larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Bernd von Hoffmann v Finanzamt Trier.
Date: 1997-09-16
15 In order to answer that question, it must first be noted that Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of the Directive does not refer to professions, such as those of lawyers, consultants, accountants or engineers, but to services. The Community legislature has used the professions mentioned in that provision as a means of defining the categories of services to which it refers.
16 The first question which arises, therefore, is whether the services of an arbitrator fall within the category of those principally and habitually carried out as part of the professions listed in Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of the Directive (Case C-167/95 Linthorst, Pouwels and Scheres v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond [1997] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 18, 22 and 25).
17 In particular, the Community definition of a lawyer does not, in view of the range of services principally and habitually provided in the Member States as part of that profession, cover the services of an arbitrator.  Whilst arbitrators are in fact often chosen amongst lawyers by reason of their legal knowledge, the services provided by a lawyer are none the less principally and habitually those of representing or defending the interests of a person, whereas the services of an arbitrator are principally and habitually those of settling a dispute between two or more parties, even though this is done on an equitable basis.
20 It is clear from paragraphs 19 to 22 of the judgment in Linthorst, Pouwels and Scheres that the expression `other similar services' does not refer to some common feature of the disparate activities mentioned in Article 9(2)(e), third indent, of the Directive but to services similar to those of each of those activities, viewed separately.
21 A service must be regarded as similar to those of one of the activities mentioned in that provision when they both serve the same purpose.
Emanuele Iurlaro v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
Date: 1997-09-17
23 Finally, the Court refers to its case-law (see, in particular, Case C-12/93 Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging v Drake  [1994] ECR I-4337, paragraph 26), to the effect that Article 51 of the EC Treaty and Regulation No 1408/71 do not regulate the conditions under which insurance periods are constituted. It is for each Member State to determine the conditions governing the right or obligation to become a member of a social security scheme, provided that there is no overt or covert discrimination in that regard between nationals of the host Member State and those of other Member States.
28 It follows that, for the purposes, inter alia, of applying Article 45 of Regulation No 1408/71, `periods of insurance' means periods defined or recognized as such by the legislation under which they were completed (see, in particular, concerning periods treated as such, Case C-324/88 Vella and Others v Alliance Nationale des Mutualités Chrétiennes [1990] ECR I-257), subject however to compliance with Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty (see, on that point, Case C-302/90 Caisse Auxiliaire d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité v Faux [1991] ECR I-4875, paragraphs 25 to 28).
Provincia autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del medico provinciale di Trento v Dega di Depretto Gino SNC.
Date: 1997-09-17
15 Thirdly, Article 3(1)(6) of the Directive must be interpreted with reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part (Case 100/84 Commission v United Kingdom [1985] ECR 1169, paragraph 17; Case C-449/93 Rockfon v Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark [1995] ECR I-4291, paragraph 28; Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraph 28).
16 In that respect, it is apparent from both the sixth recital in the preamble and from Article 2 that the 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.
17 In particular, Article 3(1)(6) of the Directive `is mainly intended to enable the consumer to contact a person responsible for the manufacture or packaging of the foodstuffs with a view to expressing any positive or negative criticism about the product purchased' (Commission answer to a written question E-2170/95 of 28 July 1995, OJ 1995 C 340, p. 19).
18 That goal can only be achieved if the ultimate consumer can easily identify the person responsible for the product. In that respect, producers and packagers differ from sellers.  The former are generally established, easily identifiable traders, meaning that the fact that they might be situated outside the Community does not present a problem.  In contrast, sellers are generally much smaller traders and, consequently, more difficult to identify, particularly if they are established outside the Community.
Finanzamt Osnabrück-Land v Bernhard Langhorst.
Date: 1997-09-17
17 The minimum conditions regarding the information which must appear on the invoice or document serving as such having thus been laid down, Article 22(3)(c) leaves the Member States free to determine the criteria for considering whether such a document serves as an invoice. That power must, however, be exercised consistently with one of the objectives of the Sixth Directive, namely to ensure that VAT is levied and collected under the supervision of the tax authorities (see, to this effect, Joined Cases 123/87 and 330/87 Jeunehomme and EGI v Belgian State [1988] ECR 4517, paragraphs 16 and 17, and Case C-85/95 Reisdorf v Finanzamt Köln-West [1996] ECR I-6257, paragraph 24).
