larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. Lipjes.
Date: 2004-05-27
16. The Court notes, as a preliminary point, that as regards the relationship between Article 9(1) and Article 28b(E) of the Sixth Directive, Article 28b(E) provides, with respect to intra-Community trade, for an exception to the general rule in Article 9(1). Article 9(1) in no way takes precedence, therefore, and the question must be asked in each case which of those two provisions applies (see, regarding the similar relationship between Article 9(1) and Article 9(2) of the Sixth Directive, Case C-327/94 Dudda  [1996] ECR I-4595, paragraphs 20 and 21).
Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich.
Date: 2004-06-08
36. It is not disputed by the parties to the main proceedings or by the Austrian Government or the Commission that the main proceedings relate to the duration of employment relationships with an employer and that that duration must be taken into account to calculate the amount of the termination payment, which falls within the concept of pay (see, to that effect, Gruber , paragraph 22).
59. As regards the question put by the national court concerning the difference in treatment, from the point of view of termination payments, between workers who take parental leave and those who perform military or civilian service, it must be recalled that the principle of equal pay enshrined in Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117, like the principle of non-discrimination of which it is a specific expression, assumes that the male and female workers whom it benefits are in comparable situations (see Case C-218/98 Abdoulaye and Others  [1999] ECR I-5723, paragraph 16, and Case C-366/99 Griesmar  [2001] ECR I-9383, paragraph 39).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2004-06-10
38. First of all, it should be recalled that the fact that a Member State has conferred on its regions the responsibility for giving effect to directives cannot have any bearing on the application of Article 226 EC. The Court has consistently held that a Member State cannot plead conditions existing within its own legal system in order to justify its failure to comply with obligations and time-limits resulting from Community directives. While each Member State may freely allocate internal legislative powers as it sees fit, the fact remains that it alone is responsible towards the Community under Article 226 EC for compliance with obligations arising under Community law (Case C-33/90 Commission  v Italy  [1991] ECR I-5987, paragraph 24; also, to that effect, the order in Case C-180/97 Regione Toscana  v Commission  [1997] ECR I-5245, paragraph 7). Therefore, it is not relevant in the present case that the infringement results from a decision by the Abruzzo Region.
39. The fact that proceedings have been brought before a national court to challenge the decision of a national authority which is the subject of an action for failure to fulfil obligations and the decision of that court not to suspend implementation of that decision cannot affect the admissibility of the action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission. The existence of remedies available through the national courts cannot in any way prejudice the bringing of an action under Article 226 EC, since the two procedures have different objectives and effects (Case 31/69 Commission  v Italy  [1970] ECR 25, paragraph 9, and Case 85/85 Commission  v Belgium  [1986] ECR 1149, paragraph 24).
43. However, the fact that the Member State has the discretion referred to in the previous paragraph is not in itself sufficient to exclude a given project from the assessment procedure under the Directive. If that were not the case, the discretion accorded to the Member States by Article 4(2) of the Directive could be used by them to take a particular project outside the assessment obligation when, by virtue of its nature, size or location, it could have significant environmental effects ( WWF , paragraph 44).
44. Consequently, whatever the method adopted by a Member State to determine whether or not a specific project needs to be assessed, be it by legislative designation or following an individual examination of the project, the method adopted must not undermine the objective of the Directive, which is that no project likely to have significant effects on the environment, within the meaning of the Directive, should be exempt from assessment, unless the specific project excluded could, on the basis of a comprehensive screening, be regarded as not being likely to have such effects ( WWF , paragraph 45).
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Date: 2004-06-10
8. According to settled case-law, 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 (see, inter alia, Case C-147/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26, and Case C‑173/01 Commission v Greece [2002] ECR I-6129, paragraph 7).
Herbert Handlbauer GmbH.
Date: 2004-06-24
25. By virtue of the very nature of regulations and of their function in the system of sources of Community law, the provisions of those regulations generally have immediate effect in the national legal systems without its being necessary for the national authorities to adopt measures of application (Case 93/71 Leonesio  [1972] ECR 287, paragraph 5).
