larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 1986-12-02
40 THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1565/79 , UNDER WHICH ' DIFFERENTIATING THE SELLING PRICE ON THE BASIS OF THE USE TO WHICH THE MILK IS PUT OR ON THE BASIS OF OTHER OBJECTIVE CRITERIA SHALL ONLY BE EXCLUDED IN SO FAR AS IT COULD LEAD TO A DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN MILK BUYERS AND IN SO FAR AS IT MAY BE AN OBSTACLE TO THE NORMAL FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET ORGANIZATION AND , IN PARTICULAR , ITS INTERVENTION SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY AID SCHEMES ' , REQUIRES A VERY WIDE INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION TO THE EFFECT THAT DIFFERENTIATION OF THE SELLING PRICE IS EXCLUDED ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A RISK OF DISCRIMINATION OR OF DISTORTION EVEN WHERE THE CRITERION OF INTENDED USE OR OTHER OBJECTIVE CRITERIA ARE IGNORED . SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE MILK MARKETING BOARDS , WHICH EMBODIES THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO VERY STRICT CONTROL . IN THE LIGHT OF THAT SCHEME IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED THAT DIFFERENTIATION OF PRICES IS EXCLUDED IF IT IS FOUND TO ENTAIL RISKS OF DISTORTION OR OF DISCRIMINATION , EVEN IF IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CRITERION OF INTENDED USE OR OTHER OBJECTIVE CRITERIA WHICH IN THEORY OUGHT THEMSELVES TO ENSURE THAT SUCH DIFFERENTIATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1986-12-02
7 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT HAS EXPRESSED THE INTENTION BEFORE THE COURT OF ISSUING A CIRCULAR PENDING THE AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL RULES COMPLAINED OF . IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED , IN THAT REGARD , THAT ACCORDING TO THE CONSISTENT CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , EACH MEMBER STATE MUST IMPLEMENT DIRECTIVES IN A MANNER WHICH FULLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND MUST CONSEQUENTLY TRANSPOSE THEIR TERMS INTO NATIONAL LAW AS BINDING PROVISIONS . THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM CANNOT THEREFORE FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER DIRECTIVE NO 78/319 BY MEANS OF A MERE CIRCULAR WHICH MAY BE AMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AT WILL .
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1986-12-04
17 THE COURT HAS NEVERTHELESS ACCEPTED , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 18 JANUARY 1979 ( JOINED CASES 110 AND 111/78 MINISTERE PUBLIC AND ANOTHER V VAN WESEMAEL AND OTHERS ( 1979 ) ECR 35 ) AND 17 DECEMBER 1981 ( CASE 279/80 WEBB ( 1981 ) ECR 3305 ), THAT REGARD BEING HAD TO THE PARTICULAR NATURE OF CERTAIN SERVICES , SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON THE PROVIDER OF THE SERVICES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY WHERE THEY HAVE AS THEIR PURPOSE THE APPLICATION OF RULES GOVERNING SUCH ACTIVITIES . HOWEVER , THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES , AS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY , MAY BE RESTRICTED ONLY BY PROVISIONS WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE GENERAL GOOD AND WHICH ARE APPLIED TO ALL PERSONS OR UNDERTAKINGS OPERATING WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED IN SO FAR AS THAT INTEREST IS NOT SAFEGUARDED BY THE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THE PROVIDER OF A SERVICE IS SUBJECT IN THE MEMBER STATE OF HIS ESTABLISHMENT . IN ADDITION , SUCH REQUIREMENTS MUST BE OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED BY THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT ARE COMPLIED WITH AND THAT THE INTERESTS WHICH SUCH RULES ARE DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD ARE PROTECTED .