Criminal proceedings against Eddy Amelynck and Others.
Date: 1997-09-25
15 As the Court stated in its judgment in Case C-117/88 Trend-Moden Textilhandel v Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1990] ECR I-631, paragraph 19, Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty are silent as to the means of proof and the burden of proof of the Community status of goods and leave it to secondary Community legislation to settle those matters.
16 With regard to those means of proof, Regulations No 222/77 and No 223/77 lay down the rule that the Community status of goods may be proved only by means of document T2 or document T2 L, subject to specified exceptions (see Trend-Moden Textilhandel, cited above, paragraph 14, and Case C-83/89 Openbaar Ministerie and Minister van Financiën v Houben [1990] ECR I-1161, paragraph 17).
18 As the Court held in paragraph 20 of Trend-Moden Textilhandel, those rules are justified by the need to facilitate the movement of goods within the Community, which is one of the basic principles of the common market. Providing those on whom the burden of proof normally falls with a standard and simple means of proving the Community status of goods, combined with the possibility of producing such proof even after the frontier has been crossed, is consistent with that purpose and cannot therefore be regarded as contrary to Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty.
23 Apart from the exceptions expressly provided for by Regulation No 222/77, such as, in particular, carriage by air (Article 45), carriage by pipeline (Article 46), along with that of goods contained in travellers' luggage (Article 49), findings of this kind made by the authorities of a Member State cannot be used as proof of the Community status of goods, since this would lead to the reintroduction of the simultaneous application of national administrative procedures which those rules, as is clear from the ninth recital in the preamble to the regulation, are designed precisely to avoid.  The view that these findings may replace documents T2 or T2 L would therefore run counter to the purpose served by the rules in question, which, as the Court pointed out in paragraph 16 of Trend-Moden Textilhandel, cited above, is to facilitate the transport of goods within the Community by simplifying and standardizing the formalities to be carried out when internal frontiers are crossed.
24 This interpretation is, moreover, corroborated by Article 9 of Regulation No 222/77 and Article 71 of Regulation No 223/77, which provide for the retroactive issue of document T2 and document T2 L respectively.  As the Court pointed out in Trend-Moden Textilhandel, paragraph 15, those provisions incorporate the Community legislature's intention to exclude other means of proof while at the same time facilitating the task of the party concerned.
Salvatore Baldone v Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (INAMI).
Date: 1997-09-25
15 The purpose of Article 95a(4) is to enable the person concerned to ask for the benefits awarded under the unamended Regulation to be reviewed where it appears that the rules of the amending Regulation are more favourable to him and to benefit from the benefits awarded in accordance with the provisions of the unamended Regulation being maintained where they appear more advantageous than those resulting from the amending Regulation.
16 It is thus clear both from the terms and the structure of Article 95a(4) that application of the provisions of the amending Regulation to pension rights acquired before 1 June 1992 is subject to an express application being made by the person concerned. The competent institution is not therefore entitled to substitute itself for an insured person, especially where review by that institution of its own motion would operate to the detriment of the person concerned (see Case 32/76 Saieva [1976] ECR 1523, paragraphs 15 to 17).
Brigitte Kording v Senator für Finanzen.
Date: 1997-10-02
14 As the Court stated in Case C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225, paragraph 30, discrimination can arise only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations.
16 The Court has consistently held that indirect discrimination arises where a national measure, albeit formulated in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of far more women than men (see, to that effect, Case C-444/93 Megner and Scheffel v Innungskrankenkasse Rheinhessen-Pfalz [1995] ECR I-4741, paragraph 24, and Case C-343/92 De Weerd (née Roks) and Others [1994] ECR I-571, paragraph 33).
