larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
James Joseph Cato v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-04-08
18 In order to assess the merits of Mr Cato' s application, it should be recalled that, as the Court has consistently held (see for example the judgment in Case C-200/89 FUNOC v Commission [1990] ECR I-3669), it follows from the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty that the Commission may incur non-contractual liability and the right to compensation for damage suffered may arise only if a series of conditions regarding the illegality of the alleged conduct of the institutions, the reality of the damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the alleged damage have first been met.
Commission of the European Communities v Walter Feilhauer.
Date: 1992-04-08
13 This objection of lack of jurisdiction cannot be upheld. While, under an arbitration clause entered into pursuant to Article 181 of the EEC Treaty, the Court may be called on to decide a dispute on the basis of the national law governing the contract, its jurisdiction to determine a dispute concerning that contract falls to be determined solely with regard to Article 181 of the EEC Treaty and the terms of the arbitration clause, and this cannot be affected by provisions of national law which allegedly exclude its jurisdiction.
Mignini SpA v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi sul mercato agricolo (AIMA).
Date: 1992-04-08
15 As the Court has consistently held (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 300/86 Van Landschoot v Mera [1988] ECR 3443, paragraph 9), the prohibition on discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, which is a specific expression of the general principle of equal treatment, prevents comparable situations from being treated differently, unless such difference of treatment is objectively justified.
16 The Court has also held (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases 279, 280, 285 and 286/84 Rau v Commission [1987] ECR 1069, paragraph 34) that in order to establish whether a provision of Community law 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. Furthermore, whilst a measure' s patent unsuitability for achieving the objective which the competent institution seeks to pursue may affect its legality, the Community institutions must, nonetheless be recognized as having a broad discretionary power in regard to the common agricultural policy which reflects the responsibilities which the Treaty imposes on them.
F. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-04-08
6 It should be noted, in limine, that according to Article 168a of the EEC Treaty and the corresponding provisions of the ECSC and EAEC Treaties, appeals are limited to points of law. That restriction is confirmed in the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC and the corresponding provisions of the Statutes of the Court of Justice of the ECSC and the EAEC which go on to set out the grounds on which an appeal may lie, namely lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant and the infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
7 It should also be noted that the appeal may only be founded on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts, and, accordingly, the appeal is therefore admissible only in so far as it is claimed that the decision of the Court of First Instance is incompatible with the rules of law the application of which it had to ensure (Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I-4339, paragraphs 12 and 13).
The applicant' s appeal
The first plea in law
Beirafrio - Indùstria de Produtos Alimentares Ldª v Chefe do Serviço da Conferência final da Alfandega do Porto.
Date: 1992-04-08
15 Not until the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1715/90 of 20 June 1990 on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature (OJ 1990 L 160, p. 1), which entered into force on 1 January 1991, did the Community legislature undertake harmonization in this area by providing that only information concerning tariff classification is to be regarded as binding, indicating which authorities are competent to supply such information and laying down common procedures for its provision.
21 The fact that the error made by the competent authorities was not reasonably detectable by the person liable is, on the other hand, one of the preconditions for the application of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79. That condition must therefore be fulfilled where a person liable who is unable to rely on Article 5(1) of that regulation, in particular where the information supplied to him was not binding on the administration, wishes to invoke Article 5(2) of that regulation. It must be recalled, in that connection, that the Court has consistently held that it is for the national court to decide whether that condition has been satisfied, having regard to the nature of the error, the professional experience of the trader concerned and the degree of care which he exercised (see in particular the judgment in Case C-64/89 Hauptzollamt Giessen v Deutsche Fernsprecher [1990] ECR I-2535).
Gordon Sinclair Gray v Adjudication Officer.
Date: 1992-04-08
10 It is to be noted that by providing, first, that in the case of Community nationals moving to a Member State periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of any other Member State are to be taken into account in that State for the purposes of the acquisition, retention or recovery of entitlement to unemployment benefits and, secondly, that unemployed workers seeking work in another Member State are for a limited period to retain entitlement to unemployment benefits provided for by the legislation of the State in which they were last employed even though they are not available to the employment services of that State, Regulation No 1408/71 confers on those workers rights which they would not otherwise enjoy and which thus help to ensure freedom of movement for workers in accordance with Article 51 of the Treaty.
11 It is further to be noted that, as the Court ruled in its judgment in Joined Cases 41/79, 121/79 and 796/89 (Testa v Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit [1980] ECR 1979, at paragraph 14), Article 51 of the Treaty does not prohibit the Community legislature from attaching conditions to the rights and advantages which it accords in order to ensure freedom of movement for workers or from determining the limits thereto.
12 As regards the entitlement to unemployment benefits of workers seeking employment in a Member State other than that in which they last worked or paid contributions, the Council considered it necessary that such entitlement should be subject to conditions designed to encourage such persons to seek work in the Member State in which they were last employed, to make that State bear the burden of providing the unemployment benefits, and, finally, to ensure that those benefits are granted only to those actually seeking employment. In attaching such conditions to Article 67(3) and Article 69(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, the Council made proper use of its discretion.
