larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
European Parliament v Cornelis Volger.
Date: 1993-12-09
8 Before examining whether, in the context of the exercise of its discretion, the Parliament gave lawful consideration to Mr Volger' s comparative merits in relation to his application for the post declared vacant by Vacancy Notice No 6084 (paragraphs 25 and 26 of the contested judgment), the Court of First Instance first of all referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-269/90 Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Mitte v Technische Universitaet Muenchen [1991] ECR I-5469, paragraph 14, according to which "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 even more fundamental importance" and which states that those guarantees include in particular "the right of the person concerned to make his views known".
22 It must be noted that, according to the case-law of the Court, the appointing authority is not required to provide a statement of grounds for promotion decisions with regard to candidates not promoted; it is required, on the other hand, to provide a statement of grounds for its decision rejecting a complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who is not promoted (Case 188/73 Grassi v Council [1974] ECR 1099), the statement of grounds for such a decision being deemed to be the same as the statement of reasons for the decision against which the complaint was directed (Case 121/76 Moli v Commission [1977] ECR 1971 and Case 75/77 Mollet v Commission [1978] ECR 897). That case-law applies also in the event of a transfer.
Lubbock Fine & Co. v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Date: 1993-12-15
13 Accordingly, the reply to be given to the second question is that Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive, which allows Member States to apply further exclusions to the scope of the exemption for the letting of immovable property, does not authorize them to tax the consideration paid by one party to the other in connection with the surrender of the lease where the rent paid under the lease was exempt from VAT.
The term "supply of buildings or parts thereof, and of the land on which they stand"
Criminal proceedings against Kevin Albert Charlton, James Huyton and Raymond Edward William Wilson.
Date: 1993-12-15
18 It should be noted further that, in accordance with the first recital in the preamble, the Regulation made more flexible the provisions of Regulation No 543/69, including the weekly and daily limits on driving periods and the rest periods (Case C-8/90 Kennes and Verkooyen [1991] ECR I-4391, paragraph 3).
Ruth Hünermund and others v Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg.
Date: 1993-12-15
8 Although it is not for the Court, in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, to rule on the compatibility of rules of domestic law with Community law, it is none the less competent to give the national court full guidance on the interpretation of Community law in order to enable it to determine whether those rules are so compatible.
15 The Court has already held (see the judgment in Joined Cases 266/87 and 267/87 The Queen v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers [1989] ECR 1295, paragraph 15) that measures adopted by a professional body on which national legislation has conferred powers of that nature constitute, if they are capable of affecting trade between Member States, "measures" within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.
18 It is settled case-law that any measure which is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction (judgment in Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5).
21 The application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment (cited above), so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. Such rules therefore fall outside the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty (Joined Cases C-267 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraphs 16 and 17).
22 In the case of a rule such as that at issue in this case, those conditions are satisfied in relation to the application of a rule of professional conduct, laid down by a professional body in a Member State, which prohibits pharmacists within the area over which it has jurisdiction from advertising outside the pharmacy quasi-pharmaceutical goods which they are authorized to sell.
Friedrich Schultz v Hauptzollamt Heilbronn.
Date: 1993-12-16
17 That argument based on discrimination between producers in the Community cannot be accepted any more than it was accepted in the judgments in Erpelding, Leukhardt and Kuehn (at paragraphs 30, 19 and 18, respectively).
Teodoro Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantía Salarial.
Date: 1993-12-16
12 It follows that the directive on the insolvency of employers is intended to apply to all categories of employee defined as such by the national law of a Member State, with the exception of those listed in the Annex to the directive.
17 Secondly, in its judgment of 19 November 1991, Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357, the Court held (paragraph 25) that under Article 5 of the directive on the insolvency of employers, the Member States have a broad discretion with regard to the organization, operation and financing of the guarantee institutions. The Court concluded (paragraph 26) that even though the provisions of the directive are sufficiently precise and unconditional as regards the determination of the persons entitled to the guarantee and as regards the content of that guarantee, those elements are not sufficient to enable individuals to rely, as against the State, on those provisions before the national courts.
18 With regard, more particularly, to the problem raised by the national court, it should be pointed out that the directive on the insolvency of employers does not oblige the Member States to set up a single guarantee institution for all categories of employee, and consequently to bring higher management staff within the ambit of the guarantee institution established for the other categories of employee. Article 3(1) leaves it to the Member States to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that guarantee institutions guarantee payment of employees' outstanding claims.
20 Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that when it interprets and applies national law, every national court must presume that the State had the intention of fulfilling entirely the obligations arising from the directive concerned. As the Court held in its judgment in Case 106/89 Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8, in applying national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before or after the directive, the national court called upon to interpret it is required to do so, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty.
21 The principle of interpretation in conformity with directives must be followed in particular where a national court considers, as in the present case, that the pre-existing provisions of its national law satisfy the requirements of the directive concerned.