19 In those circumstances, measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings give rise in practice to discrimination against women as compared with men and must in principle be regarded as contrary to the Directive.  The position would be different only if the distinction between those two categories of employee were justified by factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex (see inter alia Case 170/84 Bilka v Weber von Hartz [1986] ECR 1607, paragraph 29; Case 171/88 Rinner-Kühn v FWW Spezial-Gebäudereinigung [1989] ECR 2743, paragraph 12; and Case C-457/93 Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation v Lewark [1996] ECR I-243, paragraph 31).
20 It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts and interpret the national legislation, to determine in the light of all the circumstances whether, and to what extent, a legislative provision which, although applying irrespective of gender, actually affects a greater number of women than men, is justified by objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex (see Case 96/80 Jenkins v Kingsgate [1981] ECR 911, paragraph 14; Bilka, paragraph 36; and Rinner-Kühn, paragraph 15).
23 In Case C-184/89 Nimz [1991] ECR I-297, paragraph 14, the Court took the view that it is impossible to identify objective criteria unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex on the basis of an alleged special link between length of service and acquisition of a certain level of knowledge or experience, since such a claim amounts to no more than a generalization concerning certain categories of worker.  Although experience goes hand in hand with length of service, and experience enables the worker in principle to improve performance of the tasks allotted to him, the objectivity of such a criterion depends on all the circumstances in each individual case, and in particular on the relationship between the nature of the work performed and the experience gained from the performance of that work upon completion of a certain number of working hours.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1997-10-02
9 It is, however, settled case-law that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or situations of its own internal legal order in order to justify its failure to respect the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive (see, in particular, Case C-107/96 Commission v Spain [1997] ECR I-3193, paragraph 10).
Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland) BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen.
Date: 1997-10-09
16 According to the Commission, however, the Xerox 3010 and Xerox 3010 Editor machines must be classified as photocopiers under sub-heading 9009 12 00.
21 As the Commission rightly points out, heading 9009 includes, in addition to photocopiers incorporating an optical system and of the direct reproduction type, those which incorporate an intermediate for reproduction by the indirect process.  In this case, reproduction by the indirect process is effected by converting the image into digital data.
22 It is irrelevant that the indirect process common to the two machines relies on modern technology.  The Court held in Case 122/80 Analog Devices v  Hauptzollamt München-Mitte and Hauptzollamt München-West [1981] ECR 2781, paragraph 12, that, even though it cannot be denied that technical developments in the industrial sector concerned justify the drawing up of a new customs classification, it is for the competent Community institutions to take account thereof by amending the Common Customs Tariff.  In those circumstances, failing such an amendment, the interpretation of the tariff cannot vary as and when technology changes.
Michel Macon e.a. v Préfet de l'Aisne.
Date: 1997-10-09
22 In its judgment in Case C-341/89 Ballmann [1991] ECR I-25, paragraph 12, the Court held that a producer is any person who manages a holding and sells or delivers milk or milk products and that it is not necessary for the farmer to own the production facilities used by him.
26 Last, as the Advocate General correctly points out in section 29 of his Opinion, to award compensation for giving up an unused reference quantity would be contrary to the settled case-law of the Court, according to which the right to property safeguarded by the Community legal order does not include the right to dispose, for profit, of an advantage, such as reference quantities, which does not derive from the assets or occupational activity of the person concerned (Case C-44/89 Von Deetzen II [1991] ECR I-5119, paragraph 27, and Case C-2/92 Bostock [1994] ECR I-955, paragraph 19).
Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn v Kevin Cinnamond.
Date: 1997-10-09
13 Second, the two interpretations mentioned in paragraph 9 above are both capable of leading to consequences which are unsatisfactory and contrary to the aims of the Brussels Convention as set out in its preamble, which are, in particular, to facilitate reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts and tribunals and to strengthen the legal protection of persons established in the Community. With respect more particularly to Article 21, the Court has repeatedly observed that that provision, together with Article 22 on related actions, is contained in Section 8 of Title II of the Brussels Convention, a section which is intended, in the interests of the proper administration of justice within the Community, to prevent parallel proceedings before the courts of different Contracting States and to avoid conflicts between decisions which might arise therefrom. Those rules are therefore designed to preclude, in so far as possible and from the outset, a situation such as that referred to in Article 27(3), namely the non-recognition of a judgment on account of its irreconcilability with a judgment given between the same parties in the State addressed (see Case 144/86 Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo [1987] ECR 4861, paragraph 8, and Case C-351/89 Overseas Union Insurance and Others v New Hampshire Insurance [1991] ECR I-3317, paragraph 16).
