larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Vereniging ter Bevordering van het Vlaamse Boekwezen, VBVB, and Vereniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des Boekhandels, VBBB, v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-01-17
22 IN THIS CONNECTION IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT ALTHOUGH , UNDER ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY , THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO STATE THE FACTUAL MATTERS JUSTIFYING THE     ADOPTION OF A DECISION , TOGETHER WITH THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE LED TO ITS ADOPTING IT , THE ARTICLE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS ALL THE MATTERS OF FACT AND OF LAW WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ( SEE , MOST RECENTLY ON THAT SUBJECT , THE JUDGMENT OF 9 NOVEMBER 1983 , CASE 322/81 MICHELIN ( 1983 ) ECR 3461 . THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING A PERSON IS BASED MUST ALLOW THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REVIEW AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION AND MUST PROVIDE THE PERSON CONCERNED WITH THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ENABLE HIM TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION IS WELL FOUNDED . FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT THE COMMISSION , IN ITS STATEMENT OF REASONS , HAS SUFFICIENTLY SET OUT ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS OF LAW AND OF FACT ON WHICH IT HAS RELIED IN ARRIVING AT THE OPERATIVE PART OF ITS DECISION . THIS SUBMISSION ALSO MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
25 IN THAT CONNECTION IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH REGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE REQUIRES THAT THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED SHALL HAVE BEEN ENABLED TO MAKE KNOWN EFFECTIVELY ITS POINT OF VIEW ON THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSION IN MAKING THE FINDINGS ON WHICH ITS DECISION IS BASED , THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO DIVULGE THE CONTENTS OF ITS FILES TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED . IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS MADE USE OF ANY DOCUMENT WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES AND ON WHICH THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN . THIS SUBMISSION ALSO MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
40 IN THAT CONNECTION IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL PRACTICES , EVEN ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT THEY ARE COMMON TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES , CANNOT PREVAIL IN THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPETITION RULES SET OUT IN THE TREATY . THE SAME REASONING MUST APPLY WITH EVEN GREATER FORCE IN RELATION TO PRACTICES OF PRIVATE UNDERTAKINGS , EVEN WHERE THEY ARE TOLERATED OR APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE . THIS SUBMISSION ALSO MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .

4 . SUBMISSION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO HAVE REGARD TO THE SPECIAL STRUCTURE OF THE MARKET IN BOOKS
61 AS THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER ARTICLES 85 ( 3 ) ARE CUMULATIVE , IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE OTHER CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION .
Ekro BV Vee- en Vleeshandel v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees.
Date: 1984-01-18
11 THE NEED FOR A UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY REQUIRE THAT THE TERMS OF A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAKES NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE LAW OF THE MEMBER STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ITS MEANING AND SCOPE MUST NORMALLY BE GIVEN AN INDEPENDENT AND UNIFORM INTERPRETATION THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY ; THAT INTERPRETATION MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION AND THE PURPOSE OF THE RELEVANT REGULATIONS .
13 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH INDICATION IN REGULATION NO 2787/81 , IT CANNOT BE ASSUMEND THAT THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE INTENDED , IN A REGULATION GOVERNING REFUNDS ON EXPORTS OF MEAT , TO HARMONIZE OR STANDARDIZE THE CUTTING AND BONING METHODS USED IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES . ON THE CONTRARY , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE COMMISSION ' S REPLY TO A QUESTION PUT BY THE COURT THAT WHEN REGULATION NO 2787/81 WAS ADOPTED THE COMMISSION WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE EXACT MEANING OF THE TERMS USED IN THE REGULATION BUT CONSIDERED THAT THEY WERE OF MINOR IMPORTANCE AND DID NOT JUSTIFY MODIFYING THE EXISTING PRACTICES AND METHODS .
14 BY THUS ACCEPTING THAT THOSE TERMS MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS THE COMMISSION INCORPORATED INTO ITS REGULATION AN IMPLIED REFERENCE TO THE     CUTTING AND BONING METHODS USED IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES AND REGIONS . THEREFORE , NOTWITHSTANDING THE AFOREMENTIONED PRINCIPLE THAT PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW SHOULD BE INTERPRETED UNIFORMLY , IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO GIVE A UNIFORM COMMUNITY DEFINITION OF THOSE TERMS .
Ivar Andersen and others v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-01-19
3 THE COUNCIL CONTESTS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE DECISION REJECTING THE COMPLAINT . THE APPLICANTS HAVE NO     INTEREST IN TAKING ACTION AGAINST THAT DECISION SINCE ITS ANNULMENT WOULD IN NO WAY AFFECT THE SALARY STATEMENTS CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION .
4 THAT OBJECTION MUST BE DISMISSED . IN STAFF CASES WHERE IT IS A RULE THAT A COMPLAINT MUST NECESSARILY BE MADE BEFORE AN ACTION IS BROUGHT THE APPLICANTS '  INTEREST IN SEEKING ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION REJECTING THEIR COMPLAINT AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MEASURE ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEM CANNOT BE DENIED WHATEVER THE SPECIFIC EFFECT OF THE ANNULMENT OF SUCH A DECISION IN A GIVEN CASE .
Kirsten Andersen and others v European Parliament.
Date: 1984-01-19
6 ON THAT ISSUE IT SUFFICES TO RECALL , AS THE COURT HAS STATED INTER ALIA IN THE JUDGMENT OF 6 MARCH 1979 ( CASE 92/78 , SIMMENTHAL V COMMISSION ( 1979 ) ECR 777 ) THAT ARTICLE 184 OF THE EEC TREATY GIVES EXPRESSION TO A GENERAL PRINCIPLE CONFERRING UPON ANY PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE INCIDENTALLY , WITH A VIEW TO OBTAINING THE ANNULMENT OF A DECISION ADDRESSED TO HIM , THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS WHICH FORM THE LEGAL BASIS THEREOF .
SA Clin-Midy and others v Belgian State.
Date: 1984-01-26
4 THAT QUESTION WOULD ARISE IN PARTICULAR IF A MEMBER STATE WERE TO REFUSE AUTHORIZATION TO MARKET A PRODUCT ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR IN THE DIRECTIVE , SUCH AS THE DESIRE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS LEGISLATION ON PRICES . IN THAT REGARD , IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE LAYING DOWN THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT , SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF AN AUTHORIZATION TO MARKET , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 21 , ARE UNCONDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE FOR THEM TO BE RELIED UPON BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT BY THE PERSONS CONCERNED IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE ANY NATIONAL PROVISION LAID DOWN BY LAW , REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DIRECTIVE .

SECOND QUESTION
10 ARTICLE 21 OF THE DIRECTIVE PROVIDES THAT AUTHORIZATION MAY NOT BE REFUSED , SUSPENDED OR REVOKED EXCEPT ON THE GROUNDS SET OUT IN THE DIRECTIVE . IT IS CLEAR FROM ARTICLES 3 TO 10 OF THE DIRECTIVE , WHICH DEAL WITH THE GRANTING OF AUTHORIZATION , AND FROM ARTICLES 11 AND 12 , WHICH DEAL WITH THE SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF AUTHORIZATION , THAT THE COUNCIL INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE GROUNDS FOR THE REFUSAL , SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO MARKET PROPRIETARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS SOLELY TO THE CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN THE DIRECTIVE .
11 THE ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 21 OF THE DIRECTIVE MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT AUTHORIZATION TO MARKET A PROPRIETARY MEDICINAL PRODUCT MAY NOT BE REFUSED , SUSPENDED OR REVOKED SAVE ON THE GROUND OF THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AS REFERRED TO BY THE DIRECTIVE .
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 1984-01-31
13 HOWEVER , THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THE ACTION INADMISSIBLE . BY FORMALLY STATING THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY WITH WHICH THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED IS CHARGED , THE REASONED OPINION CONCLUDES THE PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 169 .     THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROCEDURE IS TO GIVE THE MEMBER STATE AN OPPORTUNITY , ON THE ONE HAND , OF REMEDYING THE POSITION BEFORE THE MATTER IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , OF PUTTING FORWARD ITS DEFENCE TO THE COMMISSION ' S COMPLAINTS . THOSE AIMS WERE RESPECTED IN THIS CASE , SINCE THE COMMISSION WAITED FOR IRELAND ' S REPLY TO THE REASONED OPINION BEFORE BRINGING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT AND , AS THE COURT HAS SEEN , IRELAND SUBMITTED A REASONED REPLY TO THE COMMISSION ' S LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 AND TO THE REASONED OPINION , STATING THAT IT COMPLETELY DISAGREED WITH THE COMMISSION ' S ARGUMENTS AND INTENDED TO RETAIN IN FORCE THE CONTESTED NATIONAL RULES . THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW , MOREOVER , THAT THE COMMISSION ' S REGRETTABLE BEHAVIOUR DID NOT AFFECT THE FURTHER COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
20 THAT SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 169 THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION MUST RELATE TO THE SAME SUBJECT-MATTER AS THE REASONED OPINION , WHICH MUST IN TURN BE PRECEDED BY A LETTER INVITING THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO SUBMIT ITS OBSERVATIONS , THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM SETTING OUT IN DETAIL IN THE REASONED OPINION THE COMPLAINTS WHICH IT HAS ALREADY MADE MORE GENERALLY IN ITS INITIAL LETTER . INDEED , THE REPLY TO THAT LETTER MAY GIVE RISE TO A FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THOSE COMPLAINTS .
