larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
French Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1997-05-29
20 Lastly, the Court has held, in Case C-342/89 Germany v Commission [1991] ECR I-5031, paragraph 16, and Case C-346/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-5057, paragraph 16, that the Commission has power to reduce payments of amounts due under monthly advances when it establishes that the national body has, contrary to Community law, failed to collect certain payments intended for the EAGGF.
30 In the second place, the Court also held, in paragraph 18 of those judgments, that decisions concerning monthly advances adopted during the year on the basis of the only data available at that time are merely interim and temporary in nature and cannot prejudge the final and conclusive decision on the annual clearance of accounts. That decision is taken at the conclusion of the specific procedure giving effect to the audi alteram partem rule, during which the Member States concerned are provided with all the guarantees necessary for them to present their point of view.
38 In order to determine whether a provision of Community law, in particular in the sphere of the common organizations of agricultural markets, is in conformity with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary to consider whether the measures introduced by that provision exceed the limit of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective pursued by the rules at issue.  More particularly, it is necessary to ascertain whether the means which the provision applies in order to achieve its aim correspond to the importance of that aim and whether they are necessary in order to achieve it (see Case C-319/90 Pressler v Germany [1992] ECR I-203, paragraph 12).
Friedrich Kremzow v Republik Österreich.
Date: 1997-05-29
14 It should first be noted that, as the Court has consistently held (see, in particular, Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1759, paragraph 33), fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of Community law whose observance the Court ensures.  For that purpose, the Court draws inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied by international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have collaborated or of which they are signatories.  The Convention has special significance in that respect.  As the Court has also held, it follows that measures are not acceptable in the Community which are incompatible with observance of the human rights thus recognized and guaranteed (see, in particular, Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 41).
15 Further, according to the Court's case-law (see, in particular, Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland [1991] ECR I-4685, paragraph 31), where national legislation falls within the field of application of Community law the Court, in a reference for a preliminary ruling, must give the national court all the guidance as to interpretation necessary to enable it to assess the compatibility of that legislation with the fundamental rights - as laid down in particular in the Convention - whose observance the Court ensures.  However, the Court has no such jurisdiction with regard to national legislation lying outside the scope of Community law.
16 The appellant in the main proceedings is an Austrian national whose situation is not connected in any way with any of the situations contemplated by the Treaty provisions on freedom of movement for persons.  Whilst any deprivation of liberty may impede the person concerned from exercising his right to free movement, the Court has held that a purely hypothetical prospect of exercising that right does not establish a sufficient connection with Community law to justify the application of Community provisions (see in particular to this effect Case 180/83 Moser [1984] ECR 2539, paragraph 18).
17 Moreover, Mr Kremzow was sentenced for murder and for illegal possession of a firearm under provisions of national law which were not designed to secure compliance with rules of Community law (see, in particular, Case C-144/95 Maurin [1996] ECR I-2909, paragraph 12).
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 1997-05-29
31 In proceedings brought under Article 169 of the Treaty the Commission is required to prove the alleged infringement.  The Commission must provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out and may not rely on any presumption (see, in particular, Case C-62/89 Commission v France [1990] ECR I-925, paragraph 37).
37 Fourth, the Court has consistently held that the scope of national laws, regulations or administrative provisions must be assessed in the light of the interpretation given to them by national courts (see, in particular, Case C-382/92 Commission v United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435, paragraph 36).  Yet in this case the Commission has not referred in support of its application to any national judicial decision which, in its view, interprets the domestic provision at issue inconsistently with the Directive.
38 Lastly, there is nothing in the material produced to the Court to suggest that the courts in the United Kingdom, if called upon to interpret section 4(1)(e), would not do so in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty (see, in particular, Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325, paragraph 26).  Moreover, section 1(1) of the Act expressly imposes such an obligation on the national courts.
Administrative proceedings brought by VAG Sverige AB.
