larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Berthold Küster v European Parliament.
Date: 1976-11-25
5 FURTHER THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL IRREGULARITIES IN THE APPOINTMENT OF MR ROGER WURTH .

ADMISSIBILITY
6 THE DEFENDANT OBJECTS THAT THE ACTION IS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE DECISION IN QUESTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN DISREGARD OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 10 JULY 1975 IN CASE 77/74 .
8 IT CANNOT BE CONTESTED THAT THOSE TO WHOM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ANNULLING AN ACT OF AN INSTITUTION IS ADDRESSED ARE DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION EXECUTES THE JUDGMENT .
Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA.
Date: 1976-11-30
11 THIS FREEDOM OF CHOICE WAS INTRODUCED HAVING REGARD TO THE EXISTENCE , IN CERTAIN CLEARLY DEFINED SITUATIONS , OF A PARTICULARLY CLOSE CONNECTING FACTOR BETWEEN A DISPUTE AND THE COURT WHICH MAY BE CALLED UPON TO HEAR IT , WITH A VIEW TO THE EFFICACIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
16 LIABILITY IN TORT , DELICT OR QUASI-DELICT CAN ONLY ARISE PROVIDED THAT A CAUSAL CONNEXION CAN BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE DAMAGE AND THE EVENT IN WHICH THAT DAMAGE ORIGINATES .
18 TO EXCLUDE ONE OPTION APPEARS ALL THE MORE UNDESIRABLE IN THAT , BY ITS COMPREHENSIVE FORM OF WORDS , ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE CONVENTION COVERS A WIDE DIVERSITY OF KINDS OF LIABILITY .
19 THUS THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION ' PLACE WHERE THE HARMFUL EVENT OCCURRED '  IN ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS AN OPTION TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS EITHER AT THE PLACE WHERE THE DAMAGE OCCURRED OR THE PLACE OF THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO IT .
24 THUS IT SHOULD BE ANSWERED THAT WHERE THE PLACE OF THE HAPPENING OF THE EVENT WHICH MAY GIVE RISE TO LIABLITY IN TORT , DELICT OR QUASIDELICT AND THE PLACE WHERE THAT EVENT RESULTS IN DAMAGE ARE NOT IDENTICAL , THE EXPRESSON ' PLACE WHERE THE HARMFUL EVENT OCCURRED ' , IN ARTICLE 5 ( 3 ) OF THE CONVENTION , MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS BEING INTENDED TO COVER BOTH THE PLACE WHERE THE DAMAGE OCCURRED AND THE PLACE OF THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO IT .
25 THE RESULT IS THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SUED , AT THE OPTION OF THE PLAINTIFF , EITHER IN THE COURTS FOR THE PLACE WHERE THE DAMAGE OCCURRED OR IN THE COURTS FOR THE PLACE OF THE EVENT WHICH GIVES RISE TO AND IS AT THE ORIGIN OF THAT DAMAGE .
Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH.
Date: 1976-12-14
7 THE WAY IN WHICH THAT PROVISION IS TO BE APPLIED MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EFFECT OF THE CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION BY CONSENT , WHICH IS TO EXCLUDE BOTH THE JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 2 AND THE SPECIAL JURISDICTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 5 AND 6 OF THE CONVENTION .

IN VIEW OF THE CONSEQUENCES THAT SUCH AN OPTION MAY HAVE ON THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION , THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 17 GOVERNING THE VALIDITY OF CLAUSES CONFERRING JURISDICTION MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED .

BY MAKING SUCH VALIDITY SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN ' AGREEMENT '  BETWEEN THE PARTIES , ARTICLE 17 IMPOSES ON THE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE MATTER IS BROUGHT THE DUTY OF EXAMINING , FIRST , WHETHER THE CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON IT WAS IN FACT THE SUBJECT OF A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE PARTIES , WHICH MUST BE CLEARLY AND PRECISELY DEMONSTRATED .

THE PURPOSE OF THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 17 IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS IN FACT ESTABLISHED .

THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF MUST BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS .

ON THE QUESTION REFERRED BY THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF
9 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE , IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS PRINTED AMONG THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES ON THE REVERSE OF A CONTRACT DRAWN UP ON THE COMMERCIAL PAPER OF THAT PARTY DOES NOT OF ITSELF SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 17 , SINCE NO GUARANTEE IS THEREBY GIVEN THAT THE OTHER PARTY HAS REALLY CONSENTED TO THE CLAUSE WAIVING THE NORMAL RULES OF JURISDICTION .

IT IS OTHERWISE IN THE CASE WHERE THE TEXT OF THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES ITSELF CONTAINS AN EXPRESS REFERENCE TO GENERAL CONDITIONS INCLUDING A CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION .
10 THUS IT SHOULD BE ANSWERED THAT WHERE A CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS INCLUDED AMONG THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SALE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES , PRINTED ON THE BACK OF A CONTRACT , THE REQUIREMENT OF A WRITING UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE CONVENTION IS FULFILLED ONLY IF THE CONTRACT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES CONTAINS AN EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THOSE GENERAL CONDITIONS .
Galeries Segoura SPRL v Société Rahim Bonakdarian.
Date: 1976-12-14
6 THE WAY IN WHICH THAT PROVISION IS TO BE APPLIED MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EFFECT OF THE CONFERMENT OF JURISDICTION BY CONSENT , WHICH IS TO EXCLUDE BOTH THE JURISDICTION DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 2 AND THE SPECIAL JURISDICTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 5 AND 6 OF THE CONVENTION .

IN VIEW OF THE CONSEQUENCES THAT SUCH AN OPTION MAY HAVE ON THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION , THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 17 GOVERNING THE VALIDITY OF CLAUSES CONFERRING JURISDICTION MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED .

BY MAKING SUCH VALIDITY SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN ' AGREEMENT '  BETWEEN THE PARTIES , ARTICLE 17 IMPOSES UPON THE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE MATTER IS BROUGHT THE DUTY OF EXAMINING , FIRST , WHETHER THE CLAUSE CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON IT WAS IN FACT THE SUBJECT OF A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE PARTIES , WHICH MUST BE CLEARLY AND PRECISELY DEMONSTRATED .

THE PURPOSE OF THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 17 IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS IN FACT ESTABLISHED .

THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF MUST BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS .

THE QUESTIONS REFERRED BY THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF
Simmenthal SpA v Ministero delle Finanze italiano.
Date: 1976-12-15
7 TO COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN THESE PROVISIONS IT IS ENOUGH FOR THE MEASURES IN QUESTION TO BE CAPABLE OF ACTING AS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT , REAL OR POTENTIAL HINDRANCE TO IMPORTS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . THESE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED AS FAR AS LIVESTOCK AND MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IS CONCERNED , IF COMPULSORY , VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS ARE CARRIED OUT AT THE FRONTIERS OF A MEMBER STATE . AS A RESULT IN PARTICULAR OF THE DELAYS INHERENT IN THE INSPECTIONS AND THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT COSTS WHICH THE IMPORTER MAY INCUR THEREBY , THE INSPECTIONS IN QUESTION ARE LIKELY TO MAKE IMPORTATION MORE DIFFICULT OR MORE COSTLY .
14 THE FIFTH RECITAL OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/432/EEC CORRECTLY STATES : ' WHEREAS THE RIGHT OF MEMBER STATES UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY TO CONTINUE TO APPLY PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS , EXPORTS OR GOODS IN TRANSIT JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND LIFE OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS NEVERTHELESS DOES NOT EXEMPT THEM FROM THE OBLIGATION TO APPROXIMATE THE PROVISIONS ON WHICH THOSE PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE BASED , IN SO FAR AS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE PROVISIONS HINDER THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY ' .