22 It would appear from the order for reference that the national provisions cannot be interpreted in a way which conforms with the directive on the insolvency of employers and therefore do not permit higher management staff to obtain the benefit of the guarantees for which it provides. If that is the case, it follows from the Francovich judgment, cited above, that the Member State concerned is obliged to make good the loss and damage sustained as a result of the failure to implement the directive in their respect.
Giorgio Pincherle v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1993-12-22
16 It should be noted that under the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice an appeal may be brought before the Court of Justice within two months of the notification of the decision appealed against by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions before the Court of First Instance. The final sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 49 provides that "interveners other than the Member States and the Community institutions may bring such an appeal only where the decision of the Court of First Instance directly affects them". The limitation introduced by the second sentence of paragraph 2 of Article 49 is necessary only because the word "party" in the first sentence of that paragraph includes interveners before the Court of First Instance. Accordingly, it follows from Article 49 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice that interveners before the Court of First Instance are regarded as parties before that Court. Therefore Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is applicable to them, which dispenses them from having to submit a fresh application to intervene before the Court of Justice in accordance with Articles 93 and 123 of the Rules of Procedure.
25 Consequently, it is irrelevant that the Court of First Instance also found that three-quarters of the reimbursements appearing on statements of payment Nos 71 and 72 were effected at the rates of 80% to 85% provided for in Article 72 of the Staff Regulations. Nor is that Court' s interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Insurance Rules relevant either. Since those grounds are superabundant, the appellant' s criticisms of them cannot lead the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance: they are nugatory. Consequently, there is no need to consider them further.
31 Since the criticism formulated by the appellant in that regard is directed against a superabundant ground for the judgment of the Court of First Instance it must be rejected as nugatory.
Franz Eppe v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1993-12-22
8 Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that an appeal is to contain the pleas in law and arguments relied on. In Case C-244/92 P Kupka-Floridi v Economic and Social Committee [1993] ECR 2041 the Court held that an appeal which merely reiterates the pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance in fact constitutes a request for re-examination of the application bought before the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. That also applies where the pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance are repeated purely by reference.
Breach of procedure
13 In an appeal, the appellant may not rely on pleas in law which he expressly withdrew in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or on pleas declared inadmissible by that court, where the finding that they are inadmissible is not contested.
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 1993-12-22
5 The Court has consistently held in its case-law relating to the implementation of directives that mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State' s obligations under the Treaty (see in particular the Court' s judgments in Case 145/82 Commission v Italy [1983] ECR 711, paragraph 10, and in Case C-236/91 Commission v Ireland [1992] ECR I-5933, paragraph 6).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1994-01-12
11 It should be noted first that the Court has consistently held (see in particular Case 76/86 Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 1021, paragraph 8) that the scope of an action brought under Article 169 of the Treaty is delimited by the pre-litigation procedure provided for by that article. Consequently the action cannot be founded on any complaints other than those formulated in the reasoned opinion (see Case C-157/91 Commission v Netherlands [1992] ECR I-5899, paragraph 17).
Metro SB-Großmärkte GmbH & Co. KG v Cartier SA.
Date: 1994-01-13
24 In reply to the question submitted for a preliminary ruling, viewed in that context, it must be emphasized first of all that the concept of "imperviousness" has been developed in connection with actions for unfair competition directed against persons who are not parties to agreements granting exclusive sales licenses, fixed price agreements or agreements establishing a selective distribution system. In such proceedings for unfair competition, the question of the validity of the contract under Article 85 of the Treaty arises in the form of a preliminary issue. A manufacturer can allege that a third party has been involved in the breach of a contractual obligation only if that obligation itself is valid under Article 85. That does not mean that it is necessary, on the other hand, in order to appraise the lawfulness of an agreement under Article 85 of the Treaty, 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.
28 It follows from those observations that the "imperviousness" of a selective distribution system is not a condition of its validity under Community law.
Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages and others v Préfet de Maine-et-Loire and Préfet de Loire-Atlantique.
Date: 1994-01-19
9 In that judgment, the Court then states that Article 7(4) of the Directive is designed to secure a complete system of protection in the periods during which the survival of wild birds is particularly under threat.
20 It should be noted on this point that, as the Court stated in its judgments in Case 247/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3029, at paragraph 8, and Case 262/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 3073, at paragraph 8, it is clear from Article 2 of the Directive, which requires the Member States to take the requisite measures to maintain the population of all bird species at a level, or to adapt it to a level, which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, that the protection of birds must be balanced against other requirements, such as those of an economic nature. Therefore, although Article 2 does not constitute an autonomous derogation from the general system of protection, it none the less shows that the Directive takes into consideration, on the one hand, the necessity for effective protection of birds and, on the other hand, the requirements of public health and safety, the economy, ecology, science, farming and recreation. In this case, that is true of the third sentence of Article 7(4) of the Directive which contains a clear and specific requirement, independent of the general requirement laid down in Article 2.
Owens Bank Ltd v Fulvio Bracco and Bracco Industria Chimica SpA.