20 IN ITS JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS DAY IN CASE 205/84 COMMISSION V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE INSURANCE SECTOR IN GENERAL THERE WERE IMPERATIVE REASONS RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER BOTH AS A POLICY-HOLDER AND AS AN INSURED PERSON WHICH MIGHT JUSTIFY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES . THE COURT ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW , IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE COORDINATION OF THE RELEVANT NATIONAL RULES , THE PROTECTION OF THAT INTEREST WAS NOT NECESSARILY GUARANTEED BY THE RULES OF THE STATE OF ESTABLISHMENT . THE COURT CONCLUDED THEREFROM THAT , AS REGARDS THE FIELD OF DIRECT INSURANCE IN GENERAL , THE REQUIREMENT OF A SEPARATE AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SERVICE WAS PROVIDED REMAINED JUSTIFIED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ESTABLISHMENT , WHICH REPRESENTED THE VERY NEGATION OF THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES , EXCEEDED WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED AND THAT , ACCORDINGLY , THAT REQUIREMENT WAS CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 59 AND 60 OF THE TREATY .
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 1986-12-04
16 ACCORDING TO THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , ARTICLES 59 AND 60 OF THE EEC TREATY BECAME DIRECTLY APPLICABLE ON THE EXPIRY OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , AND THEIR APPLICABILITY WAS NOT CONDITIONAL ON THE HARMONIZATION OR THE COORDINATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES . THOSE ARTICLES REQUIRE THE REMOVAL NOT ONLY OF ALL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PROVIDER OF A SERVICE ON THE GROUNDS OF HIS NATIONALITY BUT ALSO ALL RESTRICTIONS ON HIS FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES IMPOSED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT HE IS ESTABLISHED IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE SERVICE IS TO BE PROVIDED .
20 IN ITS JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS DAY IN CASE 205/84 COMMISSION V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE INSURANCE SECTOR IN GENERAL THERE WERE IMPERATIVE REASONS RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER BOTH AS A POLICY-HOLDER AND AS AN INSURED PERSON WHICH MIGHT JUSTIFY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES . THE COURT ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW , IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO THE COORDINATION OF THE RELEVANT NATIONAL RULES , THE PROTECTION OF THAT INTEREST WAS NOT NECESSARILY GUARANTEED BY THE RULES OF THE STATE OF ESTABLISHMENT . THE COURT CONCLUDED THEREFROM THAT , AS REGARDS THE SECTOR OF DIRECT INSURANCE IN GENERAL , THE REQUIREMENT OF A SEPARATE AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SERVICE WAS PROVIDED REMAINED JUSTIFIED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ESTABLISHMENT , WHICH REPRESENTED THE VERY NEGATION OF THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES , EXCEEDED WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED AND THAT , ACCORDINGLY , THAT REQUIREMENT WAS CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 59 AND 60 OF THE TREATY .
State of the Netherlands v Federatie Nederlands Vakbeweging.
Date: 1986-12-04
13 AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 19 JANUARY 1982 IN CASE 8/81 BECKER V FINANZAMT MUNSTER-INNENSTADT ( 1982 ) ECR 53 , WHEREVER THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE APPEAR , AS FAR AS THEIR SUBJECT-MATTER IS CONCERNED , TO BE UNCONDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE , INDIVIDUALS MAY RELY ON THOSE PROVISIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ADOPTED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD AS AGAINST ANY NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DIRECTIVE OR IN SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS DEFINE RIGHTS WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO ASSERT AGAINST THE STATE .
17 AS THE COURT RECENTLY HELD ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 JUNE 1986 IN CASE 150/85 DRAKE V CHIEF ADJUDICATION OFFICER ( 1986 ) ECR 1995 ), THE OBJECTIVE SET OUT IN ARTICLE 1 OF DIRECTIVE 79/7/EEC IS GIVEN PRACTICAL EXPRESSION BY ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ), WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN MATTERS OF SOCIAL SECURITY THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION WHATSOEVER ON GROUNDS OF SEX , EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY REFERENCE IN PARTICULAR TO MARITAL OR FAMILY STATUS , IN PARTICULAR AS CONCERNS THE SCOPE OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES AND THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESS THERETO .
18 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , STANDING BY ITSELF , AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVE AND CONTENTS OF DIRECTIVE 79/7/EEC , ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) PRECLUDES , GENERALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY , ALL DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX . THE PROVISION IS THEREFORE SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO BE RELIED UPON IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND APPLIED BY THE COURTS . HOWEVER , IT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH IT CONTAINS MAY BE REGARDED AS UNCONDITIONAL , HAVING REGARD TO THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 7 AND TO THE FACT THAT ACCORDING TO THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 5 MEMBER STATES ARE TO TAKE CERTAIN MEASURES IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT IS APPLIED IN NATIONAL LEGISLATION .