ARTICLE 36 IS NOT DESIGNED TO RESERVE CERTAIN MATTERS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF MEMBER STATES BUT PERMITS NATIONAL LAWS TO DEROGATE FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH DEROGATION IS AND CONTINUES TO BE JUSTIFIED FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES REFERRED TO IN THAT ARTICLE .
18 SIMILARLY ARTICLE 5 OF DIRECTIVE NO 64/433 ( MEAT ) ALLOWS A MEMBER STATE TO PROHIBIT THE MARKETING OF FRESH MEAT ON ITS TERRITORY IF AT THE TIME OF THE HEALTH INSPECTION CARRIED OUT IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION SUCH MEAT IS FOUND TO BE UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION OR IF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3 HAVE NOT BEEN OBSERVED .
Bestuur der Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid v L. J. Mouthaan.
Date: 1976-12-15
13 ACCORDING TO THE NINTH RECITAL OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( B ) ( II ) SERVES TO ENSURE THAT A WORKER PLACED IN ONE OF THE SITUATIONS THEREIN SET OUT MAY RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN CONDITIONS MOST FAVOURABLE TO THE SEARCH FOR NEW EMPLOYMENT .
Suzanne Criel, née Donckerwolcke and Henri Schou v Procureur de la République au tribunal de grande instance de Lille and Director General of Customs.
Date: 1976-12-15
15 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED FOR THE LIBERALIZATION OF INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE APPLY IN IDENTICAL FASHION TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN MEMBER STATES AND TO PRODUCTS COMING FROM THIRD COUNTRIES WHICH ARE IN ' FREE CIRCULATION '  IN THE COMMUNITY .
16 PRODUCTS IN FREE CIRCULATION ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THOSE PRODUCTS WHICH , COMING FROM THIRD COUNTRIES , WERE DULY IMPORTED INTO ANY ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 10 .
17 IT APPEARS FROM ARTICLE 9 THAT , AS REGARDS FREE CIRCULATION OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , PRODUCTS ENTITLED TO ' FREE CIRCULATION '  ARE DEFINITIVELY AND WHOLLY ASSIMILATED TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN MEMBER STATES .
18 THE RESULT OF THIS ASSIMILATION IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 30 CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND ALL MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT ARE APPLICABLE WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN THE COMMUNITY AND TO THOSE WHICH WERE PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION IN ANY ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL ORIGIN OF THESE PRODUCTS .
25 THE ASSIMILATION TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING WITHIN THE MEMBER STATES OF GOODS IN ' FREE CIRCULATION '  MAY ONLY TAKE FULL EFFECT IF THESE GOODS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS OF IMPORTATION BOTH WITH REGARD TO CUSTOMS AND COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THEY WERE PUT IN FREE CIRCULATION .
32 AS FULL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MATTER OF COMMERCIAL POLICY WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY BY MEANS OF ARTICLE 113 ( 1 ) MEASURES OF COMMERCIAL POLICY OF A NATIONAL CHARACTER ARE ONLY PERMISSIBLE AFTER THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD BY VIRTUE OF SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY THE COMMUNITY .
Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland.
Date: 1976-12-16
5 THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE TREATY AND THAT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 159/66/EEC HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT AND CONFER ON CITIZENS RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROTECT .

APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY , IT IS THE NATIONAL COURTS WHICH ARE ENTRUSTED WITH ENSURING THE LEGAL PROTECTION WHICH CITIZENS DERIVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW .

ACCORDINGLY , IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES ON THIS SUBJECT , IT IS FOR THE DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO DESIGNATE THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION AND TO DETERMINE THE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING ACTIONS AT LAW INTENDED TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS WHICH CITIZENS HAVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF COMMUNITY LAW , IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT SUCH CONDITIONS CANNOT BE LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE RELATING TO SIMILAR ACTIONS OF A DOMESTIC NATURE .

WHERE NECESSARY , ARTICLES 100 TO 102 AND 235 OF THE TREATY ENABLE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN TO REMEDY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN BY LAW , REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN MEMBER STATES IF THEY ARE LIKELY TO DISTORT OR HARM THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET .

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MEASURES OF HARMONIZATION THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY COMMUNITY LAW MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY NATIONAL RULES .

THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IF THE CONDITIONS AND TIME-LIMITS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE TO EXERCISE THE RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS ARE OBLIGED TO PROTECT .

THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHERE REASONABLE PERIODS OF LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ARE FIXED .