26. Some of their provisions may none the less necessitate, for their implementation, the adoption of measures of application by the Member States (C-403/98 Monte Arcosu [2001] ECR I-103, paragraph 26).
31. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 introduces ‘general rules … relating to homogenous checks and to administrative measures and penalties concerning irregularities with regard to Community law’ in order, as is clear from the third recital in the preamble to the regulation, to combat ‘fraud against the Communities’ financial interests … for all areas …’.
32. Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 fixes a limitation period for proceedings at four years which runs from the time when the irregularity is committed, such irregularity, according to Article 1(2) thereof, being ‘any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities …’.
33. As the Austrian and United Kingdom Governments observed, such a definition covers intentional irregularities or irregularities arising out of negligence which, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95, may result in an administrative fine as well as those irregularities which entail nothing more than the withdrawal of the wrongly obtained advantage in accordance with Article 4 thereof.
34. It follows that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is applicable both to the irregularities referred to in Article 5 and to those referred to in Article 4 thereof which are detrimental to the Communities’ financial interests.
35. Accordingly, the answer to the first question should be that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is directly applicable in the Member States, including in the field of export refunds on agricultural products, in the absence of sectoral Community rules providing for a shorter limitation period which may not be less than three years or of national rules providing for a longer limitation period.
Question 2
40. In that connection, it must be pointed out that, in general, limitation periods fulfil the function of ensuring legal certainty (Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma v Commission  [1970] ECR 661, paragraph 19). Such a function would not be fully fulfilled, as the Advocate General points out in paragraph 82 et seq. of his Opinion, if the limitation period referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 could be interrupted by any act relating to a general check by the national authorities which bore no relation to any suspicion concerning the existence of irregularities regarding sufficiently precisely circumscribed transactions.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2004-06-24
18. In that regard it should be pointed out that in an action for failure to fulfil obligations the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under Community law and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the charges formulated by the Commission (see, in particular, Case 293/85 Commission  v Belgium [1988] ECR 305, paragraph 13; Case C-96/95 Commission v Germany  [1997] ECR I-1653, paragraph 22; and Case C-439/99 Commission  v Italy  [2002] ECR I-305, paragraph 10).
19. The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also so as to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter (see Case C-1/00 Commission  v France  [2001] ECR I-9989, paragraph 53, and Case C-287/00 Commission  v Germany [2002] ECR I-5811, paragraph 17).
20. It follows that the subject-matter of proceedings under Article 226 EC is delimited by the pre-litigation procedure governed by that provision. The Commission’s reasoned opinion and the application must be based on the same grounds and pleas, with the result that the Court cannot examine a ground of complaint which was not formulated in the reasoned opinion (Case 76/86 Commission  v Germany  [1989] ECR 1021, paragraph 8), which for its part must contain a cogent and detailed exposition of the reasons which led the Commission to the conclusion that the Member State concerned had failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty (see, in particular, Commission  v Italy , paragraph 12, and Case C‑287/00 Commission  v Germany,  paragraph 19).
31. Before those complaints are examined, it should be recalled at the outset that, as the Court has repeatedly held, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined as at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia, Case C-384/97 Commission  v Greece  [2000] ECR I-3823, paragraph 35, and Case C-152/98 Commission  v Netherlands [2001] ECR I-3463, paragraph 21).
Front national v European Parliament.
Date: 2004-06-29
34. In that regard, it is appropriate to bear in mind that, by virtue of settled case-law, the condition that the decision forming the subject-matter of the proceedings must be of ‘direct concern’ to a natural or legal person, as it is stated in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires the Community measure complained of to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules (see, inter alia, Case C‑404/96 P Glencore Grain v Commission  [1998] ECR  I‑2435, paragraph 41, and the case-law cited).
Gisela Gerken v Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden.
Date: 2004-07-01
41. It must be pointed out, firstly, that the aims of Regulation No 3887/92 are, as set out in its seventh and ninth recitals, to monitor effectively compliance with the provisions on Community aid and to adopt provisions which prevent and penalise irregularities and fraud effectively.