Date: 1994-01-20
32 On the contrary, the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the Convention (see the judgment in Case 38/81 Effer [1982] ECR 825, paragraph 6), militates against making the distinction advocated by Fulvio Bracco and Bracco SpA.
34 Lastly, it is clear from the judgment in Case C-190/89 Rich [1991] ECR I-3855, at paragraph 26, that if, by virtue of its subject-matter, a dispute falls outside the scope of the Convention, the existence of a preliminary issue which the court must resolve in order to determine the dispute cannot, whatever that issue may be, justify application of the Convention.
Angelopharm GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Hamburg.
Date: 1994-01-25
15 In its judgment in Upjohn, the Court ruled (at paragraphs 21 to 23) that the definition of a "medicinal product" within the meaning of Directive 65/65, cited above, included all substances capable of having an effect on the actual functioning of the body but did not, however, include substances such as certain cosmetics which, while having an effect on the human body, did not significantly affect the metabolism and thus did not strictly modify the way in which it functioned. The Court stated that it was for national courts to determine on a case-by-case basis the classification of each product having regard to its pharmacological properties as they might be ascertained in the current state of scientific knowledge, to the way in which it was used, to the extent to which it was sold and to consumers' familiarity with it. The Court also pointed out in that judgment (at paragraph 33) that any product satisfying the definition of a "medicinal product" laid down in Article 1(2) of Directive 65/65 had to be subject to the corresponding legal rules, to the exclusion of those governing cosmetic products.
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 1994-01-26
7 The Court observes in the first place that mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State' s obligations under the Treaty (Case C-236/91 Commission v Ireland [1992] ECR I-5933, paragraph 6 of the judgment).
Bernard Le Nan v Coopérative laitière de Ploudaniel.
Date: 1994-01-27
12 As is apparent from several judgments of the Court (see those in Case 5/88 Wachauf v Bundesamt fuer Ernaehrung und Forstwirtschaft [1989] ECR 2609, Case C-177/90 Kuehn v Landwirtschaftskammer Weser-Ems [1992] ECR I-35 and Case C-81/91 Twijnstra v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [1993] ECR I-2455, paragraph 25), those provisions establish the principle that the reference quantity is transferred with the land that gave rise to its allocation.
13 However, as is evident from their very wording, they cover only the case where a reference quantity has already been allocated to a person, that is to say the case where a transfer of the holding has occurred after the entry into force of the additional levy scheme (judgment in Kuehn, cited above, paragraph 22).
14 With respect to transfers of land occurring, as in the present case, in the course of the reference year, that is to say before the entry into force of the additional levy scheme for milk, the second sentence of subparagraph 3 of Article 5 of Regulation No 1371/84 provides "Member States may apply the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 in respect of transfers taking place during and after the reference period". It thus authorizes the Member States to link the transfer of a reference quantity to the transfer of a holding, even where the latter transfer occurred during or after the reference period. The Court stated in that regard (judgment in Kuehn, paragraph 24) that consideration and comparison of all the above provisions show that transfers of holdings occurring before the entry into force of the additional levy scheme give rise to the transfer of the corresponding reference quantities only where the Member State concerned has provided for this in exercise of the power given to it in the second sentence of subparagraph 3 of Article 5 of Regulation No 1371/84.
21 The Court held in that judgment (paragraph 13) that the structure and purpose of the regulations concerned indicate that they contain an exhaustive list of the situations in which reference quantities or individual quantities may be granted and set out precise rules concerning the determination of those quantities. Since no provision of the regulations makes it possible for producers in circumstances like those at issue in the main proceedings to have account taken, as a result of that fact, of a reference year different from that chosen by the Member State concerned, such a possibility must be regarded as excluded, even where the persons concerned do not prove a level of deliveries which is representative of the production capacity of the holding during the reference year.
Alison Maitland Toosey v Chief Adjudication Officer.
Date: 1994-01-27
13 It follows both from the title of the section in Regulation No 1408/71 of which Article 71 constitutes the sole article, and from the case-law of the Court, that the factor that determines whether Article 71 applies at all is the residence of the person concerned in a Member State other than that to whose legislation he was subject during his last employment (see the judgments in Case 76/76 Di Paolo v Office National de l' Emploi [1977] ECR 315, paragraphs 17 and 21, in Case 128/83 Caisse Primaire d' Assurance Maladie de Rouen v Guyot [1984] ECR 3507, paragraph 9, and in Case 236/87 Bergemann v Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit [1988] ECR 5125).
Office National de l'Emploi v Madeleine Minne.
Date: 1994-02-03
11 It must be asked whether that difference in treatment is justified in the light of Article 2(3) of Directive 76/207, which provides that the directive is without prejudice to provisions concerning the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity. As the Court held at paragraph 44 of its judgment in Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, it is clear from the express reference to pregnancy and maternity that the directive is intended to protect a woman' s biological condition and the special relationship which exists between a woman and her child.