THE LAYING DOWN OF SUCH TIME-LIMITS WITH REGARD TO ACTIONS OF A FISCAL NATURE IS AN APPLICATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY PROTECTING BOTH THE TAX-PAYER AND THE ADMINISTRATION CONCERNED .
6 THE ANSWER TO BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS THEREFORE THAT IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT A CITIZEN WHO CONTESTS BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT A DECISION OF A NATIONAL AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW FROM BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE DEFENCE THAT LIMITATION PERIODS LAID DOWN BY NATIONAL LAW HAVE EXPIRED , IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE ACTION MAY NOT BE LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE RELATING TO SIMILAR ACTIONS OF A DOMESTIC NATURE .

THE SECOND QUESTION
Industriemetall Luma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg.
Date: 1976-12-16
7 WHILST THE CUSTOMS TARIFF DOES INDEED IN CERTAIN CASES CONTAIN REFERENCES TO MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND TO THE USE FOR WHICH GOODS ARE INTENDED IT IS GENERALLY PREFERRED , IN THE INTERESTS OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND EASE OF VERIFICATION , TO EMPLOY CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE OBJECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES OF PRODUCTS WHICH CAN BE ASCERTAINED WHEN CUSTOMS CLEARANCE IS OBTAINED .

THE CRITERION DRAWN FROM THE CONTENT OF NON-FERROUS METALS IN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS , WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA ADOPTED BY NOTE 1 ( C ) TO CHAPTER 73 , PERFORMS THAT FUNCTION IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH A VIEW TO FACILITATING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRODUCTS UNDER THE HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS OF THE RELEVANT CHAPTER .