21 CONSEQUENTLY , ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT CONFER ON MEMBER STATES THE POWER TO MAKE CONDITIONAL OR TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT WITHIN ITS FIELD OF APPLICATION AND IT IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE AND UNCONDITIONAL TO ALLOW INDIVIDUALS , IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ADOPTED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD , TO RELY UPON IT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS AS FROM 23 DECEMBER 1984 IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONAL PROVISION INCONSISTENT WITH THAT ARTICLE .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1986-12-16
8 BEFORE CONSIDERING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THAT SYSTEM WITH ARTICLE 95 OF THE EEC TREATY , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO POINT OUT THAT THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT IN ITS PRESENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO LAY DOWN TAX ARRANGEMENTS WHICH DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CERTAIN PRODUCTS ON THE BASIS OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA . HOWEVER , THE FREEDOM LEFT TO MEMBER STATES IN THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC TAXATION CANNOT JUSTIFY ANY DEPARTURE FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION IN TAXATION MATTERS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 95 BUT MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THAT PROVISION AND OBSERVE THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN .
10 IN THIS CASE , IT MUST BE HELD IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR CUBIC CAPACITY AS THE DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD BETWEEN TWO RATES OF TAXATION IS AN OBJECTIVE CRITERION THAT TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF PRODUCTS . THE FACT THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD IS HIGHER FOR DIESEL-ENGINED CARS THAN FOR PETROL-ENGINED CARS IS NOT ITSELF CONTESTED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS .
Vassilios Kotsonis v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1986-12-18
9 AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION BASED ON THE ORDER IN WHICH THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES AT THE COMPETITION WERE CLASSIFIED , IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY CHOOSES FROM THE LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES YIELDED BY THE COMPETITION THOSE WHOM IT INTENDS TO APPOINT TO THE VACANT POSTS . AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1966 ( CASE 62/65 SERIO V COMMISSION ( 1966 ) ECR 561 ), THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS ENTITLED IN MAKING ITS SELECTION TO IGNORE THE PRECISE ORDER OF MERIT IN THE COMPETITION FOR REASONS WHICH IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ADMINISTRATION TO DETERMINE AND TO JUSTIFY BEFORE THE COURT , PROVIDED THAT IT DOES NOT DESTROY THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE COMPETITION BY DEPARTING SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE RESULTS OF THE COMPETITION WITHOUT SERIOUS REASONS . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES BOUND TO APPOINT THE CANDIDATE PLACED FIRST BUT MAY GIVE PREFERENCE TO ANOTHER CANDIDATE LISTED AS SUITABLE IF IT HAS REASONS FOR DOING SO WHICH SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 1986-12-18
34 IN THE ALTERNATIVE , THE UNITED KINGDOM SUBMITS THAT IT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH . IN RELIANCE ON THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 10 ( 2 ) IT CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS NOT UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSION ' S REQUEST FOR ADVANCE PAYMENT . AS A RESULT , THESE PROCEEDINGS RELATE TO AN UNINTENTIONAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COMMUNITY OBLIGATION , THE VERY EXISTENCE OF WHICH WILL BE UNCERTAIN UNTIL THE COURT DELIVERS ITS JUDGMENT .
37 AS THE COURT HAS STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 20 MARCH 1986 IN CASE 303/84 COMMISSION V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ( 1986 ) ECR 1171 , THE VERY WORDING OF ARTICLE 11 SHOWS THAT INTEREST IS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ' ANY DELAY '  IN CREDITING THE AMOUNTS TO THE COMMISSION ' S ACCOUNT , REGARDLESS OF THE REASON FOR THE DELAY . ACCORDINGLY , THE FACT THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT THE INVITATIONS MADE BY THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 10 ( 2 ) WERE BINDING CANNOT EXPUNGE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 11 WITH WHICH IT IS CHARGED BY THE COMMISSION .
SpA Villa Banfi v Regione Toscana and others.
