larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 2006-11-09
19. Under Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 1222/94, when the goods contain agricultural products in various quantities, also covered by that regulation, the refund amount to be granted is calculated on the basis of the quantity of agricultural products actually used in the manufacture of those exported goods (see, to that effect, Case C‑542/03 Milupa  [2005] ECR I‑3989, paragraph 21).
26. Likewise, Article 7(2) provides that the national authorities are to assess whether the information supplied by the party concerned is sufficient. It follows that, in the absence of documentary evidence, it is for the national authorities to take into consideration other types of evidence which may be just as satisfactory for the purpose of the verification, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by national law, provided that they respect the scope and effectiveness of Community law (see, to that effect, Case C‑312/93 Peterbroeck  [1995] ECR I‑4599, paragraph 12).
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 2006-11-09
26. That provision must be interpreted as meaning that Member States have the obligation, when they transpose a directive, to ensure that it is fully effective, whilst retaining a broad discretion as to the choice of methods (see, to that effect, Case C‑208/90 Emmott  [1991] ECR I‑4269, paragraph 18).
43. Although Directive 85/337 does not preclude fees such as those charged under the national legislation at issue in the present case, they cannot, however, be fixed at a level which would be such as to prevent the directive from being fully effective, in accordance with the objective pursued by it (see, to that effect, Case C‑97/00 Commission  v France  [2001] ECR I‑2053, paragraph 9).
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 2006-11-09
10. In that connection it must be recalled, first of all, that according to settled case-law the subject-matter of an action brought under Article 226 EC is determined by the Commission’s reasoned opinion (see Case C-29/90 Commission  v Greece  [1992] ECR I-1971, paragraph 12, and Case C-280/89 Commission  v Ireland  [1992] ECR I-6185, paragraph 7), so that the action must be based on the same grounds and pleas as the reasoned opinion (see Case C-456/03 Commission  v Italy  [2005] ECR I-5335, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited, and Case C-33/04 Commission v Luxembourg  [2005] ECR I-10629, paragraph 36).
11. Second, the Court has also stated that that requirement cannot be extended, however, so as to mean that in every case the statement of the complaints set out in the operative part of the reasoned opinion and the form of order sought in the application must be exactly the same, provided that the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined in the reasoned opinion has not been extended or altered (see Case C-433/03 Commission  v Germany  [2005] ECR I-6985, paragraph 28, and Case C-484/04 Commission  v United Kingdom  [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 25).
12. In particular, the Court has held that the subject-matter of the dispute may be extended to events which took place after the reasoned opinion was delivered in so far as they are of the same kind and constitute the same conduct as the events to which the opinion referred (see Case 42/82 Commission  v France  [1983] ECR 1013, paragraph 20; Case C-113/86 Commission  v Italy  [1988] ECR 607, paragraph 11; and Case C-221/04 Commission  v Spain [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 28).
17. Consequently, the subject-matter of the dispute in this case is the failure of the United Kingdom authorities to comply with the time-limits mentioned above, as evidenced by the continuous delays, and without there being any need to exclude events which took place after the reasoned opinion ( Commission  v Italy , paragraph 13).
20. In that connection, it must be recalled, first of all, that when exercising its powers under Article 226 EC the Commission’s task is to ensure, of its own motion and in the general interest, that the Member States give effect to Community law and to obtain a declaration of any failure to fulfil the obligations deriving therefrom, with a view to bringing it to an end (see Case C-333/99 Commission  v France  [2001] ECR I-1025, paragraph 23, and Case C-394/02 Commission  v Greece  [2005] ECR I-4713, paragraphs 14 and 15 and the case-law cited).
28. That argument cannot be accepted. In that connection, it is sufficient to observe that it is settled case-law that a Member State may not plead internal circumstances, such as difficulties of implementation which emerge at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect, to justify failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down by Community law (see Case C-387/97 Commission  v Greece  [2000] ECR I-5047, paragraph 70, and Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00 Commission  v France  [2002] ECR I-3969, paragraph 59).
Agraz, SA and Others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2006-11-09
26. According to settled case-law, the Community’s non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is subject to the satisfaction of a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged against the Community institution, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the damage complained of (see, inter alia, Birra Wührer and Others  v Council and Commission , paragraph 9, and Case C‑295/03 P Alessandrini and Others  v Commission  [2005] ECR I‑5673, paragraph 61).
