larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Kari Uecker and Vera Jacquet v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Date: 1997-06-05
16 It has consistently been held that the Treaty rules governing freedom of movement and regulations adopted to implement them cannot be applied to cases which have no factor linking them with any of the situations governed by Community law and all elements of which are purely internal to a single Member State (Joined Cases 35/82 and 36/82 Morson and Jhanjan v State of the Netherlands [1982] ECR 3723, paragraph 16; Case 147/87 Zaoui v Cramif [1987] ECR 5511, paragraph 15; Case C-332/90 Steen v Deutsche Bundespost [1992] ECR I-341, paragraph 9; Case C-153/91 Petit v Office National des Pensions [1992] ECR I-4973, paragraph 8; and Case C-206/91 Koua Poirrez v Caisse d'Allocations Familiales [1992] ECR I-6685, paragraph 11).
21 To grant the spouse of a worker who is a national of a Member State the right to be employed in that State, in which the worker exercises a professional or trade activity, would not correspond to the objective of Article 48 of the Treaty which Regulation No 1612/68 seeks to implement, namely in particular that of enabling a worker to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purpose of employment.
23 In that regard, it must be noted that citizenship of the Union, established by Article 8 of the EC Treaty, is not intended to extend the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty also to internal situations which have no link with Community law.  Furthermore, Article M of the Treaty on European Union provides that nothing in that Treaty is to affect the Treaties establishing the European Communities, subject to the provisions expressly amending those treaties.  Any discrimination which nationals of a Member State may suffer under the law of that State fall within the scope of that law and must therefore be dealt with within the framework of the internal legal system of that State.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1997-06-05
10 However, the Court has consistently held 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, the judgment of 12 December 1996 in Case C-297/95 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-0000, paragraph 9).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1997-06-05
12 In that connection, it should be noted that, according to the Court's case-law, the reasoned opinion must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which persuaded the Commission that the State concerned had failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty (Case C-247/89 Commission v Portugal [1991] ECR I-3659, paragraph 22).
14 As regards the originating application, it should be pointed out that Article 19 of the Protocol on the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure provide that the application in a case brought before the Court must contain, among other things, the subject-matter of the dispute, the form of order sought and a brief statement of the grounds on which the application is based (Case C-43/90 Commission v Germany [1992] ECR I-1909, paragraph 7).
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1997-06-10
14 It must be stated first of all that due consultation of the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty constitutes an essential formal requirement breach of which renders the measure concerned void.  Effective participation of the Parliament in the legislative process of the Community, in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Treaty, represents an essential factor in the institutional balance intended by the Treaty.  This function reflects the fundamental democratic principle that the people should take part in the exercise of power through the intermediary of a representative assembly (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-21/94 Parliament v Council [1995] ECR I-1827, paragraph 17).
15 It is settled law that the requirement to consult the European Parliament in the legislative procedure, in the cases provided for by the Treaty, means that it must be freshly consulted whenever the text finally adopted, taken as a whole, differs in essence from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted, except in cases in which the amendments substantially correspond to the wishes of the Parliament itself (see, in particular, the judgments in Case C-388/92 Parliament v Council [1994] ECR I-2067, paragraph 10 and in Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR 1-4973, paragraph 38).
22 As far as that argument is concerned, it must be recalled that, as the Court held in paragraph 26 of its judgment in Case C-21/94 Parliament v Council, cited above, proper consultation of the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty constitutes one of the means enabling it to play an effective role in the legislative process of the Community; to accept the Council's argument would result in seriously undermining that essential participation in the maintenance of the institutional balance intended by the Treaty and would amount to disregarding the influence that due consultation of the Parliament can have on adoption of the measure in question.
Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks.
Date: 1997-06-12
7 According to the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to the regulation, the period of effective protection under a patent prior to adoption of the regulation was insufficient to cover the investment put into the pharmaceutical research.  The regulation is specifically designed to remedy that insufficiency by the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products in respect of which marketing authorization has been granted.
19 It should be noted at the outset that Article 19(2) of the regulation, which forms part of the transitional provisions, operates, in the circumstances provided for in Article 19(1), as a derogation from Article 7, pursuant to which an application for a certificate must be lodged within six months of the date on which the marketing authorization or, as the case may be, the patent is granted.  Were it not for Article 19(2), all products covered by a marketing authorization granted more than six months prior to the entry into force of the regulation, that is to say, before 2 July 1992, would have been denied the advantages of the scheme established by the regulation. As it is, the question raised by the national court concerns the interpretation of the conditions laid down in Article 19(1), to which Article 19(2) refers.
Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ldª v Alfândega de Lisboa (Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de 2ª Instância).
