.
Criminal proceedings against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and B. Denman.
Date: 2001-01-18
19 Those provisions seek to ensure that driving times and rest periods alternate, so that drivers do not remain at the wheel of their vehicles for periods of such length as to cause tiredness and jeopardise road safety (Van Swieten, cited above, paragraph 23).
23 That interpretation is unacceptable. A driver who goes to a specific place, other than the undertaking's operating centre, indicated to him by his employer in order to take over and drive a vehicle is satisfying an obligation towards his employer. During that journey, therefore, he does not freely dispose of his time.
24 Moreover, the Court has already held that period of work for the purposes of Article 15 of Regulation No 3821/85 includes times at which the driver is actually engaged in activities having a bearing on driving, including driving time (Michielsen, cited above, paragraph 14).
25 Time spent by a driver to reach the place where he takes over a tachograph vehicle is liable to have a bearing on his driving, in that it will affect his state of tiredness.
35 The answer to the first part of the question must therefore be that on a proper construction of Article 15 of Regulation No 3821/85, a driver's obligation to record all other periods of work extends to time which a driver necessarily spends travelling to take over a vehicle subject to the obligation to instal and use a tachograph, and which is not at the driver's home or the employer's operational centre, regardless of whether the employer gave instructions as to when and how to travel or whether that choice was left to the driver.
The second part of the question