44. In accordance with those provisions as interpreted by case-law, the amount of the aid must be reduced even where the discrepancy between the number of animals declared and the number of animals found during checks is not attributable to incorrect information given by the applicant but to the fact that the necessary conditions for the grant of the premiums are not satisfied in regard to certain animals (see Schilling and Nehring , paragraph 42).
49. Firstly, the irregularity found in Ms Gerken’s aid application, to which Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation No 3887/92 could apply, namely the fact that she made an application for bovine animals in respect of which she had not given the required proof of age, constitutes an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95.
50. Secondly, the reduction in the amount of ‘livestock’ aid or the withdrawal of that aid constitutes an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2998/95 (see, to that effect, National Farmers’ Union and Others , cited above, paragraph 40, and Schilling and Nehring , cited above, paragraphs 26 and 27).
55. However, it is apparent from the fourth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2988/95 that the effectiveness of the combating of fraud against the Communities’ financial interests calls for a common set of legal rules to be enacted for all areas covered by Community policies.  Furthermore, according to the fifth recital, irregular conduct and the administrative measures and penalties relating thereto are provided for in sectoral rules in accordance with Regulation No 2988/95.
56. It follows that, in the area of checks and penalties for irregularities committed under Community law, the Community legislature has, by adopting Regulation No 2988/95, laid down a series of general principles and has required that, as a general rule, all sectoral regulations comply with those principles.
61. In light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in an application for ‘livestock’ aid covered ratione temporis  by Regulation No 3887/92, there is an irregularity giving rise to a penalty under Article 10(2)(a) of that regulation, the competent authorities must apply retroactively the provisions of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 2419/2001, on the ground that those provisions are less severe as regards the conduct in question.
Elliniko Dimosio v Nikolaos Tsapalos (C-361/02) and Konstantinos Diamantakis (C-362/02).
Date: 2004-07-01
19. It must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, whereas substantive rules are usually interpreted as not applying to situations existing before their entry into force (see, in particular, Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Salumi and Others  [1981] ECR 2735, paragraph 9; Joined Cases C-121/91 and C-122/91 CT Control (Rotterdam) and JCT Benelux  v Commission  [1993] ECR I-3873, paragraph 22; and Case C-61/98 De Haan  [1999] ECR I‑5003, paragraph 13).
20. As the Greek Government and the Commission have rightly observed, since the Directive governs only the recognition and enforcement of certain categories of claims which arise in another Member State, without setting out rules relating to their accrual or their scope, the provisions of the Directive must be considered procedural rules.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2004-07-01
20. It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation obtaining 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, inter alia, Case C-103/00 Commission  v Greece  [2002] ECR I-1147, paragraph 23, and Case C-296/01 Commission v France  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 43).
25. As the Court has already held in paragraph 25 of Gravier , cited above, the conditions of access to vocational training fall within the scope of the Treaty (see also Case 24/86 Blaizot  [1988] ECR 379, paragraph 11; Case 42/87 Commission v Belgium  [1988] ECR 5445, paragraph 7; and Case C-295/90 Parliament v Council  [1992] ECR I-4193, paragraph 15). Article 149(2) EC, second indent, expressly provides that Community action is to be aimed at encouraging mobility of students and teachers, inter alia by encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study. Further, Article 150(2) EC, third indent, provides that Community action is to aim to facilitate access to vocational training and encourage mobility of instructors and trainees and particularly young people.
28. It is clear from the Court’s case-law that the principle of equal treatment, of which the prohibition on any discrimination on grounds of nationality in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC is a specific instance, prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result (see, inter alia, Case C-3/88 Commission  v Italy  [1989] ECR 4035, paragraph 8, and Case C-388/01 Commission  v Italy [2003] ECR I-721, paragraph 13).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2004-07-08
11. The Court has consistently held that any measure likely directly or indirectly to hinder, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade is to be deemed to be a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions and, on that basis, prohibited by Article 28 EC (Case 8/74 Dassonville  [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5, and Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 66).
15. It follows that that provision of the CGI should be considered a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, without it being necessary to prove that it has had an appreciable effect on intra-Community trade.