Date: 1997-06-17
13 The Court has consistently held that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the customs classification of goods must be their objective characteristics and properties, as defined by the wording of the headings of the Common Customs Tariff and the notes to the sections or chapters (Joined Cases C-274/95, C-275/95 and C-276/95 Wünsche v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1997] ECR I-0000, paragraph 15).  Likewise, the notes preceding the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the explanatory notes drawn up by the Customs Cooperation Council are important means for ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have any legally binding force (see Joined Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94 Colin and Dupré [1995] ECR I-4759, paragraph 21, and Case C-121/95 VOBIS Microcomputer v Oberfinanzdirektion München [1996] ECR I-3047, paragraph 13).
17 It therefore follows that subheading 0406 20, being more specific, is in principle to be preferred to subheading 0406 90.
Codiesel - Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ldª v Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro.
Date: 1997-06-17
12 It should be noted at the outset that Article 177 of the Treaty is based on a clear separation of functions between national courts, on the one hand, and the Court of Justice, on the other, and that the latter is empowered solely to rule on the interpretation or validity of a Community measure on the basis of the facts indicated to it by the national court (see, in particular, Case 167/84 Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen v Drünert [1985] ECR 2235, paragraph 12).
13 However, in the event of questions having been improperly formulated or going beyond the scope of the powers conferred on it by Article 177, the Court is free to extract from all the factors provided by the national court, and in particular from the statement of the grounds contained in the reference, the elements of Community law requiring an interpretation - or, as the case may be, an assessment of validity - having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute (see Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board v Redmond [1978] ECR 2347, paragraph 26).
17 The Court has consistently held that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties, as defined in the relevant headings of the Common Customs Tariff and the notes to the sections or chapters.  Likewise, for the purpose of interpreting the Common Customs Tariff, both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council are important means for ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (see Case C-121/95 VOBIS Microcomputer v Oberfinanzdirektion München [1996] ECR I-3047, paragraph 13).
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1997-06-25
22 It follows from the Treaty context in which Article 155 must be placed and also from practical requirements that the concept of implementation must be given a wide interpretation.  Since only the Commission is in a position to keep track of agricultural market trends and to act quickly where necessary, the Council may find it necessary to confer on it wide powers in that sphere.  Consequently, the limits of those powers must be determined by reference among other things to the essential general aims of the market organization (Case C-478/93 Netherlands v Commission [1995] ECR I-3081, paragraph 30).
23 The Court has held that that discretion also applies to some extent to the finding of the basic facts (see in that regard Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, paragraph 25).  As the Advocate General observed in paragraph 30 of his Opinion, the Court confirmed more recently, in its judgment in Netherlands v Commission, cited above, that the Commission may verify the accuracy of the figures supplied by the national administrations and correct them on its own initiative if necessary.  However, that power must not be exercised in a manner conflicting either with the basic regulations or with the implementing rules, which in this case are contained in particular in Regulation No 2261/84.
39 In so far as an assessment of a complex economic situation is involved, it must be borne in mind at the outset 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 power (Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34).
52 It is settled case-law that an act of a Community institution is vitiated by misuse of powers if it was adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case (Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, paragraph 69).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1997-06-25
15 That argument cannot be accepted.  Even if the amount of VAT due in the event of double taxation would in fact be insignificant, which the Commission disputes, that cannot absolve Italy from properly implementing Article 13B(c) of the Sixth Directive whose very purpose is to avoid double taxation contrary to the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax.
Incorrect transposition of the final part of Article 13B(c) of the Sixth Directive
19 In regard to that argument, it must be pointed out that, while Article 13B(c) of the Sixth Directive enables the Member States to determine the conditions for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions laid down therein, it does not allow them to treat a transaction which is to be exempted as one which falls outside the scope of VAT.  Such a transposition is in any event contrary to the correct and straightforward application of exemptions required by Article 13B(c) if it does not have the same effects as an exemption.
Criminal proceedings against René Kieffer and Romain Thill.
Date: 1997-06-25
27 It is settled law that the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and of all measures having equivalent effect applies not only to national measures but also to measures adopted by the Community institutions (see in particular to this effect Case 15/83 Denkavit Nederland v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1984] ECR 2171, paragraph 15, and Case C-51/93 Meyhui v Schott Zwiesel Glaswerke [1994] ECR I-3879, paragraph 11).
30 As the Court has already held, barriers to the free movement of goods may be accepted if they are essential in order to obtain reasonably complete and accurate information on movements of goods within the Community (see in particular Case 159/78 Commission v Italy [1979] ECR 3247, paragraph 7).
33 According to the Court's case-law, in order to establish whether a Community measure complies with the principle of proportionality, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (Case C-426/93 Germany v Council [1995] ECR I-3723, paragraph 42).
37 In view of the above considerations, it does not appear that the obligation to make declarations imposed by the Regulation goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued, especially since, as the Court has frequently stated, the Community legislature enjoys a discretion in the framework of its powers of harmonization (see inter alia the Meyhui judgment, paragraph 21).
Carlos Mora Romero v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz.
Date: 1997-06-25
10 It is settled case-law that Article 6 of the Treaty which lays down the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, applies independently only to situations governed by Community law in respect of which the Treaty lays down no specific prohibition of discrimination (see in particular Case C-193/94 Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos [1996] ECR I-929, paragraph 20).
11 In the matter of freedom of movement for workers the principle of discrimination has been given effect and specific expression by Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty and by acts of the Community institutions adopted on the basis of those articles, and in particular by Regulation No 1612/68 and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) (Case 1/78 Kenny v Insurance Officer [1978] ECR 1489, paragraph 9).
16 It is settled case-law that the members of a worker's family within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 qualify only indirectly for the equal treatment accorded to the worker himself by Article 7 of that regulation (Case 316/85 Centre Public d'Aide Sociale de Courcelles v Lebon [1987] ECR 2836, paragraph 12).
21 Pursuant to Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6, hereinafter `Regulation No 1408/71'), that regulation is to apply to the survivors of employed or self-employed persons who have been subject to the legislation of one or more Member States, irrespective of the nationality of such employed or self-employed persons, where their survivors are nationals of one of the Member States or Stateless persons or refugees residing within the territory of one of the Member States.
25 It is settled case-law that where such benefits are mentioned in that declaration, they constitute benefits under Article 78 of the Regulation No 1408/71 (Case 237/78 CRAM v Toia [1979] ECR 2645, paragraph 8, and Case C-251/89 Athanasopoulos and Others [1991] ECR I-2797, paragraph 28).
29 The object of that provision is to ensure, in conformity with Article 48 of the Treaty, equal treatment in matters of social security, without distinction based on nationality, for the persons to whom the regulation applies by abolishing all discrimination in that regard deriving from the national legislation of the Member States.
32 In that connection, it must also be borne in mind that the equal treatment rule laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 prohibits not only overt discrimination  based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result (CRAM v Toia, cited above, paragraph 12).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1997-07-03
15 As the Court has consistently held, 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 the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraph 20, and Case C-302/95 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-6765, paragraph 13).
16 Consequently, it must be held that, by introducing and maintaining in force an administrative provision extending to the letting of certain forms of movable property the exemption from VAT which, pursuant to Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive, is restricted exclusively to the letting of immovable property, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive.
Generics BV v Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd.
Date: 1997-07-09
15 It has consistently been held that any measure capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction (Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5, and Case C-412/93 Leclerc-Siplec v TF1 Publicité and M6 Publicité [1995] ECR I-179, paragraph 18).
19 The Court has held that, in providing an exception, on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property, to one of the fundamental principles of the common market, Article 36 of the Treaty admits such derogation only in so far as it is justified for the purpose of safeguarding rights constituting the specific subject-matter of that property, and that, as regards patents, includes, in particular, allowing the holder a monopoly of first exploitation of his product (see, to that effect, Case 187/80 Merck v Stephar and Exler [1981] ECR 2063, paragraph 10).
21 Furthermore, measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions justified on grounds relating to the protection of industrial and commercial property are permitted by Article 36 on the express condition that they do not constitute either a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States (see, inter alia, Case C-191/90 Generics and Harris Pharmaceuticals v Smith Kline and French [1992] ECR I-5335, paragraph 21).
Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 1997-07-17
22 It is established case-law that, in the procedure laid down by Article 177 of the Treaty providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it.
23 With this in mind, the Court of Justice may have to reformulate the questions referred to it or to examine whether a question relating to the validity of a provision of Community law is based on a correct reading of the provision in question.
35 Given that reading of Regulation No 804/68, it is not necessary to examine either the validity of that regulation with reference to the principle of non-discrimination, since the argument relating to breach thereof is based on a reading of the regulation as not allowing export refunds for milk products contained in preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or concentrates of coffee while allowing such refunds for milk products contained in preparations with a basis of coffee, or the consequences to be drawn from any declaration of invalidity of that regulation.
The third question
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1997-07-17
9 It should be noted, first of all, that where a provision of the Staff Regulations requires implementation at national level, Article 5 of the Treaty requires the Member States to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular (see Case 137/80 Commission v Belgium [1981] ECR 2393, paragraph 9).  That is the case in respect of the obligation set out in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
11 As for the arguments submitted by the Kingdom of Spain to justify its failure to act, it is sufficient to recall that, according to settled case-law of the Court, 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 obligations resulting from a Community regulation (Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 17).
Hauptzollamt München v Wacker Werke GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 1997-07-17
21 The possibility of tariff anomalies arising, and resulting in customs advantages for the traders concerned, is a risk inherent in the arrangements introduced by the regulation on outward processing, the primary aim of which is to prevent customs duties from being charged on goods exported from the European Community for processing in respect of which Article 1 permits total relief from import duties in certain circumstances.  The customs advantages and disadvantages which may arise in individual cases must be tolerated provided there is nothing to indicate that the prices charged by the two traders respectively were influenced by the business links between them.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1997-07-17
10 Contrary to what the Commission claims, however, the Court does not have to take account of the failure to notify the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, since the Italian Republic did not adopt those provisions within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion (see Case C-147/94 Commission v Spain [1995] ECR I-1015, paragraph 7).