27. The second condition, relating to damage, requires that the damage for which compensation is sought be actual and certain (see, to that effect, De Franceschi  v Council and Commission , paragraph 9, and Birra Wührer and Others  v Council and Commission , paragraph 9), which it is for the appellants to prove (see Roquette Frères  v Commission , paragraph 24, and Case C‑362/95 P Blackspur DIY and Others  v Council and Commission  [1997] ECR I‑4775, paragraph 31).
33. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to verify, in the light of the particular facts of the present case (see, to that effect, Case C‑237/98 P Dorsch Consult  v Council and Commission  [2000] ECR I‑4549, paragraph 25), whether the Court of First Instance was entitled to consider that the margin of discretion enjoyed by the Commission in fixing the amount of production aid under the basic regulation is such as to preclude a finding that the damage alleged by the appellants is certain.
36. However, such considerations authorise the Court of First Instance only to find that there is uncertainty with regard to the exact extent of the damage claimed, but not to find that the very existence of the damage is uncertain.
Montex Holdings Ltd v Diesel SpA.
Date: 2006-11-09
17. The Court has held, on the one hand, that the external transit of non-Community goods is based on a legal fiction. Goods placed under this procedure are subject neither to the corresponding import duties nor to the other measures of commercial policy; it is as if they had not entered Community territory (Case C‑383/98 Polo  v Lauren  [2000] ECR I‑2519, paragraph 34).
19. On the other hand, the Court has also held that transit, which consists in transporting goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State to a non-member country by passing through one or more Member States, does not involve any marketing of the goods in question and is therefore not liable to infringe the specific subject-matter of the trade mark (see, regarding the transit through France of goods originating in Spain and destined for Poland, Case C‑115/02 Rioglass and Transremar  [2003] ECR I‑12705, paragraph 27).
20. The Court has further made clear that a trade mark proprietor cannot oppose the mere entry into the Community, under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure, of original goods bearing that mark which have not already been put on the market in the Community previously by that proprietor or with his consent (Case C‑405/03 Class International  [2005] ECR I‑8735, paragraph 50).
21. In the field of trade marks, placing non-Community goods bearing a mark under a suspensive customs procedure such as that of external transit is not, per se, interference with the right of the proprietor of the mark to control the initial marketing in the Community ( Class International , paragraph 47).
22. The Court has, however, held that the trade mark proprietor can oppose the offering for sale or sale of original goods bearing a trade mark and having the customs status of non-Community goods, when the offering is done and/or the sale is effected while the goods are placed under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure and this necessarily entails their being put on the market in the Community (see, to that effect Class International , paragraph 61).
36. In that judgment, the Court pointed out, in paragraph 54, that Article 1 of Regulation No 3295/94 is to be interpreted as being applicable where goods imported from a non-Member State, are, in the course of their transit to another non-Member State, temporarily detained in a Member State by the customs authorities of this latter State on the basis of that regulation and at the request of the company which holds the rights claimed to have been infringed (see also Polo  v Lauren , paragraphs 26 and 27).
40. It follows that none of the provisions of Regulation No 3295/94 introduces a new criterion for the purposes of ascertaining the existence of an infringement of trade mark law or to determine whether there is a use of the mark liable to be prohibited because it infringes that law.
Commission of the European Communities v Joël De Bry.
Date: 2006-11-09
37. According to settled case-law, observance of the rights of the defence is, in all procedures initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the procedure in question (see, inter alia, Case 234/84 Belgium  v Commission  [1986] ECR 2263, paragraph 27, and Case   C‑288/96 Germany  v Commission  [2000] ECR I‑8237, paragraph 99).
38. That principle requires that the person concerned must have been afforded the opportunity to effectively make known his views on any incriminating information which might be taken into account in the document to be drawn up (see, to that effect, Belgium  v Commission , paragraph 27, in fine , and Case C-458/98 P Industrie des poudres sphériques  v Council [2000] ECR I‑8147, paragraph 99).
41. In fact, the corresponding provisions, the purpose of which is to guarantee the official’s right of defence (see, inter alia, Case 88/71 Brasseur  v Parliament  [1972] ECR 499, paragraph 11, and Case 233/85 Bonino  v Commission  [1987] ECR 739, paragraph 11), relate to documents which already exist. They preclude, during the appraisal procedure, such documents from being taken into account to the detriment of the official under appraisal without having been communicated to him before being placed on his personal file. They do not require documents formalising any criticism of the conduct of the individual concerned to be prepared beforehand.