Date: 1997-05-29
23 Moreover, it should be borne in mind that declarations recorded in minutes are of limited value, since they cannot be used for the purposes of interpreting a provision of Community law where no reference is made to the content of the declaration in the wording of the provision in question and the declaration therefore has no legal significance (Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, paragraph 18).
Siegfried Klattner v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State).
Date: 1997-05-29
24 The Directive was adopted on the basis of Article 99 of the EEC Treaty and seeks to eliminate obstacles to the establishment of an internal market resulting from the taxation arrangements applied to temporary and permanent importation of certain means of transport for private or business use (Case C-9/92 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-4467, paragraph 6).
25 As the Court has already held, the provisions of the Directive must be interpreted in the light of the fundamental aims of the endeavour to harmonize VAT, in particular the promotion of freedom of movement for persons and goods and the prevention of double taxation (Case 249/84 Profant [1985] ECR 3237, paragraph 25; Case 127/86 Ledoux [1988] ECR 3741, paragraph 11, and Case C-297/89 Ryborg [1991] ECR I-1943, paragraph 13).  In particular, account must be taken of the fact that it is stated in the preamble to the Directive that the freedom of movement of Community residents within the Community is hampered by the taxation arrangements applied to the temporary importation of certain means of transport for private or business use, that the elimination of the obstacles resulting from those taxation arrangements is particularly necessary if an economic market having features similar to those of a domestic market is to be established (Ryborg, cited above, paragraph 14).
32 The Court has consistently held (Case 8/81 Becker [1982] ECR 53, paragraph 25, and Joined Cases C-246/94, C-247/94, C-248/94 and C-249/94 Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica S. Antonio and Others [1996] ECR I-4373, paragraph 17) that, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon before the national courts by an individual against the State where the State has failed to transpose the Directive into domestic law by the end of the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the Directive correctly.
33 A Community provision is unconditional where it lays down an obligation which is not qualified by any condition and is not made subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any measure either by the Community institutions or by the Member States (Case 28/67 Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen Lippe [1968] ECR 211, 226, and Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica S. Antonio and Others, cited above, paragraph 18).  It is sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the courts where it lays down an obligation in unequivocal terms (Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 52, and Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica S. Antonio and Others, cited above, paragraph 19).
Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson v Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S.
Date: 1997-05-29
22 During the maternity leave accorded to her pursuant to national law, a woman is accordingly protected against dismissal due to absence (see the Hertz judgment, paragraph 15).  To accept that absence during such a period could be taken into account as grounds for a subsequent dismissal would be contrary to the objective of permitting national measures concerning the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity, pursued by Article 2(3) of the Directive, and would deprive that provision of its effectiveness (see, with regard to night-time work by pregnant women, Case C-421/92 Habermann-Beltermann v Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband [1994] ECR I-1657, paragraph 24).
23 Outside the periods of maternity leave laid down by the Member States to allow female workers to be absent during the period in which the problems inherent in pregnancy and confinement occur, however, and in the absence of any national or, as the case may be, Community provisions affording women specific protection, a woman is not protected under the Directive against dismissal on grounds of periods of absence due to an illness originating in pregnancy.  As has been pointed out above, as male and female workers are equally exposed to illness, the Directive does not concern illnesses attributable to pregnancy or confinement.
25 It must, however, be noted that, in view of the harmful effects which the risk of dismissal may have on the physical and mental state of women who are pregnant, have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, including the particularly serious risk that pregnant women may be prompted voluntarily to terminate their pregnancy, the Community legislature subsequently provided, pursuant to Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1), for special protection to be given to women, by prohibiting dismissal during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of their maternity leave, save in exceptional cases unconnected with their condition (Case C-32/93 Webb v EMO Air Cargo [1994] ECR I-3567, paragraphs 21 and 22).  It is clear from the objective of that provision that absence during the protected period, other than for reasons unconnected with the employee's condition, can no longer be taken into account as grounds for subsequent dismissal. However, the period within which Directive 92/85 was to be transposed had not yet expired when Ms Larsson was dismissed.
Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Werner Skripalle.