Date: 1986-12-18
9 IN SETTING OUT THE COMMUNITY ' S DEFINITION OF ' A FARM SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT ' , ARTICLES 2 AND 3 DELIMIT THE CLASS OF PERSON BENEFITING UNDER THE SYSTEM INTRODUCED BY THE DIRECTIVE , WITHOUT LEAVING MEMBER STATES ANY LATITUDE FOR WITHHOLDING THE BENEFITS FROM FARMS WHICH FULFIL THE CONDITIONS .
10 IT SHOULD THUS BE NOTED THAT THE DIRECTIVE NOT ONLY DOES NOT EXCLUDE LEGAL PERSONS BUT EXPRESSLY INCLUDES THEM WITHIN ITS SCOPE PROVIDED THAT THEY FULFIL THE CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 2 AND MEET THE DEFINITION OF ' A FARMER PRACTISING FARMING AS HIS MAIN OCCUPATION '  LAID DOWN IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ). SINCE THOSE CONDITIONS ARE UNRELATED TO THE FORM IN WHICH A LEGAL PERSON IS CONSTITUTED , THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN IS THAT MEMBER STATES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO WITHHOLD FROM LEGAL PERSONS THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE SOLELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE ASSUMED A SPECIFIC LEGAL FORM . DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT SUCH AS THAT WOULD , IN ANY EVENT , CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY WHICH MEMBER STATES MUST OBSERVE WHEN GIVING EFFECT TO THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
11 CONSEQUENTLY , THE ANSWER TO BE GIVEN IS THAT ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 72/159/EEC MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT MEMBER STATES , WHEN LAYING DOWN THE CRITERIA TO BE FULFILLED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN A NATURAL PERSON IN ORDER TO BE REGARDED AS A FARMER PRACTISING FARMING AS HIS MAIN OCCUPATION , ARE NOT PERMITTED TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TYPES OF LEGAL PERSON FROM THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE SOLELY BY REASON OF THEIR LEGAL FORM .
Commission of the European Communities v Jan Zoubek.
Date: 1986-12-18
10 IN THAT REGARD , IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH UNDER AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE , THE COURT IS CALLED UPON TO RESOLVE A DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT , THE QUESTION WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A COUNTERCLAIM AND TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT IS ADMISSIBLE MUST BE ASSESSED SOLELY IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 42 OF THE ECSC TREATY , ARTICLE 181 OF THE EEC TREATY , ARTICLE 153 OF THE EAEC TREATY AND THE COURT ' S RULES OF PROCEDURE .
11 THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT , WHICH IS BASED ON AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE , DEROGATES FROM THE ORDINARY RULES OF LAW AND MUST THEREFORE BE GIVEN A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION . THE COURT MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE ONLY CLAIMS ARISING FROM A CONTRACT WHICH WAS CONCLUDED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WHICH CONTAINS THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE OR CLAIMS THAT ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THAT CONTRACT . MOREOVER , THAT IS HOW JURISDICTION IS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 6 ( 3 ) OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS , ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COURT IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL CLAIM IS PENDING HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A COUNTERCLAIM ARISING FROM THE SAME CONTRACT OR FACTS ON WHICH THE ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS BASED .
VAG France SA v Établissements Magne SA.
Date: 1986-12-18
12 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT REGULATION NO 123/85 , AS A REGULATION APPLYING ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY , IS LIMITED TO PROVIDING ECONOMIC AGENTS IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY WITH CERTAIN POSSIBILITIES ENABLING THEM TO REMOVE THEIR DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICING AGREEMENTS FROM THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) DESPITE THE INCLUSION IN THOSE AGREEMENTS OF CERTAIN TYPES OF EXCLUSIVITY AND NO-COMPETITION CLAUSES . HOWEVER , THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 123/85 DO NOT COMPEL ECONOMIC AGENTS TO MAKE USE OF THOSE POSSIBILITIES . NOR DO THOSE PROVISIONS HAVE THE EFFECT OF AMENDING THE CONTENT OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT OR OF RENDERING IT VOID WHERE ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE REGULATION ARE NOT SATISFIED .