Compaq Computer International Corporation v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst - Douanedistrict Arnhem.
Date: 2006-11-16
30. In respect of the determination of the customs value in the main case, according to the case-law the Community legislation on customs valuation seeks to introduce a fair, uniform and neutral system excluding the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values (Case C‑11/89 Unifert  [1990] ECR I‑2275, paragraph 35, and Case C‑15/99 Sommer [2000] ECR I‑8989, paragraph 25). The customs value must thus reflect the real economic value of an imported good and, therefore, take into account all of the elements of that good that have economic value.
31. Furthermore, the Court has held that software is intangible property, the cost of acquiring which, when such property is incorporated in an item of goods, must be regarded as an integral part of the price paid or payable for the goods, and hence of the transaction value (see to that effect Case C‑79/89 Brown Boveri [1991] ECR I‑1853, paragraph 21).
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v ZVK Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH.
Date: 2006-11-23
15. First of all, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of Community law it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objective pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C‑301/98 KVS International  [2000] ECR I-3583, paragraph 21; Case C‑156/98 Germany  v Commission  [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 50; and Case C‑53/05 Commission  v Portugal  [2006] ECR I-0000, paragraph 20).
16. Furthermore, as regards possible linguistic divergences, the Court has already held, firstly, that the need for a uniform interpretation of Community law means that a particular provision should not be considered in isolation but in cases of doubt should be interpreted and applied in the light of the other language versions and, secondly, that the different language versions of a Community text must be given a uniform interpretation and hence, in the case of divergence between the language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part (see, to that effect, Case C‑372/88 Cricket St Thomas  [1990] ECR I-1345, paragraph 19, and Case C‑174/05 Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and Natuur en Milieu  [2006] ECR I-2443, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR).
Date: 2006-11-23
42. Furthermore, it is established case-law that, in interpreting a provision of Community law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also its general scheme, the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it forms part (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑83/96 Dega  [1997] ECR I‑5001, paragraph 15, and Case C‑294/01 Granarolo  [2003] ECR I‑13429, paragraph 34).
46. With regard to the provision identical to that of point 7 aforesaid, which appears in point 6 of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1), repealed and replaced by Directive 2000/13, the Court has already held that that provision is mainly intended to allow those responsible for the product, amongst whom, in addition to the producers and packagers, are also the sellers, to be easily identified by ultimate consumers so that they may, if necessary, inform them of their positive or negative comments concerning the product bought (see, to that effect, Dega , paragraphs 17 and 18).
47. With regard, secondly, to the purpose of Directive 2000/13, it is apparent from both the sixth recital in the preamble and from Article 2 that that directive was intended to ensure the information and protection of the ultimate consumer of foodstuffs, in particular as regards the nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance and method of manufacture or production of those products (see, with regard to Directive 79/112, Dega , paragraph 16).
48. The Court has held that, if a field is not governed by a directive by reason of the incomplete harmonisation for which it provides, Member States remain, in principle, responsible for the provision of rules in that regard, provided, however, that those rules are not liable seriously to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by the directive in question ( Granarolo , paragraph 45).
57. In any event, Article 3(3) of Directive 85/347 does provide for the supplier to be liable, but limits that liability to cases where the producer cannot be identified (Case C‑402/03 Skov and Bilka  [2006] ECR I‑199, paragraph 34).
58. It is appropriate, finally, to note that, according to the Court’s established case-law relating to Article 10 EC, whilst the choice of penalties remains within their discretion, Member States must ensure in particular that infringements of Community law are penalised under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C‑387/02, C‑391/02 and C‑403/02 Berlusconi and Others  [2005] ECR I‑3565, paragraph 65, and case-law cited therein).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 2006-12-07
9. It is necessary, first of all, to point out that it is settled case-law that the exemptions provided for in Article 13 of the Sixth Directive constitute independent concepts of Community law whose purpose is to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system as between one Member State and another (see, inter alia, Case C‑349/96 CPP [1999] ECR I‑973, paragraph 15, and Case C-8/01 Taksatorringen  [2003] ECR I‑13711, paragraph 37, and the case-law cited).