17 That provision should therefore be construed in such a way as to make it possible for the legal protection of persons established in the Community to be strengthened and recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions to be facilitated, in particular by reducing the danger of irreconcilable judgments being delivered, that being a ground for refusing recognition and enforcement under Article 27(3) and the second paragraph of Article 34 of the Brussels Convention (see Case C-220/88 Dumez France and Tracoba v Hessische Landesbank and Others [1990] ECR I-49, paragraph 18, and Overseas Union Insurance, paragraph 15).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1997-10-09
21 The Court has consistently held that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation in the Member State as it stood at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraph 20, and Case C-302/95 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-6765, paragraph 13).
23 In those circumstances, when appraising this action, the Court cannot take into account either Royal Decree 2071/1995 or the draft royal decrees.
40 Consequently, it must be held that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the provisions necessary to implement Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Euratom Treaty.
Criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir.
Date: 1997-10-09
12 On that point it should be noted that, according to settled case-law,  the Court has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, or where the problem is hypothetical and the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 61, and Case C-134/95 USSL No 47 di Biella [1997] ECR I-195, paragraph 12).
13 Secondly, it should be pointed out that the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down by Article 6 of the EC Treaty applies only within the Treaty's area of application.
16 In those circumstances it must be held, in accordance with established case-law (order of 16 May 1994 in Case C-428/93 Monin Automibiles [1994] ECR I-1707, paragraph 15), that the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling does not involve an interpretation of Community law objectively required for the decision to be taken by the magistrate concerned.
The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Benjamin Lay, Donald Gage and David Gage.
Date: 1997-10-16
14 In its judgment in Case C-81/91 Twijnstra v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [1993] ECR I-2455 the Court ruled that the third subparagraph of Article 3a(2) of Council Regulation No 857/84 of 31 March 1984, as amended by Council Regulation No 764/89 of 20 March 1989, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the transfer of part of a holding where the transferee agrees to observe the non-marketing undertaking made by the transferor under Council Regulation No 1078/77, the special reference quantity may be divided between the transferor and the transferee on the basis of the proportion of the land transferred.
32 It should be borne in mind that, as the fourth and sixth recitals in the preamble indicate, Regulation No 2055/93 was adopted `in order to take fully into account the decisions of the Court of Justice', in particular the judgment in Twijnstra.
33 At paragraph 25 of that judgment the Court held that the entire system of reference quantities is based on the general principle, laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 857/84 and in Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84, that in the case of the transfer of part of a holding the reference quantity is to be granted to the transferee in proportion to the land transferred.
34 However, in Twijnstra the general principle that a reference quantity is attached to the land, as expressed in particular in Case C-463/93 St. Martinus Elten [1997] ECR I-255, paragraph 14, was formulated in relation only to the transfer of part of a holding all of which was given over to dairy production.  Accordingly that judgment did not deal with the case, such as that in point in the main proceedings, where part of a mixed holding is transferred.
37 That literal interpretation is in keeping with the purpose of the abovementioned provisions, namely to protect the legitimate expectations on which the transferee may rely.   Since the transferee has acquired part of a holding previously used for milk production and has assumed the non-marketing undertaking, he may legitimately expect to be able to re-use the land transferred for the purpose of milk production (see, to that effect, Twijnstra, cited above, paragraph 23.
39 In its judgment in Case C-79/91 Knüfer [1992] ECR I-6895, paragraph 12, the Court made it clear in that respect that the reference quantities are to be distributed strictly in proportion to the size of the respective areas of the holding which are used for milk production, without its being possible to make any distinction according to the nature of the use to which those areas are put.
40 In paragraph 13 of the same judgment the Court added that, for the purpose of distributing the reference quantities, all the surface areas of the holding which contribute directly or indirectly to the milk production thereof must be taken into consideration.