IN CONSEQUENCE , WHEN A PRODUCT CAN BE CLASSIFIED UNDER A SPECIFIC TARIFF HEADING ON THE BASIS OF ITS COMPOSITION , THERE IS NO FURTHER POSSIBILITY OF CLASSIFICATION BY ANALOGY WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE NO 4 OF THE GENERAL RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE , SINCE SUCH A CLASSIFICATION CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED , IN THE WORDS OF RULE 4 , IN RELATION TO GOODS ' NOT FALLING WITHIN ANY HEADING OF THE TARIFF ' .
Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen.
Date: 1976-12-16
12 THUS , IN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY , THE NATIONAL COURTS ARE ENTRUSTED WITH ENSURING THE LEGAL PROTECTION CONFERRED ON INDIVIDUALS BY THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW .
13 CONSEQUENTLY , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL LEGAL ORDER OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO DESIGNATE THE COMPETENT COURTS AND TO LAY DOWN THE PROCEDURAL RULES FOR PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS WHICH INDIVIDUALS ACQUIRE THROUGH THE DIRECT EFFECT OF COMMUNITY LAW , PROVIDED THAT SUCH RULES ARE NOT LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE GOVERNING THE SAME RIGHT OF ACTION ON AN INTERNAL MATTER .
14 ARTICLES 100 TO 102 AND 235 OF THE TREATY ENABLE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO BE TAKEN AS NECESSARY , TO ELEMINATE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN SUCH MATTERS BY LAW , REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN MEMBER STATES IF THESE DIFFERENCES ARE FOUND TO BE SUCH AS TO CAUSE DISTORTION OR TO AFFECT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET .
15 IN DEFAULT OF SUCH HARMONIZATION MEASURES , THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY COMMUNITY LAW MUST BE EXERCICED BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY NATIONAL LAW .
16 THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IF THOSE RULES AND TIME-LIMITS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE TO EXERCISE RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT .
17 THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FIXING OF A REASONABLE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH AN ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT .
18 THE FIXING , AS REGARDS FISCAL PROCEEDINGS , OF SUCH A PERIOD IS IN FACT AN APPLICATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY WHICH PROTECTS BOTH THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED AND THE PARTY FROM WHOM PAYMENT IS CLAIMED .
Amsterdam Bulb BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen.
Date: 1977-02-02
33 THE ANSWER TO BE GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL COURT MUST THEREFORE BE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION IN THE COMMUNITY RULES PROVIDING FOR SPECIFIC SANCTIONS TO BE IMPOSED ON INDIVIDUALS FOR A FAILURE TO OBSERVE THOSE RULES , THE MEMBER STATES ARE COMPETENT TO ADOPT SUCH SANCTIONS AS APPEAR TO THEM TO BE APPROPRIATE .
Luigi Benedetti v Munari F.lli s.a.s.
Date: 1977-02-03
20 ATTENDU QUANT A CES QUESTIONS QUI ONT ETE CI-DESSUS RESUMEES , QUE NI CES QUESTIONS NI LES ELEMENTS DU DOSSIER DE L ' AFFAIRE NE PERMETTENT D ' ETABLIR SI L ' ENTREPRISE VISEE PAR CES QUESTIONS EST UNE ENTREPRISE PUBLIQUE , AU SENS DU PREMIER PARAGRAPHE DE L ' ARTICLE 90 DU TRAITE , OU UNE ENTREPRISE CHARGEE DE LA GESTION DE SERVICES D ' INTERET ECONOMIQUE GENERAL , AU SENS DU DEUXIEME PARAGRAPHE DE CET ARTICLE ;
21 QUE CEPENDANT CETTE DISTINCTION EST ESSENTIELLE POUR APPRECIER DANS QUELLE MESURE LES REGLES DE CONCURRENCE DU TRAITE SONT APPLICABLES ;
22 QUE , DU FAIT DE CE MANQUE DE PRECISION , CES QUESTIONS NE SAURAIENT RECEVOIR UNE REPONSE UTILE ;
SUR LA SIXIEME QUESTION
25 ATTENDU QU ' IL N ' APPARTIENT PAS A LA COUR DE JUSTICE D ' INTERPRETER , DANS LE CADRE DE LA PROCEDURE DE L ' ARTICLE 177 , LE DROIT NATIONAL ET D ' APPRECIER SES EFFETS ;
QUE DES LORS ELLE NE SAURAIT PAS , DANS CE CADRE , PROCEDER A UNE COMPARAISON DE QUELQUE NATURE QUE CE SOIT , ENTRE LES EFFETS DES DECISIONS DES JURIDICTIONS NATIONALES ET CEUX DE SES PROPRES DECISIONS ;
26 QU ' AUX TERMES DE L ' ARTICLE 177 LA COUR DE JUSTICE EST COMPETENTE POUR ' STATUER ' SUR L ' INTERPRETATION ' DU PRESENT TRAITE ' ET CELLE ' DES ACTES PRIS PAR LES INSTITUTIONS DE LA COMMUNAUTE ' ;
QU ' IL S ' ENSUIT QU ' UN ARRET RENDU A TITRE PREJUDICIEL A POUR OBJET DE TRANCHER UNE QUESTION DE DROIT ET QU ' IL LIE LE JUGE NATIONAL QUANT A L ' INTERPRETATION DES DISPOSITIONS ET ACTES COMMUNAUTAIRES EN CAUSE ;
Rolf H. Dittmeyer v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof.
Date: 1977-02-15
4 THE OPINIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF NOMENCLATURE CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT MEANS OF ENSURING THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES AND AS SUCH THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID AID TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TARIFF . NEVERTHELESS SUCH OPINIONS DO NOT HAVE LEGALLY BINDING FORCE SO THAT , WHERE APPROPRIATE , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEIR CONTENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTUAL PROVISIONS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND WHETHER THEY ALTER THE MEANING OF SUCH PROVISIONS . THE QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE NATIONAL COURT WERE EVIDENTLY PROMPTED BY GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER THE OPINION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID TARIFF HEADINGS .
Schöttle & Söhne OHG v Finanzamt Freudenstadt.
Date: 1977-02-16
15 NEVERTHELESS SUCH A TAX WHICH HAS AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON THE COST OF THE NATIONAL AND IMPORTED PRODUCT MUST BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 95 BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS .
16 THEREFORE THE REPLY MUST BE GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL COURT THAT TAXATION IMPOSED INDIRECTLY ON PRODUCTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 95 OF THE EEC TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS ALSO INCLUDING A CHARGE IMPOSED ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT OF GOODS BY ROAD ACCORDING TO THE DISTANCE COVERED ON THE NATIONAL TERRITORY AND THE WEIGHT OF THE GOODS IN QUESTION .