10. As regards, more specifically, the term ‘insurance transactions’, used in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive, which is not defined in that directive, the Court has repeatedly held that the essentials of an insurance transaction are, as generally understood, that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded (see, in particular, Taksatorringen , paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
11. Secondly, the Court has also stated that it is not essential that the service the insurer has undertaken to provide in the event of accident/loss consists of the payment of a sum of money, as that service may also take the form of the provision of assistance in cash or in kind of the types listed in the annex to First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by Council Directive 84/641/EEC of 10 December 1984 (OJ 1984 L 339, p. 21) (‘Directive 73/239’). The Court considered, in particular, in that respect that there is no reason for the interpretation of the term ‘insurance’ to differ according to whether it appears in Directive 73/239 or in the Sixth Directive ( CPP , paragraph 18).
13. Finally, as regards the fact that ELPA is not an insurer, it must be pointed out that, while noting that the exemptions provided for by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive are to be construed strictly, the Court has previously stated that the expression ‘insurance transactions’ referred to in Article 13B(a) of that directive is broad enough in principle to include the provision of insurance cover by a taxable person who is not himself an insurer but, in the context of a block policy, procures such cover for his customers by making use of the supplies of an insurer who assumes the risk insured ( CPP , paragraph 22).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2006-12-14
53. Because the second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC does not provide for a pre-litigation phase, in contrast to Article 226 EC, and therefore the Commission does not issue a reasoned opinion allowing Member States a certain period within which to comply with its decision, when the former provision is applied the reference period can only be that provided for in the decision failure to implement which is denied or, where appropriate, that subsequently fixed by the Commission (Case C‑378/98 Commission  v Belgium  [2001] ECR I-5107, paragraph 26, and Case C-99/02 Commission  v Italy  [2004] ECR I-3353, paragraph 24).
54. Article 4 of each of the contested decisions gave the Kingdom of Spain a period of two months, from the notification of those decisions, to comply with them.
72. According to settled case-law, the only defence available to a Member State in opposing an application by the Commission under Article 88(2) EC for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its Treaty obligations is to plead that it was absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision ordering recovery (see, in particular, Case C-404/00 Commission  v Spain  [2003] ECR I-6695, paragraph 45; Commission  v Italy , paragraph 16; and Case C-415/03 Commission  v Greece  [2005] ECR I‑3875, paragraph 35).
74. In that respect, it should however be recalled that the condition that it be absolutely impossible to implement a decision is not fulfilled where the defendant Government merely informs the Commission of the legal, political or practical difficulties involved in implementing the decision, without taking any real step to recover the aid from the undertakings concerned, and without proposing to the Commission any alternative arrangements for implementing the decision which could have enabled those difficulties to be overcome (see, in particular, Commission  v Spain , paragraph 47; Commission  v Italy , paragraph 18; and Commission  v Greece , paragraph 43).
82. The Court does not need to examine the form of order sought against the Kingdom of Spain for failing to inform the Commission of the measures referred to in the preceding paragraph, since that Member State did not in fact implement the contested decisions within the prescribed period (see Case C-348/93 Commission  v Italy [1995] ECR I-673, paragraph 31).
Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim.
Date: 2006-12-14
24. It should be pointed out that, as the question of the effect of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement within the legal systems of the parties thereto has not been addressed in the Agreement itself, it is for the Court to resolve that question in the same way as any other question of interpretation concerning the application of agreements within the Community (see inter alia, by way of analogy, Case C‑149/96 Portugal  v Council  [1999] ECR I‑8395, paragraph 34, and Case C‑265/03 Simutenkov [2005] ECR I‑2579, paragraph 20).
25. According to well-established case-law, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Communities with a non-member country must be regarded as having direct effect where, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision lays down a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or its effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (see to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑63/99 Gloszczuk [2001] ECR I‑6369, paragraph 30; Case C‑171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam  [2003] ECR I‑4301, paragraph 54; and Simutenkov , paragraph 21).
41. On that point, it is settled case-law that the concept of public policy presupposes the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society (see, to that effect, Case 36/75 Rutili  [1975] ECR 1219, paragraph 28; Case C‑340/97 Nazli  [2000] ECR I‑957, paragraph 57; and Case C‑459/99 MRAX  [2002] ECR I‑6591, paragraph 79).