14 IT MUST BE ADDED THAT THE COURT HAS HELD ( JUDGMENTS OF 30 JUNE 1966 IN CASE 56/65 SOCIETE TECHNIQUE MINIERE V MASCHINENBAU ULM GMBH ( 1966 ) ECR 235 AND OF 14 DECEMBER 1983 IN CASE 319/82 SOCIETE DE VENTE DE CIMENTS ET BETONS DE L ' EST V KERPEN & KERPEN GMBH ( 1983 ) ECR 4173 ) THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FACT THAT THOSE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) ARE AUTOMATICALLY VOID FOR ALL OTHER PARTS OF THE AGREEMENT OR FOR OTHER OBLIGATIONS FLOWING FROM IT ARE NOT A MATTER FOR COMMUNITY LAW .
15 IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO DETERMINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT NATIONAL LAW THE EXTENT AND CONSEQUENCES , FOR THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AS A WHOLE , OF THE NULLITY OF CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 85 ( 2 ). IT IS ON THE BASIS OF NATIONAL LAW THAT IT IS NECESSARY IN PARTICULAR TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH INCOMPATIBILITY MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF OBLIGING THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO AMEND THE CONTENT OF THEIR AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING VOID AND , AS THE CASE MAY BE , TO CHOOSE , TO THAT END , THE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE POSSIBILITIES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 123/85 WITH REGARD TO THE DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT .
16 THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION PUT TO THE COURT BY THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , PARIS , MUST THEREFORE BE THAT COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 123/85 OF 12 DECEMBER 1984 ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 85 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICING AGREEMENTS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 15 , P . 16 ) DOES NOT LAY DOWN ANY MANDATORY PROVISIONS DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OR THE CONTENT OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS OR OBLIGE THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO ADAPT THE CONTENT OF THEIR AGREEMENT BUT MERELY LAYS DOWN CONDITIONS WHICH , IF THEY ARE SATISFIED , EXCLUDE CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FROM THE PROHIBITION AND CONSEQUENTLY FROM THE AUTOMATIC NULLITY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY AND THAT IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT , IN THE EVENT THAT CERTAIN CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS ARE VOID , TO DETERMINE THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT NATIONAL LAW .
Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1987-01-14
34 FINALLY, THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 3 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 2677/84, WHICH REDUCE THE MINIMUM PRICES FOR SUGARBEET AND POTATOES, INFRINGE THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN THAT THEY HAVE A RETROACTIVE EFFECT UPON CONTRACTS ( IN SOME CASES ALREADY PERFORMED ) BETWEEN SUGARBEET AND POTATO FARMERS ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY ON THE OTHER . IN THAT RESPECT THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT FARMERS HAD PLANNED THEIR MARKETING YEAR IN THE SPRING OF 1984 ON THE BASIS OF DECISIONS ON PRICES ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL, WHICH FIXES MINIMUM PRICES A YEAR IN ADVANCE .
35 THE PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION SHOULD BE MADE THAT THE PROBLEM THUS RAISED BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONE OF RETROACTIVITY IN THE STRICT SENSE BUT RESULTS FROM THE FACT THAT ANY ALTERATION IN REPRESENTATIVE RATES NECESSARILY AFFECTS THE RELATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES TO LONG-TERM CONTRACTS . THAT IS THE POSITION IN SECTORS SUCH AS THOSE OF SUGAR AND POTATO STARCH, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE COMMUNITY RULES ASSUME THAT CONTRACTS BETWEEN FARMERS AND MANUFACTURERS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED FOR THE WHOLE OF THE MARKETING YEAR AND THE ALTERATION TAKES EFFECT DURING OR BEFORE THE MARKETING YEAR BUT AT A TIME WHEN THE CONTRACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED .
36 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 16 MAY 1979 ( CASE 84/78 TOMADINI V AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO (( 1979 )) ECR 1801 ), THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE POINT OF GENERALLY PREVENTING NEW RULES FROM APPLYING TO THE FUTURE EFFECTS OF SITUATIONS WHICH AROSE UNDER THE EARLIER RULES, ESPECIALLY IN A FIELD SUCH AS THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH NECESSARILY INVOLVES CONSTANT ADJUSTMENT TO THE VARIATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC SITUATIONS IN THE VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL SECTORS . THAT OBSERVATION ALSO APPLIES TO ALTERATIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE RATES .