THE SECOND , THIRD AND FOURTH QUESTIONS
Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz v Henriette Töpfer, née Dontenwill, Jean-Pierre Weber and 'le Phénix' insurance company.
Date: 1977-02-16
13 ON THE OTHER HAND , FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE CONTENT OF THAT RIGHT , ACCOUNT MUST BE TAKEN OF THE LIMITATION RESULTING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 52 OF THE REGULATION , WHEREBY SUBROGATION IS PERMITTED ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DAMAGE IS THE CAUSE OF THE BENEFITS PAID BY THE INSTITUTION LIABLE TO PAY THEM .
Andreas H. Reinarz v Commission and Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1977-02-17
10 IN THIS CONNEXION IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 22 OCTOBER 1975 IN CASE 9/75 , MEYER-BURCKHARDT ( 1975 ) ECR 1171 , A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN OFFICIAL AND THE INSTITUTION TO WHICH HE IS OR WAS ANSWERABLE CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE IS PURSUED , WHERE IT ORIGINATES IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN THE PERSON CONCERNED AND THE INSTITUTION , UNDER ARTICLE 179 OF THE TREATY AND ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND LIES OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 178 AND 215 OF THE TREATY .
11 FURTHERMORE , THE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE COURT IN THE DISPUTES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 179 ENABLES IT , WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SUCH DISPUTES , TO GIVE JUDGMENT NOT ONLY ON THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTESTED ACT BUT ALSO ON COMPENSATION FOR ANY DAMAGE SUFFERED BY THE PERSON CONCERNED AS A RESULT OF AN ACT CONTRARY TO HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
Silvana di Paolo v Office national de l'emploi.
Date: 1977-02-17
9 ARTICLE 67 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 LAYS DOWN THE RULE THAT , EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE PROVIDED , AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON MAY CLAIM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ONLY IF HE HAS COMPLETED LASTLY PERIODS OF INSURANCE OR OF EMPLOYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH THE BENEFITS ARE CLAIMED .
17 THE CONCEPT OF ' THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES '  MUST BE LIMITED TO THE STATE WHERE THE WORKER , ALTHOUGH OCCUPIED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , CONTINUES HABITUALLY TO RESIDE AND WHERE THE HABITUAL CENTRE OF HIS INTERESTS IS ALSO SITUATED .
18 IN THIS RESPECT , THE FACT THAT THE WORKER HAS LEFT HIS FAMILY IN THE SAID STATE CONSTITUTES EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS RETAINED HIS RESIDENCE THERE , BUT IS NOT OF ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE EXCEPTION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( B ) ( II ).
19 IN FACT , WHENEVER A WORKER HAS A STABLE EMPLOYMENT IN A MEMBER STATE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT HE RESIDES THERE , EVEN IF HE HAS LEFT HIS FAMILY IN ANOTHER STATE .
20 ACCORDINGLY IT IS NOT ONLY THE FAMILY SITUATION OF THE WORKER THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT , BUT ALSO THE REASONS WHICH HAVE LED HIM TO MOVE , AND THE NATURE OF THE WORK .
21 THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS ' OR WHO RETURNS TO THAT TERRITORY '  IMPLIES MERELY THAT THE CONCEPT OF RESIDENCE , SUCH AS DEFINED ABOVE , DOES NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUDE NON-HABITUAL RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
North Kerry Milk Products Ltd. v Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
Date: 1977-03-03
11 THE ELIMINATION OF LINGUISTIC DISCREPANCIES BY WAY OF INTERPRETATION MAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES RUN COUNTER TO THE CONCERN FOR LEGAL CERTAINTY , INASMUCH AS ONE OR MORE OF THE TEXTS INVOLVED MAY HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER AT VARIANCE WITH THE NATURAL AND USUAL MEANING OF THE WORDS . CONSEQUENTLY , IT IS PREFERABLE TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES OF SOLVING THE POINTS AT ISSUE WITHOUT GIVING PREFERENCE TO ANY ONE OF THE TEXTS INVOLVED .