16. As for the question whether such a rule may, nevertheless, be justified with regard to Community law, it should be remembered that, according to the Court’s case-law, national rules adopted in the absence of common or harmonised rules and applicable without distinction to national products and to products imported from other Member States may be compatible with the Treaty in so far as they are necessary in order to satisfy overriding requirements relating, inter alia, to fair trading and consumer protection, where they are proportionate to the objective pursued and that objective is not capable of being achieved by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade (Case C-448/98 Guimont  [2000] ECR I‑10663, paragraph 27).
Waterman SAS, formerly Waterman SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects.
Date: 2004-07-08
16. It should be recalled that the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature are a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff provided that their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and do not alter the meaning of its provisions (Case 798/79 Chem-Tec  [1980] ECR 2639, paragraphs 11 and 12).
29. It must be pointed out that in considering equivalent two technical processes which result in an identical product, namely an outer surface of plastic, the explanatory notes in question comply with the case-law under which the decisive criterion for the tariff classification of goods lies in their objective characteristics and qualities, as defined in the relevant heading of the Common Customs Tariff and in the notes to the relevant sections or chapters (Case 200/84 Daiber  [1985] ECR 3363, paragraph 13; Case C-11/93 Siemens Nixdorf  [1994] ECR I-1945, paragraph 11; and Case C-339/98 Peacock  [2000] ECR I-8947, paragraph 9).
Bacardi France SAS, formerly Bacardi-Martini SAS v Télévision française 1 SA (TF1), Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon SA and Girosport SARL.
Date: 2004-07-13
31. Article 59 of the Treaty requires the elimination of any restriction on the freedom to provide services, even if it applies to national providers of services and to those of other Member States alike, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services (see to that effect Case C-76/90 Säger  [1991] ECR I-4221, paragraph 12, and Case C-58/98 Corsten  [2000] ECR I-7919, paragraph 33). Moreover, freedom to provide services is enjoyed by both providers and recipients of services (see to that effect Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone  [1984] ECR 377, paragraph 16).
33. In that context, it is for the Member States to decide on the degree of protection which they wish to afford to public health and on the way in which that protection is to be achieved. They may do so, however, only within the limits set by the Treaty and must, in particular, observe the principle of proportionality (see Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía  [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 16), which requires that the measures adopted be appropriate to secure the attainment of the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, in particular, Säger , paragraph 15; Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Arblade and Others  [1999] ECR I-8453, paragraph 35; Corsten , paragraph 39; and Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital  [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 33).
37. Second, rules on television advertising such as those at issue in the main proceedings pursue an objective relating to the protection of public health within the meaning of Article 56(1) of the Treaty, as the Advocate General stated in paragraph 69 of his Opinion. Measures restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages in order to combat alcohol abuse reflect public health concerns (see Case 152/78 Commission  v France  [1980] ECR 2299, paragraph 17; Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía , paragraph 15; and Case C-405/98 Gourmet International Products  [2001] ECR I-1795, paragraph 27).
39. In that regard, as is clear from paragraphs 33 to 39 of today’s judgment in Commission  v France , the arguments set out by the Commission and the United Kingdom Government to establish the disproportionate nature of that regime must be rejected.
40. As far as concerns the one argument raised by Bacardi which was not considered in today’s judgment in Commission  v France , namely the argument that the rules on television advertising at issue in the main proceedings are not consistent because they do not cover advertising for alcoholic beverages visible in the background on film sets, that option lies within the discretion of the Member States to decide on the degree of protection which they wish to afford to public health and on the way in which that protection is to be achieved (see Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivía , paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2004-07-13
15. Article 10 EC makes it clear that the Member States are required to cooperate in good faith with the enquiries of the Commission pursuant to Article 226 EC, and to provide the Commission with all the information requested for that purpose (see, inter alia, Case 192/84 Commission  v Greece  [1985] ECR 3967, paragraph 19, and Case C-478/01 Commission  v Luxembourg  [2003] ECR I-2351, paragraph 24).
Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2004-07-13
44. It is settled case-law that an action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects (see Case 22/70 Commission  v Council  (the ‘ ERTA ’ case) [1971] ECR 263, paragraph 42, and Case C-316/91 Parliament  v Council  [1994] ECR I-625, paragraph 8).