larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Antoon Herpels v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1978-03-09
14ACCORDINGLY , THE LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT ON 27 JANUARY 1977 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A MERE CONFIRMATION OF THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS BUT RATHER AS THE DEFINITIVE OUTCOME OF A RECONSIDERATION OF HIS POSITION .
38ALTHOUGH THE RETROACTIVE WITHDRAWAL OF A WRONGFUL OR ERRONEOUS DECISION IS GENERALLY SUBJECT TO VERY STRICT CONDITIONS , ON THE OTHER HAND THE REVOCATION OF SUCH A DECISION AS REGARDS THE FUTURE IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE .
47NO FORM IS PRESCRIBED FOR COMPLAINTS WHICH MUST , AS THE COURT HAS OFTEN STATED , BE INTERPRETED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE ADMINISTRATION WITH ALL THE CARE THAT A LARGE AND WELL-EQUIPPED ORGANIZATION OWES TO THOSE HAVING DEALINGS WITH IT , INCLUDING MEMBERS OF ITS STAFF .
48ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROHIBIT THE SEEKING OF LEGAL ADVICE BY THOSE CONCERNED EVEN AT THAT STAGE , IT IS THEIR OWN DECISION AND THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES .
49ACCORDINGLY , THERE IS NO CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THE ALLEGED DAMAGE AND THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION .
Leonardo Leonardini v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1978-03-16
11ALTHOUGH IN ORDER TO ENSURE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE FULFILMENT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE RECOURSE TO PROVISIONAL MEASURES AND TO TAKE OUT AN INSURANCE POLICY SPECIFYING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THERE WOULD BE COVER FOR RISK , THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DUTY OF AN INSURER MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DIRECT OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTION UNDER THAT ARTICLE AND IN PARTICULAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT THE INSTITUTION MAY LEAVE TO THE INSURER THE TASK OF SETTLING THE PROBLEMS OF RISK COVER WHICH ARISE THEREFROM , RESTRICTING ITS OWN ROLE TO THAT OF INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE VICTIM .
Wolfgang Oehlschläger v Hauptzollamt Emmerich.
Date: 1978-03-16
4UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY , WHICH IS BASED ON A CLEAR SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE , THE LATTER IS EMPOWERED ONLY TO GIVE RULINGS ON THE INTERPRETATION OR THE VALIDITY OF A COMMUNITY PROVISION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURT PUTS BEFORE IT .

TO VERIFY WHETHER SUCH FACTS ARE CORRECT IS NOT WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE , AND IS A MATTER FOR THE NATIONAL COURT .
Gert Laumann and Anja Laumann v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz.
Date: 1978-03-16
5AS IN THE CASE OF THE EARLIER REGULATION NO 3 , THE PERSONS COVERED BY REGULATION NO 1408/71 , AS IS INDICATED BY ITS HEADING , INCLUDE NOT ONLY EMPLOYED PERSONS BUT ALSO THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .

THUS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 WHICH DEFINES THE PERSONS COVERED BY THE REGULATION THE PROVISIONS OF THE LATTER SHALL APPLY TO THE SURVIVORS OF WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE MEMBER STATES .

THE GENERAL TERMS IN WHICH THOSE PROVISIONS ARE COUCHED SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION IS NOT LIMITED TO WORKERS OR THEIR SURVIVORS WHO HAVE HAD EMPLOYMENT IN SEVERAL MEMBER STATES OR WHO ARE , OR HAVE BEEN , EMPLOYED IN ONE STATE WHILST RESIDING OR HAVING RESIDED IN ANOTHER .

THUS THE REGULATION ALSO APPLIES WHEN THE RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WAS THAT NOT OF THE WORKER HIMSELF BUT OF A SURVIVOR OF HIS .

THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED
Bestuur van het Algemeen Ziekenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v G. Pierik.
Date: 1978-03-16
15IT IS CLEAR FROM THE WORDS ' ' TREATMENT APPROPRIATE TO HIS CONDITION ' '  CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 22 ( 1 ) ( C ) THAT THE BENEFITS IN KIND FOR WHICH THE WORKER IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROVISION TO GO TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE COVER ALL TREATMENT CALCULATED TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE SICKNESS OR DISEASE FROM WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED SUFFERS .
16IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE WHETHER THE BENEFIT IN KIND WHICH THE WORKER REQUIRES CAN BE PROVIDED ON THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE WHERE HE RESIDES SINCE THE MERE FACT THAT THAT BENEFIT CORRESPONDS TO TREATMENT MORE APPROPRIATE TO THE STATE OF HEALTH OF THE PERSON CONCERNED IS DECISIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING THE AUTHORIZATION REFERRED TO IN THE  ABOVE-MENTIONED PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) ( C ).
17WHILST THE WORKER ' S RIGHT TO RECEIVE BENEFITS IN KIND PROVIDED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS SUBJECT PURSUANT TO THE SAID PARAGRAPH TO AN AUTHORIZATION , THE POWER OF THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION TO REFUSE THE AUTHORIZATION IS NEVERTHELESS LIMITED BY THE REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN BY THE REGULATION THAT THE WORKER SHOULD BE GUARANTEED THE OPPORTUNITY OF RECEIVING TREATMENT APPROPRIATE TO HIS STATE OF HEALTH PROVIDED IN ANY MEMBER STATE , WHATEVER THE PLACE OF HIS RESIDENCE OR THE MEMBER STATE TO WHICH THE SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION TO WHICH HE IS AFFILIATED BELONGS .
22THE DUTY LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 22 ( 2 ) TO GRANT THE AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 22 ( 1 ) ( C ) COVERS BOTH CASES WHERE THE TREATMENT PROVIDED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THAT WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED CAN RECEIVE IN THE MEMBER STATE WHERE HE RESIDES AND THOSE IN WHICH THE TREATMENT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE PROVIDED ON THE TERRITORY OF THE LATTER STATE .
25FURTHERMORE , REGULATION NO 574/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 21 MARCH 1972 FIXING THE PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING REGULATION NO 1408/71 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( I ) P . 159 ) STATES IN ARTICLE 93 ( 1 ) THAT THE AMOUNT OF BENEFITS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE REGULATION ' ' SHALL BE REFUNDED BY THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION TO THE INSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDED THE SAID BENEFITS AS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THAT INSTITUTION ' ' .
Unione nazionale importatori e commercianti motoveicoli esteri (UNICME) and others v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1978-03-16
16THE POSSIBILITY OF DETERMINING MORE OR LESS PRECISELY THE NUMBER OR EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM A MEASURE APPLIES BY NO MEANS IMPLIES THAT IT MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM .
Robert Bosch GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim.
Date: 1978-03-16
4THE OPERATIVE PART OF THAT JUDGMENT MUST THEREFORE BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THAT PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION .

IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO STATE TO THAT EFFECT THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN .
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1978-04-11
13THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FAILURE TO APPLY THAT DIRECTIVE HAS HAD NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED BY THAT DIRECTIVE .
Société Les Commissionnaires Réunis SARL v Receveur des douanes ; SARL Les fils de Henri Ramel v Receveur des douanes.
Date: 1978-04-20
24THE ABOLITION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES OF CUSTOMS DUTIES AND CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT CONSTITUTES A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON MARKET APPLICABLE TO ALL PRODUCTS AND GOODS WITH THE RESULT THAT , AS HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 NOVEMBER 1964 ( JOINED CASES 90 & 91/63 COMMISSION V GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG AND KINGDOM OF BELGIUM ( 1964 ) ECR 625 , AT P . 633 ) ' ' ANY POSSIBLE EXCEPTION , WHICH IN ANY EVENT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED , MUST BE CLEARLY LAID DOWN ' ' .
Silvio Ragazzoni v Caisse de compensation pour allocations familiales "Assubel".
Date: 1978-04-20
8FOR FAMILY ALLOWANCES TO BE REGARDED AS ' ' PAYABLE ' '  UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE RESIDING THE LAW OF SUCH STATE OF RESIDENCE MUST RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO THE PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES IN FAVOUR OF THE PERSON IN THAT FAMILY WHO WORKS IN SUCH STATE .
9THE PERSON CONCERNED MUST THUS FULFIL ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE DOMESTIC LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT .
10IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IN THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE DISPUTE AROSE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS IN FORCE IN ITALY AT THE TIME , ITALIAN LEGISLATION , IN THAT IT DID NOT CONFER THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD UPON A MOTHER WHO WAS NEITHER SEPARATED FROM NOR ABANDONED BY HER HUSBAND , PRECLUDED THE RIGHT OF THE FORMER TO RECEIVE FAMILY ALLOWANCES FOR HER CHILDREN .
11IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES WERE NOT ' ' PAYABLE ' '  UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WERE RESIDING .
12THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION MUST ACCORDINGLY BE THAT THE SUSPENSION , UNDER ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , OF THE ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 73 OF THAT REGULATION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE FATHER WORKS ABROAD IN A MEMBER STATE WHILST THE MOTHER IS EMPLOYED IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDE AND HAS NOT ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE SAID COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE A RIGHT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES EITHER BECAUSE ONLY THE FATHER IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS FOR AWARDING TO THE MOTHER THE RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED .
Bayerische HNL Vermehrungsbetriebe GmbH & Co. KG and others v Council and Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1978-05-25
4THE FINDING THAT A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE SUCH AS THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS NULL AND VOID IS HOWEVER INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF FOR THE COMMUNITY TO INCUR NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY . THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THAT THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT INCUR LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE WHICH INVOLVES CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY UNLESS A SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL HAS OCCURRED .
5IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE TREATY AND INFRINGED BY REGULATION NO 563/76 IS IN FACT DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL , AND THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISREGARD THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PROHIBITION IN THE SYSTEM OF THE TREATY . TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDITIONS MUST BE PRESENT IN ADDITION TO SUCH BREACH FOR THE COMMUNITY TO INCUR LIABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERION LAID DOWN IN THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PRINCIPLES IN THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES GOVERNING THE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO INDIVIDUALS BY LEGISLATIVE MEASURES . ALTHOUGH THESE PRINCIPLES VARY CONSIDERABLY FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO ANOTHER , IT IS HOWEVER POSSIBLE TO STATE THAT THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES CAN ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY AND IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INCUR LIABILITY FOR LEGISLATIVE MEASURES WHICH ARE THE RESULT OF CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY . THIS RESTRICTIVE VIEW IS EXPLAINED BY THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY , EVEN WHERE THE VALIDITY OF ITS MEASURES IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW , CANNOT ALWAYS BE HINDERED IN MAKING ITS DECISIONS BY THE PROSPECT OF APPLICATIONS FOR DAMAGES WHENEVER IT HAS OCCASION TO ADOPT LEGISLATIVE MEASURES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUALS .
6IT FOLLOWS FROM THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY BE REQUIRED , IN THE SECTORS COMING WITHIN THE ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE COMMUNITY , TO ACCEPT WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS CERTAIN HARMFUL EFFECTS ON THEIR ECONOMIC INTERESTS AS A RESULT OF A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FROM PUBLIC FUNDS EVEN IF THAT MEASURE HAS BEEN DECLARED NULL AND VOID . IN A LEGISLATIVE FIELD SUCH AS THE ONE IN QUESTION , IN WHICH ONE OF THE CHIEF FEATURES IS THE EXERCISE OF A WIDE DISCRETION ESSENTIAL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY , THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT THEREFORE INCUR LIABILITY UNLESS THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED HAS MANIFESTLY AND GRAVELY DISREGARDED THE LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS .
A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz.
Date: 1978-05-25
5DURING BOTH THE WRITTEN AND THE ORAL PROCEDURE , THE COMMISSION EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH , IN ITS VIEW , JUSTIFIED THE RETENTION IN THE MARKET IN WINE , OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS CHARGED ON IMPORTS IN THE CASE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY WHILE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS IN THAT SECTOR DID NOT APPLY TO OTHER MEMBER STATES . IN PARTICULAR IT SHOWED THAT THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MARKET IN WINE IN THE COMMUNITY DURING A PERIOD IN WHICH THE SITUATION RECORDED IN CERTAIN MEMBER STATES MIGHT WELL HAVE CAUSED DISTURBANCES IN IMPORTS INTO GERMANY . IT DOES NOT SEEM THEREFORE THAT THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION BY ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS ( EEC ) NOS 722/75 AND 2021/75 IN QUESTION .
Thomas J. Mulcahy v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1978-06-01
30SINCE THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION IS BASED ON THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATION THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT BOTH MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH v Finanzamt Warendorf.
Date: 1978-06-13
15IN PROVIDING IN PARAGRAPH 1 THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY SHALL BE INTER ALIA TO ENSURE A FAIR STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY , IN PARTICULAR BY INCREASING THE INDIVIDUAL EARNINGS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE , ARTICLE 39 DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF DIFFERENCES OF TREATMENT BETWEEN THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY , ALWAYS PROVIDED THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES OF TREATMENT ARE NOT ARBITRARY AND ARE BASED ON OBJECTIVE CRITERIA .

THE NEED FOR DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY , IN APPROPRIATE CASES , IS ACKNOWLEDGED IN ARTICLE 39 ( 2 ), WHICH PROVIDES THAT ' ' IN WORKING OUT THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY . . . ACCOUNT SHALL BE TAKEN OF : ( A ) THE PARTICULAR NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY , WHICH RESULTS FROM THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE AND FROM STRUCTURAL AND NATURAL DISPARITIES BETWEEN THE VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL REGIONS ' ' .

ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY PROHIBITS ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PRODUCERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , AND EVEN WITHIN A SINGLE COUNTRY OF THE COMMUNITY , DIFFERENT TREATMENT COULD BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION ONLY IF IT APPEARS TO BE ARBITRARY .
17IT APPEARS FROM THE CASE FILE INTER ALIA THAT , BECAUSE THEY USE FODDER WHICH IS MOSTLY THEIR OWN FARM PRODUCE , AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK BREEDERS AND KEEPERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF GERMAN TAX LAW ARE SUBJECT IN PARTICULAR TO THE RISKS INHERENT IN WORKING THE SOIL .

ON THE OTHER HAND , INDUSTRIAL LIVESTOCK BREEDERS AND KEEPERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF GERMAN TAX LAW ARE NOT EXPOSED TO THE SAME RISKS , AS THEY BUY THE FEEDING-STUFFS NEEDED FOR THEIR ANIMALS MOSTLY ON EITHER THE NATIONAL OR THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET , AND IF THEIR NATIONAL CURRENCY IS REVALUED THEY ARE ABLE TO OBTAIN THEM ABROAD AT ADVANTAGEOUS PRICES .

ACCORDINGLY , THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL LIVESTOCK BREEDERS AND KEEPERS AND INDUSTRIAL LIVESTOCK BREEDERS AND KEEPERS , WHICH GERMAN TAX LAW MAKES BY LAYING DOWN A RATIO BETWEEN THE HEAD OF LIVESTOCK AND THE UTILIZED AGRICULTURAL AREA AND WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ADOPTED AS AN OBJECTIVE , ALBEIT UNMODULATED , CRITERION AS REGARDS THE GRANTING OF THE AID WHICH IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT BY THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 2464/69 , CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS DISCRIMINATORY .
Bertrand v Paul Ott KG.
Date: 1978-06-21
10THE RESERVATIONS OF THE COUR DE CASSATION REGARDING THE PRECISE STATUS OF THE SAID CONTRACT PERSUADED IT TO REFER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
14SINCE THESE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES HAVE LED TO THE CREATION OF DIFFERENT RULES IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES IT IS NECESSARY , FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING OBSTACLES TO LEGAL RELATIONS AND TO THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN THE CONTEXT OF INTRA-COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN MATTERS OF THE SALE OF GOODS ON INSTALMENT CREDIT TERMS , TO CONSIDER THAT CONCEPT AS BEING INDEPENDENT AND THEREFORE COMMON TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES .
15IN FACT , IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO GUARANTEE THE HARMONIOUS OPERATION OF ARTICLE 13 ET SEQ . OF THE CONVENTION IF THE EXPRESSION IN QUESTION WERE GIVEN DIFFERENT MEANINGS IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES ACCORDING TO THE COURT FIRST SEISED OF A DISPUTE CONCERNING A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS ON INSTALMENT CREDIT TERMS OR THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO ORDER ENFORCEMENT .
16IT IS THEREFORE INDISPENSABLE , FOR THE COHERENCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE CONVENTION , TO GIVE THAT EXPRESSION A UNIFORM SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT ALLIED TO THE COMMUNITY ORDER .