Rudolf Misset v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1987-01-15
7 THAT PROVISION IS SUPPLEMENTED BY ARTICLE 81 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE PERIOD OF TIME ALLOWED FOR COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A MEASURE ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION IS TO RUN FROM THE DAY FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT BY THE PERSON CONCERNED OF NOTIFICATION OF THE MEASURE . THE LATTER PROVISION, AND ALSO THE GENERAL RULE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 80 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO WHICH IN THE CALCULATION OF PROCEDURAL TIME-LIMITS THE DAY OF THE EVENT FROM WHICH THE PERIOD IS TO RUN IS TO BE EXCLUDED, ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT PARTIES ARE ABLE TO MAKE FULL USE OF THE PERIODS ALLOWED . REGARDLESS OF THE HOUR OF DAY WHEN THE MEASURE IN QUESTION IS NOTIFIED, TIME DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY OF NOTIFICATION .
8 WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PERIOD OF TIME ALLOWED FOR COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS IS EXPRESSED IN CALENDAR MONTHS, THAT PERIOD THEREFORE EXPIRES AT THE END OF THE DAY WHICH, IN THE MONTH INDICATED BY THE TIME-LIMIT, BEARS THE SAME NUMBER AS THE DAY FROM WHICH TIME WAS SET RUNNING, THAT IS TO SAY THE DAY OF NOTIFICATION . IN VIEW OF THE EXTENSION OF TWO DAYS ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE TO WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED, THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD THUS EXPIRED ON 20 MAY 1985 . AN APPLICATION LODGED ON THAT DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN TIME BUT SINCE HIS APPLICATION WAS LODGED ON 21 MAY 1985 IT IS OUT OF TIME .
11 AS REGARDS THE APPLICANT' S ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS ALTERNATIVE CLAIM, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT ACCORDING TO WHICH THE STRICT APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY RULES ON PROCEDURAL TIME-LIMITS SERVES THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND THE NEED TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION OR ARBITRARY TREATMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 26 NOVEMBER 1985 IN CASE 42/85 COCKERILL-SAMBRE SA V COMMISSION (( 1985 )) ECR 3749 ). THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVED OR EVEN PLEADED THE EXISTENCE OF UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES OR OF FORCE MAJEURE WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE TIME-LIMIT PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 42 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC .
Ferriera Valsabbia SpA v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1987-01-21
14 FINALLY, WITH REGARD TO THE OBJECTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DELIVERIES AT ISSUE WERE INTENDED FOR A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY, IT MUST FIRST BE OBSERVED THAT THE GENERAL DECISION DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE POINT WHETHER STOCKS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THAT THE GENERAL DECISION ENTERED INTO EFFECT ARE OR ARE NOT TO BE ADDED TO THE CALCULATION OF THAT PART OF THE PRODUCTION QUOTAS WHICH MAY BE DELIVERED ON THE COMMON MARKET . AS IT EXPLAINED DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION' S GENERAL PRACTICE IS TO APPLY A CONCESSION WHEN THE QUOTA SYSTEM IS IMPLEMENTED TO PERMIT AN UNDERTAKING TO DELIVER, OVER AND ABOVE ITS DELIVERY QUOTA, THE QUANTITIES HELD IN STOCK AT THE TIME WHEN THE SYSTEM ENTERS INTO FORCE EITHER TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OR ON THE COMMON MARKET .
15 IT FOLLOWS THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO APPLY THAT GENERAL PRACTICE IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE UNLESS DIFFERENT TREATMENT IS JUSTIFIED ON OBJECTIVE GROUNDS .
Vassiliki Stroghili v Court of Auditors of the European Communities.
Date: 1987-01-21
11 MRS STROGHILI' S INTEREST IN NOT HAVING HER PROSPECTS OF PROMOTION TO GRADE LA*6 REDUCED AS A RESULT OF MRS VLACHOU' S ESTABLISHMENT AND NOT BEING SUBJECT TO "UNLAWFUL" COMPETITION FROM HER IN ANY COMPETITIONS WHICH MIGHT IN FUTURE BE ORGANIZED FOR POSTS IN CAREER BRACKET LA*5 - LA*4 AT THE COURT OF AUDITORS IS A FUTURE AND HYPOTHETICAL INTEREST AND HENCE DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS EXPRESSLY LAID DOWN IN THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT .