larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Criminal proceedings against Paolo Lirussi (C-175/98) and Francesca Bizzaro (C-177/98).
Date: 1999-10-05
37 In proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court (see Case 36/79 Denkavit Futtermittel v Finanzamt Warendorf [1979] ECR 3439, paragraph 12, and Case C-235/95 Dumon and Froment [1998] ECR I-4531, paragraph 25).
38 The Court has no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the facts in an individual case or to apply the rules of Community law which it has interpreted to national measures or situations, since those questions are matters for the exclusive jurisdiction of the national court (see Case 13/68 Salgoil [1968] ECR 453, Case 51/74 Van der Hulst [1975] ECR 79, paragraph 12, and Case C-320/88 Shipping and Forwarding Enterprise Safe [1990] ECR I-285, paragraph 11) .
45 Temporary storage pending collection, on the site where it is produced, is therefore to be defined as the preparatory operation to waste management within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Directive 75/442.
51 Article 4 of Directive 75/442, adopted on the basis of Article 130s of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 175 EC), is intended to implement the principles of precaution and preventive action contained in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 130r of the Treaty.  By virtue of those principles, it is for the Community and the Member States to prevent, reduce and, in so far as is possible, eliminate from the outset, the sources of pollution or nuisance by adopting measures of a nature such as to eliminate recognised risks.
52 Article 4, second paragraph, and Article 8 of Directive 75/442 lay down inter alia obligations which must be fulfilled by the Member States in order to comply with the principles of precaution and preventive action, namely, respectively, to prohibit the abandonment, dumping and uncontrolled disposal of waste and to ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by a private or public waste collector, or by an undertaking which carries out the operations listed in Annex II A or B, or recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.
53 In so far as waste, even waste which is stored temporarily, can cause serious harm to the environment, the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 75/442, which are intended to implement the principle of precaution, also apply to temporary storage.
54 Notwithstanding the fact that undertakings holding waste, which store it temporarily, are not subject to the requirement of registration or authorisation provided for by Directive 75/442, all storage, whether temporary or pending further operations, as well as waste management within the meaning of Article 1(d) of that Directive must comply with the principles of precaution and preventive action which Article 4 of Directive 75/442 is intended to implement and, in particular, the obligations resulting from that provision and from Article 8 of the Directive.
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 1999-10-12
11 The Court has consistently held, in this regard, that 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, in particular, Case C-401/98 Commission v Greece [1999] ECR I-0000, paragraph 9).
Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland.
Date: 1999-10-14
19 As the Advocate General points out at paragraphs 31 and 48 of his Opinion, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings deprives residents of a Member State of the possibility of benefiting from the absence of taxation which may be associated with loans obtained outside the national territory. Accordingly, such a measure is likely to deter such residents from obtaining loans from persons established in other Member States (judgment in Case C-484/93 Svensson and Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme [1995] ECR I-3955, paragraph 10).
Adidas AG.
Date: 1999-10-14
23 It should be recalled, at the outset, that according to the settled case-law of the Court, 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 is part (see, inter alia, the judgments in Case 292/82 Merck v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1983] ECR 3781, paragraph 12; and in Case 337/82 St. Nikolaus Brennerei v Hauptzollamt Krefeld [1984] ECR 1051, paragraph 10).
24 Next, where a provision of Community law is open to several interpretations, only one of which can ensure that the provision retains its effectiveness, preference must be given to that interpretation (see, to that effect, the judgment in Case 187/87 Saarland and Others v Ministre de l'Industrie [1988] ECR 5013, paragraph 19).
25 Further, where the implementation of a Community regulation is a matter for the national authorities, as in the case of Regulation No 3295/94, recourse to rules of national law is possible only in so far as it is necessary for the correct application of that regulation and in so far as it does not jeopardise either the scope or the effectiveness thereof (see, to that effect, the judgment in Joined Cases 146/81, 192/81 and 193/81 BayWa v BALM [1982] ECR 1503, paragraph 29). Under the obligations laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), those national measures must, in general, facilitate the application of the Community regulation and not hinder its implementation (see, to that effect, the judgment in Case 30/70 Scheer v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1970] ECR 1197, paragraph 8).
26 In that respect, it is to be noted, first, that, with a view to preventing, as far as possible, counterfeit and pirated goods from being placed on the market, the Regulation gives an essential role to the holder of the right. It is clear from Articles 3 and 4 of the Regulation that the detention of goods by the customs authorities is, in principle, subject to an application on his part. Second, in order for a final judgment to be given against such practices by the national authority competent to rule on the substance of the case, the case must first be referred to it by the holder of the right. If the case is not so referred by the holder of the right, the measure of suspension of release or of detention of the goods promptly ceases to have effect, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Regulation.
27 Consequently, effective application of the Regulation is directly dependent on the information supplied to the holder of the intellectual property right. So if the identity of the declarant and/or the consignee of the goods cannot be disclosed to him, it is in practice impossible for him to refer the case to the competent national authority.
Georges Vander Zwalmen and Elisabeth Massart v Belgian State.
Date: 1999-10-14
21 In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 13 of the Protocol is not restricted to national taxes based directly on the salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities to their officials and other servants, but that the exemption also covers any indirect taxes (see Case 6/60 Humblet v Belgian State [1960] ECR 559, 578; Case 260/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 955, paragraph 10; and Case C-333/88 Tither [1990] ECR I-1133, paragraph 12).
24 According to settled case-law, Article 13 of the Protocol restricts the Member States' sovereignty in fiscal matters, since it precludes any national tax, regardless of its nature and the manner in which it is levied, which is imposed directly or indirectly on officials or other servants of the Communities by reason of the fact that they are in receipt of remuneration paid by the Communities, even if the tax in question is not calculated by reference to the amount of that remuneration (Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 10; Tither, paragraph 12; and Case C-263/91 Kristoffersen v Skatteministeriet [1993] ECR I-2755, paragraph 14).
25 Although Community law precludes an official from being taxed more heavily in respect of his non-exempted income because he receives a salary from the Community (Humblet, p. 579), Article 13 of the Protocol does not, however, require Member States to grant officials the same subsidies that are paid to beneficiaries determined in accordance with the relevant national provisions. That article merely requires that, whenever such persons are subject to certain taxes, they are able to enjoy any tax advantage normally available to taxable persons, so as to prevent those persons from being subject to a greater tax burden (Tither, paragraph 15), without thereby requiring special treatment.
26 It follows that the conditions of entitlement to a tax advantage must apply without discrimination between persons entitled under Community officials and other taxpayers (see, to that effect, Case 7/74 Brouerius van Nidek v Inspecteur der Registratie en Successie [1974] ECR 757, paragraph 14). To the extent that officials satisfy the conditions laid down by national legislation, they must be able to enjoy the tax advantages prescribed in that legislation; consequently, Article 13 of the Protocol precludes the refusal of the right to such an advantage merely on the ground of classification as an official who is not subject to personal tax (Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 12).
Susanne Lewen v Lothar Denda.
Date: 1999-10-21
10 Parenting leave (or parental leave) is governed by the Gesetz über die Gewährung von Erziehungsgeld und Erziehungsurlaub - Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz (Law on the grant of the parenting allowance and parenting leave, hereinafter `the BErzGG').  Parenting leave, which may be taken on a voluntary basis and regardless of sex, begins at the earliest, under Article 15(2) of the BErzGG, at the end of the period for the protection of mothers and ends no later than the date on which the child reaches the age of three.  During that period the contract of the employee on leave is suspended.  The employee on parenting leave does not receive monthly remuneration but, under Article 1 et seq. of the BErzGG, receives a benefit known as the `parenting allowance' which is paid by the State and is income-based.
The main proceedings
22 As regards the concept of payment within the meaning of Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85, that provision is intended to ensure that, during maternity leave, female workers receive an income at least equal to that prescribed by Article 11(3) of that directive, irrespective of whether it is paid in the form of an allowance, pay or a combination of the two (Case C-411/96 Boyle and Others [1998] ECR I-6401, paragraphs 31 to 33).
26 It must be borne in mind, first of all, that in view of its mandatory nature, the prohibition of discrimination between male and female workers not only applies to action on the part of public authorities, but also extends to all collective agreements designed to regulate employment relationships and to contracts between individuals (see, in particular, Case C-184/89 Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg [1991] ECR I-297, paragraph 11, and Case C-281/97 Krüger v Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg [1999] ECR I-0000, paragraph 20).  That prohibition also applies to unilateral action by an employer vis-à-vis his employees.
34 According to settled case-law, indirect discrimination arises where a national measure, albeit formulated in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of far more women than men (see, in particular, Boyle, cited above, paragraph 76).
35 In that connection, the first point to note is that, as the national court has indicated, women take parenting leave far more often than men, and that is also confirmed by the situation in the defendant's undertaking.
36 Furthermore, according to settled case-law, discrimination involves the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations (Boyle, cited above, paragraph 39).
37 A worker who exercises a statutory right to take parenting leave, which carries with it a parenting allowance paid by the State, is in a special situation, which cannot be assimilated to that of a man or woman at work since such leave involves suspension of the contract of employment and, therefore, of the respective obligations of the employer and the worker.
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH.
Date: 1999-10-21
29 It thus follows from the wording of Article 36(3) of Regulation No 222/77 and Article 11a(2) of Regulation No 1062/87 that the indication by the office of departure of the time-limit within which proof of the place of the offence may be furnished by the principal is obligatory.
30 Second, that requirement makes it possible to invite the principal to produce any evidence he may have within a mandatory time-limit, with a view to determining without delay the State with jurisdiction to recover duty under the conditions laid down in Article 36(1) and (3) of Regulation No 222/77.
31 Accordingly, the answer to Question 1 must be that Article 36(3) of Regulation No 222/77 in conjunction with Article 11a(2) of Regulation No 1062/87 is to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the office of departure belongs may recover duty on import only if it has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which to prove where the offence or irregularity was actually committed and such proof has not been provided within that period.
Question 2
Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna.
Date: 1999-10-26
32 The first observation to be made is that although, as Community law stands at present, direct taxation does not as such fall within the purview of the Community, the powers retained by the Member States must be exercised consistently with Community law (see inter alia Case C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln - Altstadt v Roland Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225, paragraph 21).
33 Next, since leasing is a service within the meaning of Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC), it should be noted that the Court has held that Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the abolition of any discrimination on account of nationality against a person providing services but also the abolition of any restriction on the freedom to provide services imposed on the ground that the person providing service is established in a Member State other than the one in which the service is provided (Case 205/84 Commission v Germany [1986] ECR 3755, paragraph 25, and Case C-180/89 Commission v Italy [1991] ECR I-709, paragraph 15).
34 It has also consistently held that Article 59 of the Treaty confers rights not only on the provider of services but also on the recipient (see inter alia Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro [1984] ECR 377 and Svensson and Gustavsson, cited above). As the recipient of the leasing services, therefore, Eurowings may rely on the individual rights conferred on it by that provision.
42 As the Bundesfinanzhof observed in an order of 30 December 1996 referred to by the national court which made the reference in this case, a merely indirect link between a fiscal advantage accorded to a taxable person, such as the absence in the case of German undertakings leasing from lessors established in Germany of the obligation to make the add-backs in question, and unfavourable tax treatment of another taxable person, such as the liability of such lessors to pay trade tax, cannot be used to justify the fact that German undertakings are treated differently according to whether they lease from lessors established in Germany or from lessors established in other Member States.
43 Contrary to what was argued by the Finanzamt, that difference of treatment can also not be justified by the fact that the lessor established in another Member State is there subject to lower taxation.
44 Any tax advantage resulting for providers of services from the low taxation to which they are subject in the Member State in which they are established cannot be used by another Member State to justify less favourable treatment in tax matters given to recipients of services established in the latter State (see, as regards Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), Commission v France, paragraph 21, and Asscher, paragraph 53, both cited above).
45 As the Commission rightly observed, such compensatory tax arrangements prejudice the very foundations of the single market.
Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah.
Date: 1999-11-11
28 The Commission replies that, if the worker from whom the member of his family derives rights to a social security benefit such as that in point in the main proceedings has the nationality of both his Member State of origin and his host Member State, it follows by analogy with Micheletti and Others (Case C-369/90 [1992] ECR I-4239) that Community law precludes the host State from preventing that family member from invoking the worker's Moroccan nationality to obtain the benefit of the principle of equal treatment in the field of social security conferred on that family member by Article 41(1) of the Agreement, solely on the ground that, under the law of the host State, the worker is regarded as a national of that Member State alone.
29 As the Court observed at paragraph 10 of the judgment in Micheletti and Others, 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.
30 Thus, the Court ruled in Micheletti and Others 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.
31 The Court held that 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 obtaining recognition of that nationality with a view to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms provided for in the Treaty, such as the habitual residence of the person concerned in the territory of the Member State of which he was a national before his arrival in the host Member State. That conclusion is rendered all the more necessary by the fact that the consequence of allowing such a possibility would be that the class of persons covered by the Community rules on freedom of establishment might vary from one Member State to another (Micheletti and Others, paragraphs 10 to 12).
32 Thus, the Court held that once the person concerned has established his status as a national of a Member State, the other Member States are not entitled to challenge that status on the ground that the person 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 (Micheletti and Others, paragraph 14).
36 In addition, unlike the situation in point in the Micheletti case, which had to do with freedom of establishment under the Treaty, the legislation of the Member State resisting Mrs Mesbah's claim does not affect any fundamental freedom of movement since the purpose of the Agreement is not to enable Moroccan nationals to move freely within the Community but only to consolidate the social-security position of Moroccan workers and members of their families living with them in the host Member State.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1999-11-11
10 As regards the various circulars produced by the Italian Republic, it is sufficient to observe that it is settled case-law that mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State's obligations under the Treaty (see, in particular, Case C-316/96 Commission v Italy [1997] ECR I-7231, paragraph 16).
11 As regards the adoption of the draft ministerial regulation, it should be pointed out that, in an action under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the 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 (Commission v Italy, cited above, paragraph 14).
Henkel Hellas ABEE v Elliniko Dimosio.
Date: 1999-11-11
3 Directive 69/335 is aimed in particular at achieving harmonisation of the factors involved in the fixing and levying of duty on the raising of capital to which investments in companies in the Community are subject, by means of the elimination of tax obstacles which interfere with the free movement of capital (see, in particular, Case C-236/97 Skatteministeriet v Codan [1998] ECR I-8679, paragraph 3).
20 It is settled case-law that the nature of a tax, duty or charge must 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, Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94 Bautiaa and Société Française Maritime [1996] ECR I-505, paragraph 39).
Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1999-11-18
13 A preliminary point to note is that, in accordance with settled case-law, in the context of the organisation of the powers of the Community the choice of the legal basis for a measure must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Those factors include, in particular, the aim and content of the measure (see, in particular, Case C-300/89 Commission v Council [1991] ECR I-2867 (the `Titanium dioxide' case), paragraph 10, and Joined Cases C-164/97 and C-165/97 Parliament v Council [1999] ECR I-1139, paragraph 12).
29 Contrary to the Commission's assertion, the protection of the financial interests of the Community does not follow from the establishment of the customs union, but constitutes an independent objective which, under the scheme of the Treaty, is placed in Title II (financial provisions) of Part V relating to the Community institutions and not in Part III on Community policies, which includes the customs union and agriculture.
35 It is settled case-law that recourse to Article 100a is not justified where the measure to be adopted has only the incidental effect of harmonising market conditions within the Community (see, in particular, Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1991] ECR I-4529, paragraph 17, and Case C-155/91 Commission v Council [1993] ECR I-939, paragraph 19).
Jozef van Coile v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen.
Date: 1999-11-18
25 It should be recalled first of all that the Court has held that a national rule must be regarded as a provision for reduction of benefit if the calculation which it requires to be made has the effect of reducing the amount of pension which the person concerned may claim because he receives a benefit from another Member State (ONP v Conti, paragraph 25).
26 In that same judgment, the Court stressed that provisions for reduction of benefits cannot be rendered exempt from the conditions and limits of application laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 by categorising them as rules for calculating the amount payable (Conti, paragraph 24).
27 Such national provisions cannot, furthermore, be exempt from the conditions and limits of application laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 by categorising them as rules of evidence.