Date: 1997-05-29
24 As the Court has already held, national derogating measures designed to prevent the evasion or avoidance of tax must be strictly interpreted and may not derogate from the basis for charging VAT laid down in Article 11 of the Sixth Directive, except within the limits strictly necessary for achieving that aim (Case 324/82 Commission v Belgium [1984] ECR 1861, paragraph 29).  The question to be examined is whether those conditions are satisfied in this case.
26 However, there is no such risk where the objective facts show that the taxable person has acted properly.  In retaining as the taxable amount the costs incurred where there is a relationship between associated persons, including cases where it is clear that the agreed income, which corresponds to normal market rent, is lower than those costs, the German rules are not confined to introducing the derogations strictly necessary to deal with the risk of tax evasion or avoidance.  They are not, therefore, covered by Article 27 of the Sixth Directive.
30 As regards the argument put forward by the German Government that the measure in question is legitimate because it is also aimed at simplifying the procedure for charging tax, corresponding to the first alternative provided for in Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive, it must be noted that authorization for the derogating measure was requested in respect of the second alternative, namely in order to prevent tax evasion or avoidance.  The authorization cannot therefore extend beyond that purpose.
31 Consequently, the reply must be that an authorization by the Council to introduce a special measure for derogation from the Sixth Directive whereby, in order to prevent tax avoidance, in the case of supplies for consideration made between associated persons the cost to the taxable person within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive is to be used as the minimum basis of assessment is not covered by Article 27 of the directive where the agreed consideration represents the market rate but is less than the minimum basis of assessment.
Second question
Indústria e Comércio Têxtil SA (ICT) v Fazenda Pública.
Date: 1997-05-29
14 Secondly, as the Portuguese Government and the Commission have pointed out, the free-at-Community-frontier price, to which the anti-dumping duty is applied, corresponds to the customs value of the imported goods, as defined by Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ 1980 L 134, p. 1), namely the transaction value, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community.
16 In Case C-21/91 Wünsche v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1992] ECR I-3647, paragraphs 18 and 19, the Court held that, where a seller of goods allows the buyer time to pay, that constitutes a `financing arrangement' within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1495/80 as soon as the buyer accepts the deferred payment, and that it is not necessary for such deferred payment to be the subject of a specific agreement between the seller and the buyer, separate from the agreement relating to the sale of the imported goods.
17 The Court further held, at paragraph 19, that, where charges for interest payable as consideration for the deferred payment agreed by the seller are a separate item on the invoice sent to the buyer, it must be considered that, where there is no objection on the part of the buyer, he has in effect agreed to the charges for interest relating to the deferred payment.  That is also true where, as in the main proceedings, the charges for interest can be inferred from the difference between the prices for payment CAD and deferred payment respectively and those prices are specified in the agreement between the two parties relating to the sale, rather than on the invoice.
Jan Robert de Rijk v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1997-05-29
15 The Court of Justice has consistently held that pursuant to Article 168a of the EC Treaty and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice 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, and must, in accordance with Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, specify the pleas in law and the legal arguments relied upon in support of it.  It follows from those provisions that an appeal must indicate precisely which elements of the contested judgment it challenges, and also the legal arguments which specifically support the appeal (see, inter alia, Case C-18/91 P V v Parliament [1992] ECR I-3997, paragraph 15, and the orders in Case C-338/93 P De Hoe v Commission [1994] ECR I-819, paragraphs 17 and 18, and Case C-26/94 P X v Commission [1994] ECR I-4379, paragraphs 11 and 12).
18 The Court has also consistently held that under Articles 113(2) and 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice fresh submissions not contained in the original application cannot be raised in an appeal (V v Parliament, paragraph 21).
VAG-Händlerbeirat eV v SYD-Consult.
Date: 1997-06-05
12 Second, it must be borne in mind that, in paragraph 28 of the judgment in Cartier, cited above, the Court found that the imperviousness of a selective distribution system is not a condition for its validity under Community law. That finding was based in particular on the consideration that, in order to appraise the lawfulness of an agreement under Article 85 of the Treaty, it is not necessary to enquire whether the conditions are fulfilled for that agreement to be capable of being enforced against third parties by means of an action for unfair competition (paragraph 24).