17TO THIS FINDING MUST BE ADDED THE FACT THAT THE COMPULSORY JURISDICTION PROVIDED FOR IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION MUST , BECAUSE IT DEROGATES FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE SYSTEM LAID DOWN BY THE CONVENTION IN MATTERS OF CONTRACT , SUCH AS MAY BE DERIVED IN PARTICULAR FROM ARTICLES 2 AND 5 ( 1 ), BE STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE OBJECTIVES PROPER TO SECTION 4 OF THE SAID CONVENTION .
19IN ORDER TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT AN ATTEMPT MUST BE MADE TO ELABORATE AN INDEPENDENT CONCEPT OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE ON INSTALMENT CREDIT TERMS IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH ARE APPARENT IN THIS FIELD FROM THE BODY OF LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND BEARING IN MIND THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROTECTION OF A CERTAIN CATEGORY OF BUYERS .
20IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RULES COMMON TO THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES THAT THE SALE OF GOODS ON INSTALMENT CREDIT TERMS IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE PRICE IS DISCHARGED BY WAY OF SEVERAL PAYMENTS OR WHICH IS LINKED TO A FINANCING CONTRACT .
21A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 14 , IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY SECTION 4 , ENTAILS THE RESTRICTION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ADVANTAGE DESCRIBED ABOVE TO BUYERS WHO ARE IN NEED OF PROTECTION , THEIR ECONOMIC POSITION BEING ONE OF WEAKNESS IN COMPARISON WITH SELLERS BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PRIVATE FINAL CONSUMERS AND ARE NOT ENGAGED , WHEN BUYING THE PRODUCT ACQUIRED ON INSTALMENT CREDIT TERMS , IN TRADE OR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES .
Simmenthal SpA v Amministrazione delle finanze.
Date: 1978-06-28
10NEVERTHELESS , ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 177 DOES NOT MAKE THE REFERENCE TO THE COURT SUBJECT TO WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS DURING WHICH THE NATIONAL COURT DRAWS UP THE REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING WERE DEFENDED , IT MAY WHERE NECESSARY PROVE TO BE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THAT A QUESTION SHOULD BE REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ONLY AFTER BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN HEARD .
27HOWEVER , IT FOLLOWS FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIVES MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF PECUNIARY CHARGES LEVIED IN ADDITION TO CUSTOMS DUTIES INTRODUCED BY THE COMMUNITY THE INTRINSIC EFFECT OF SUCH CHARGES ON THE RELEVANT TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES MUST BE UNIFORM IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES .
Patrick Christopher Kenny v Insurance Officer.
Date: 1978-06-28
9AS REGARDS WORKERS , THIS RULE HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OF THE EEC TREATY AND BY MEASURES OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF THOSE ARTICLES , IN PARTICULAR , REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
11THIS PROVISION IS DESIGNED TO ENSURE FOR WORKERS COVERED BY THE REGULATION , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY , EQUALITY IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL SECURITY WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO NATIONALITY , BY PROHIBITING ANY DISCRIMINATION IN SUCH MATTERS ARISING FROM THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF MEMBER STATES .
16IT FOLLOWS CLEARLY FROM THESE PROVISIONS THAT , SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 18 ON THE AGGREGATION , FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACQUISITION , RETENTION OR RECOVERY OF THE RIGHT TO BENEFITS , OF INSURANCE PERIODS COMPLETED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF OTHER MEMBER STATES , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION TO LAY DOWN THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION , RETENTION , LOSS OR SUSPENSION OF THE RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS SO LONG AS THOSE CONDITIONS APPLY WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO THE NATIONALS OF THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED AND TO THOSE OF OTHER MEMBER STATES .
17IT WOULD ONLY BE OTHERWISE IF THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OR RETENTION OF THE RIGHT WERE DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY COULD IN FACT BE FULFILLED ONLY BY NATIONALS OR IF THE CONDITIONS FOR LOSS OR SUSPENSION OF THE RIGHT WERE DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY WOULD IN FACT MORE EASILY BE SATISFIED BY NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES THAN BY THOSE OF THE STATE OF THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION .
18BY PROHIBITING EVERY MEMBER STATE FROM APPLYING ITS LAW DIFFERENTLY ON THE GROUND OF NATIONALITY , WITHIN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE TREATY , ARTICLES 7 AND 48 ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY DISPARITIES IN TREATMENT WHICH MAY RESULT , BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , FROM DIVERGENCES EXISTING BETWEEN THE LAWS OF THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES , SO LONG AS THE LATTER AFFECT ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR NATIONALITY .
Benzine en Petroleum Handelsmaatschappij BV and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1978-06-29
30THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE CONTESTED DECISION THAT REDUCTIONS IN SUPPLIES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF A REFERENCE PERIOD FIXED IN THE YEAR BEFORE THE CRISIS , ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE EXPLICABLE IN CASES IN WHICH A CONTINUED SUPPLY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN MAINTAINED , DURING THAT PERIOD , BETWEEN SELLER AND PURCHASER , CANNOT BE APPLIED WHEN THE SUPPLIER CEASED DURING THE COURSE OF THAT SAME PERIOD TO CARRY ON SUCH RELATIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMER , REGARD BEING HAD IN PARTICULAR TO THE FACT THAT THE PLANS OF ANY UNDERTAKING ARE NORMALLY BASED ON REASONABLE FORECASTS .
31MOREOVER , THE ADVANCES IN PETROL AGAINST CRUDE OIL AGREED TO BY BP IN PURSUANCE OF THE PROCESSING AGREEMENT , AS THEY OCCUR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AN AGREEMENT WHOSE PURPOSE WAS SOLELY THE REFINING OF CRUDE OIL SUPPLIED BY ABG AND NOT THE SUPPLYING OF ABG WITH MOTOR SPIRIT , CANNOT SERVE AS A VALID ARGUMENT TO COMPARE ABG ' S POSITION IN THIS CASE IN RELATION TO BP WITH THAT OF A TRADITIONAL CUSTOMER OF BP DURING THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REFERENCE PERIOD .
32FOR ALL THESE REASONS , SINCE ABG ' S POSITION IN RELATION TO BP HAD BEEN , FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE CRISIS OCCURRED , THAT OF AN OCCASIONAL CUSTOMER , BP CANNOT BE ACCUSED OF HAVING APPLIED TO IT DURING THE CRISIS LESS FAVOURABLE TREATMENT THAN THAT WHICH IT RESERVED FOR ITS TRADITIONAL CUSTOMERS .
Statens Kontrol med ædle Metaller v Preben Larsen ; Flemming Kjerulff v Statens Kontrol med ædle Metaller.
Date: 1978-06-29
24IT THEREFORE SEEMS NECESSARY TO INTERPRET ARTICLE 95 AS MEANING THAT THE RULE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THAT PROVISION ALSO APPLIES WHEN THE EXPORT OF A PRODUCT CONSTITUTES , WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A SYSTEM OF INTERNAL TAXATION , THE CHARGEABLE EVENT GIVING RISE TO A FISCAL CHARGE .
27IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO HOLD , AS THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY INDICATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 23 JANUARY 1975 ( P . J . VAN DER HULST ' S ZONEN V PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR SIERGEWASSEN , CASE 51/74 ( 1975 ) ECR 79 , PARAGRAPH 34 OF THE DECISION ), THAT ARTICLE 95 , CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER TAX PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN THE TREATY , MUST BE INTERPRETED AS ALSO PROHIBITING ANY TAX DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR EXPORT TO OTHER MEMBER STATES .
33IT IS NECESSARY TO OBSERVE IN THIS CONNEXION THAT THE EEC TREATY CONTAINS NO PROVISION PROHIBITING EFFECTS OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF THIS TYPE .
34ALTHOUGH THE ABOLITION OF SUCH EFFECTS IS DOUBTLESS DESIRABLE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF GOODS , IT CAN HOWEVER ONLY RESULT FROM THE HARMONIZATION OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEMS UNDER ARTICLE 99 OR POSSIBLY ARTICLE 100 OF THE TREATY .
35AT PRESENT , COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT HOWEVER CONTAIN ANY RULES WHICH PREVENT A MEMBER STATE FROM ALSO INCLUDING , IN THE APPLICATION OF A SYSTEM OF TAXATION INTENDED TO FINANCE THE CONTROL OF PRECIOUS METAL , PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR EXPORT .