Pieter de Jong v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 1992-05-06
15 It should be noted that the purpose of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive is to ensure equal treatment as between a taxable person who applies goods forming part of the assets of his business for private use and an ordinary consumer who buys goods of the same type. In pursuit of that objective, that provision prevents a taxable person who has been able to deduct VAT on the purchase of goods used for his business from escaping the payment of VAT when he transfers to business use those goods from his business for private purposes and from thereby enjoying advantages to which he is not entitled by comparison with an ordinary consumer who buys goods and pays VAT on them.
17 Where a taxable person acquires goods solely for his private requirements, he is acting in a private capacity and not as a taxable person within the meaning of the Sixth Directive. Consequently, the various provisions of the Sixth Directive concerning the acquisition of goods by a business, in particular Article 17(2), which confers on taxable persons the right to deduct VAT, and the administrative and accounting rules laid down in Articles 18 and 22 of the Sixth Directive, do not apply.
Procurator fiscal, Elgin v Kenneth Gordon Wood and James Cowie.
Date: 1992-05-07
13 However, a derogation from that principle was made by Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1), which entailed inter alia a system of national fishing quotas (see Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 170/83 and the judgments in Case C-3/87 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Agegate [1989] ECR 4459, at paragraph 16, and Case C-216/87 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Jaderow [1989] ECR 4509, at paragraphs 17 and 24). Pursuant to that system, only the vessels flying the flag of a Member State are authorized to fish against the fishing quotas of that State.
15 In the exercise of the powers thus ascribed to them the Member States may make access to their fishing quotas by their vessels subject to a licensing system, as is indicated in Article 11a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1), inserted into that regulation by Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3483/88 of 7 November 1988 (OJ 1988 L 306, p. 2) (see also the judgment in Case C-9/89 Spain v Council [1990] ECR I-1383, paragraph 16). They may attach certain conditions to those licences until such time as those conditions are governed exclusively by Community law and provided that they are suitable and necessary for attaining the aim of the quotas (see the judgment in Case C-216/87 Jaderow, cited above, at paragraphs 19 and 25).
19 As regards Article 7 of the Treaty, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, it must be observed that the condition in question affects only fishing vessels flying the flag of the Member State which imposed the condition and not vessels flying the flag of other Member States and fishing for the same species in the same ICES areas. Since the catches of those vessels are counted against the quotas of the Member State whose flag they fly, they are subject to the control measures adopted by that State. According to the case-law of the Court, Article 7 of the Treaty does not apply to any disparities in treatment or distortions which may result for persons and undertakings subject to the jurisdiction of the Community from the application by a Member State of measures that are stricter than those applied in the same sphere by other Member States (see in this connection the judgment in Joined Cases 185/78 to 204/78 van Dam [1979] ECR 2345, at paragraph 10).
28 However, in view of the fact that the adoption of such a national measure is not made conditional on its prior notification to the Commission, the notification requirement in question must be regarded as having been laid down for the purposes of information only. Consequently, the absence of such notification does not affect the validity of a measure which satisfies the criteria mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 15.
Pesquerias De Bermeo SA and Naviera Laida SA v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1992-05-07
26 It must also be borne in mind that the Court has held (see its judgment in Case C-269/90 Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Mitte v Technische Universitaet Muenchen [1991] ECR I-5469) that where the Community institutions have such a power of appraisal, respect for the rights guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures is of fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the obligation to give an adequate statement of the reasons for the decision. That statement of reasons must show, clearly and unequivocally, the reasoning of the author of the measure, so that the person concerned can, in order to defend his rights, ascertain the grounds on which it was adopted, and the Court can undertake its review.
34 With respect to the alleged breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, it must be borne in mind that the Court has consistently held that whilst the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, traders cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained (see, to that effect, the judgment in Case C-350/88 Delacre v Commission [1990] ECR I-395). That applies to a field like that of exploratory fishing, where the objective being pursued is constantly changing by reference, in particular, to the results of previous fishing voyages.
42 It must be stated in that regard that, as has been consistently held, the Community' s non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty depends on the coincidence of a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the Community institution, the fact of damage and a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the wrongful act complained of (see to that effect the judgment in Case C-308/87 Grifoni v Commission [1990] ECR I-1203, paragraph 6).
Aldo Bozzi v Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e dei Procuratori legali.
Date: 1992-05-07
9 The Court has consistently held (see, most recently, its judgment in Case C-200/90 Dansk Denkavit ApS and Another v Skattenministeriet [1992] ECR I-2217) that the purpose of Article 33 is to prevent the introduction of taxes, duties or charges which, through being levied on the movement of goods and services in a way comparable to VAT, would jeopardize the functioning of the common system of VAT. Taxes, duties and charges must in any event be regarded as being imposed on the movement of goods and services in a way comparable to VAT if they exhibit the essential characteristics of VAT.