16 As the Court also pointed out in Case C-226/94 Grand Garage Albigeois and Others [1996] ECR I-651, paragraph 15, and in Case C-309/94 Nissan France and Others [1996] ECR I-677, paragraph 15, Regulation No 123/85, as a regulation applying Article 85(3) of the Treaty, does not lay down any mandatory provisions directly affecting the validity or the content of contractual provisions or oblige the contracting parties to adapt the content of their agreement but is limited to providing economic agents in the motor vehicle industry with certain possibilities enabling them to remove their distribution and servicing agreements from the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 85(1) despite the inclusion in those agreements of certain types of exclusivity and no-competition clauses.
17 It follows, moreover, from paragraph 20 of those two judgments that Regulation No 123/85 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting a trader who is outside the official distribution network for a given make of motor vehicle and is not an authorized intermediary within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that regulation from acquiring new vehicles of that make by way of parallel imports and independently carrying on the business of marketing such vehicles (see most recently to that effect, Case C-128/95 Fontaine and Others [1997] ECR I-0000, paragraph 17).
18 Finally, as the Court reaffirmed in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the judgment in Fontaine and Others, Regulation No 123/85, in accordance with the function assigned to it in relation to the application of Article 85 of the Treaty, concerns only contractual relations between suppliers and their approved distributors and specifies the conditions under which certain agreements between them are lawful having regard to the competition rules of the Treaty, and it cannot affect the rights and obligations of third parties in relation to contracts concluded between vehicle manufacturers and their concessionaires, in particular those of independent dealers.
VT4 Ltd v Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
Date: 1997-06-05
13 It is apparent from the documents submitted to the Court that, by this question, raised before the Court delivered its judgment of 10 September 1996 in Case C-222/94 Commission v United Kingdom [1996] ECR I-4025, the Raad van State in effect seeks to ascertain the criteria for determining which broadcasters come within a Member State's jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 2(1) of the Directive.
14 In Case C-222/94 Commission v United Kingdom the Court examined the interpretation to be given to the term `jurisdiction' in the phrase `broadcasters under [a Member State's] jurisdiction' contained in the first indent of Article 2(1) of the Directive.
15 As the Court held in paragraph 26 of that judgment, the Directive contains no express definition of the phrase `broadcasters under its jurisdiction'.
16 In paragraph 40, after analysing the wording of Article 2(1) of the Directive, the Court concluded that the concept of jurisdiction of a Member State, used in the first indent of that provision, had to be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters.
17 In paragraph 42 the Court went on to state that a Member State's jurisdiction ratione personae over a broadcaster can be based only on the broadcaster's connection to that State's legal system, which in substance overlaps with the concept of establishment as used in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the EC Treaty, the wording of which presupposes that the supplier and the recipient of a service are `established' in two different Member States.
19 Where a television broadcaster has more than one establishment, the competent Member State is the State in which the broadcaster has the centre of its activities.  It is therefore for the national court to determine, applying that criteria, which Member State has jurisdiction over VT4's activities, taking into account in particular the place where decisions concerning programme policy are taken and the programmes to be broadcast are finally put together (Case C-222/94 Commission v United Kingdom, paragraph 58).
21 That argument disregards the fact the activity of a television broadcaster which consists in providing, on a permanent basis, services from the Member State in which it is established for the purposes of Article 2(1) of the Directive does not imply, as such, the pursuit in the host Member State of an activity in regard to which it must be determined whether it is temporary or not, as was the case in Case C-222/94 Commission v United Kingdom.
22 It must also be emphasized that the mere fact that all the broadcasts and advertisements are aimed exclusively at the Flemish public does not, as VTM claims, demonstrate that VT4 cannot be regarded as being established in the United Kingdom.  The Treaty does not prohibit an undertaking from exercising the freedom to provide services if it does not offer services in the Member State in which it is established.