12 As the Court has repeatedly held (see, in particular, the judgments in Case 252/86 Bergandi v Directeur-Général des Impôts [1988] ECR 1343, paragraph 15, Joined Cases 93/88 and 94/88 Wisselink and Others v Staatssecretaris van Financiën [1989] ECR 2671, paragraph 18, Case C-109/90 Giant [1991] ECR I-1385, paragraphs 11 and 12 and in the aforementioned Dansk Denkavit case, paragraph 11), the essential features of VAT are as follows: VAT applies generally to transactions relating to goods or services; it is proportional to the price of those goods or services; it is charged at each stage of the production and distribution process; and finally it is imposed on the added value of goods and services, since the tax payable on a transaction is calculated after deduction of the tax paid on the previous transaction.
15 Secondly, the supplementary contribution is not always proportional to the fee due from the client for the professional service. Although in principle Article 11 of Law No 576/1980 provides that the amount of the supplementary contribution should be a percentage of the consideration making up annual turnover for the purposes of VAT, that same provision nevertheless contains two important exceptions. The first concerns professional associations and companies for which it is provided that the supplementary contribution is payable as a percentage of the income received by the person concerned. It is clear that in such a case the basis on which the supplementary contribution is calculated is determined by criteria other than the price of services paid by clients. The second exception concerns members of the Fund whose turnover is less than a certain amount and who must therefore pay a minimum contribution calculated on a flat-rate basis. For that category, which represents, as emerged during oral argument before the Court, 25% of the advocates and procuratori legali affiliated to the Fund, the supplementary contribution is likewise not based on the price paid for provision of the service.
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1992-05-12
11 It should first be recalled that, as the Court has held, it is necessary for the purposes of the application of Article 95 of the Treaty, to take into consideration not only the rate of the internal tax affecting domestic and imported products directly or indirectly but also the basis of assessment and the detailed rules for levying the tax in question (see the judgment in Case 55/79 Commission v Ireland [1980] ECR 481, paragraph 8).
12 Furthermore, it has been held on several occasions that the first paragraph of Article 95 is infringed where the taxation on the imported product and that on the similar domestic product are calculated in a different manner on the basis of different criteria which lead, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being imposed on the imported product (see in particular the judgment in Case 45/75 REWE-Zentrale v Hauptzollamt Landau [1976] ECR 181, paragraph 15).
24 Finally, it need merely be stated in reply to the Greek Government, which contends that the flat-rate system of taxation is intended to discourage the kinds of fraud associated with imports of private vehicles by reason of the high rate of tax applied to them, that, as the Court has held, the impossibility of carrying out the requisite controls and investigations concerning imported cars cannot justify the introduction of a flat-rate system of taxation for imported cars alone (see the judgment in Case 45/75 REWE-Zentrale, cited above, paragraph 15).
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1992-05-19
20 That provision is intended to prevent the introduction by the Council of a common transport policy from being rendered more difficult, or from being obstructed, by the adoption, without the Council' s agreement, of national measures the direct or indirect effect of which is to alter unfavourably the situation in a Member State of carriers from other Member States in relation to national carriers.
23 Furthermore, it must be observed that by substantially compensating for the new charge constituted by the road tax payable by all carriers by a reduction in the vehicle tax, which benefits only national carriers, the effect of the 1990 Law is to alter unfavourably the situation of carriers from other Member States in relation to that of national carriers.
29 As the Court has held, protection of the environment constitutes one of the Community' s essential objectives, the importance of which has moreover been confirmed by the Single European Act (see judgment in Case 302/86 Commission v Denmark [1988] ECR 4607).
33 That argument cannot be accepted. The fact that a common transport policy has not yet been achieved does not empower the Member States to adopt national legislation, even limited in time, which is incompatible with the requirements of Article 76 of the Treaty. Unilateral alteration of the existing situation to the detriment of carriers from other Member States must, on the contrary, be regarded as creating obstacles to implementation of the common transport policy provided for by the Treaty, which must take into consideration the economic, social and ecological problems and ensure the quality and the conditions of competition (see judgment in Case C-17/90 Pinaud Wieger v Bundesanstalt fuer den Gueterfernverkehr [1991] ECR I-5253, paragraph 11).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1992-05-20
17 It must be borne in mind that the Court has consistently held (see in particular the judgment in Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2607, paragraph 18) that the transposition of a directive into domestic law does not necessarily require that its provisions be incorporated formally and verbatim in express specific legislation; an existing legal framework may, depending on the content of the directive, be adequate for the purpose, provided that it does guarantee the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner so that, where the directive is intended to create rights for individuals, the persons concerned can ascertain the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, rely on them before the national courts.
18 In that regard, it must be noted that the purpose of Directive 82/501 is, in particular, to ensure that the necessary measures are adopted to prevent major accidents arising from certain industrial activities and to limit the consequences of any such accidents. According to Article 1 of the directive, the activities in question comprise any activity carried out in an industrial installation referred to in Annex I involving one or more dangerous substances and capable of presenting major-accident hazards, and also transport carried out within the establishment for internal reasons and the storage associated with this operation within the establishment (first indent of Article 1(2)(a)). It follows that the scope of that obligation is very wide and that compliance with it calls for the existence or the adoption of legislative provisions which cover all those activities and guarantee that every manufacturer is required to take the measures appropriate to the kind of industrial activity concerned in order to prevent major accidents and avoid adverse consequences for man and the environment.