IFG Intercontinentale Fleischhandelsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Bayern.
Date: 1984-01-31
6 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION CLAIMS SECONDLY THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT CONCERN A GENUINE CHARGE FOR HEALTH INSPECTIONS BUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE     LEVIED ON THE ISSUE OF AN IMPORT AUTHORIZATION . FINALLY , IT CLAIMS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT SIMILAR FEES ARE LEVIED IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES , CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 28 JUNE 1978 IN CASE 70/77 ( SIMMENTHAL V AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO ( 1978 ) ECR 1453 , PARAGRAPH 27 ).
10 FINALLY , THE COURT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE HEALTH INSPECTION OF GOODS IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES IS CARRIED OUT IN A DIFFERENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT FROM THE INSPECTION OF GOODS ORIGINATING IN THE COMMUNITY AND IN SUCH A CONTEXT THE LEVYING OF HEALTH INSPECTION CHARGES BY THE MEMBER STATES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PROHIBITED IN PRINCIPLE , PROVIDED , HOWEVER , THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THOSE CHARGES AND THE ACTUAL COST OF THE INSPECTIONS ( SEE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : JUDGMENTS OF 28 . 6 . 1978 IN CASE 70/77 , SIMMENTHAL , CITED ABOVE ; OF 5 . 7 . 1978 IN CASE 138/77 , LUDWIG V FREE AND HANSEATIC CITY OF HAMBURG , ( 1978 ) ECR 1645 ; OF 22 . 1 . 1980 IN CASE 30/79 , WIGEI , CITED ABOVE ; AND OF 22 . 3 . 1983 IN CASE 88/82 , AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO V LEONELLI , ( 1983 ) ECR 1061 ).
20 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST ENABLE THE NATIONAL COURT TO ADJUDICATE UPON AN ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PASSAGES OF THE DECISION IN THE JUDGMENT OF 28 JUNE 1978 IN SIMMENTHAL ( PARAGRAPH 27 , CITED ABOVE ).
21 IN THAT JUDGMENT THE COURT , WHILST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES MEMBER STATES ARE ENTITLED TO LEVY HEALTH INSPECTION CHARGES ON IMPORTS FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , STATED THAT THOSE CHARGES MUST NEVERTHELESS BE LIMITED SO AS TO PREVENT DISTORTIONS OF COMPETITION AND DEFLECTIONS OF TRADE WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET . IT MUST BE NOTED THAT SUCH EFFECTS ARE AVOIDED TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE HEALTH CHARGES DO NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE CONTROLS IN QUESTION . THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE CHARGING OF FEES FOR HEALTH INSPECTIONS OF     PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES IS SUBJECT TO PROOF THAT IDENTICAL OR COMPARABLE CHARGES ARE LEVIED BY ALL THE OTHER MEMBER STATES .
22 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QEUSTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE LEVYING OF A CHARGE FOR HEALTH CONTROLS ON FRESH MEAT IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF COMPARABLE CHARGES IN ALL THE OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY , IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE CORRESPONDS TO THE COST OF THE CONTROLS .
Ospig Textilgesellschaft KG W. Ahlers v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Ost.
Date: 1984-02-09
11 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE COMBINED PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS ( 1 ) AND ( 3 ) ( A ) OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1224/80 , AS AMENDED , THAT THE VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES INCLUDES ALL SUMS PAID OR PAYABLE AS A CONDITION OF THE SALE OF THE GOODS IMPORTED BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR OR BY THE PURCHASER TO A THIRD PARTY IN ORDER TO FULFIL ONE OF THE VENDOR ' S OBLIGATIONS .
12 IT MAY BE NOTED , MOREOVER , THAT ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION NO 1224/80 , TO WHICH ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) REFERS , PROVIDES THAT ' ' THERE SHALL BE ADDED TO THE PRICE ACTUALLY PAID OR PAYABLE FOR THE IMPORTED GOODS ' '  A NUMBER OF CHARGES ANCILLARY TO THAT PRICE , FROM AN ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW . ARTICLE 8 PROVIDES AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF THE CHARGES WHICH MAY THUS BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ' ' QUOTA CHARGES ' '  DO NOT APPEAR IN THAT LIST .
13 IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED , FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISIONS , THAT THE SYSTEM OF EXPORT AND IMPORT LICENCES FORMS PART OF THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM OF AUTHORIZATION AND QUANTITATIVE LIMITATION OF IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF TEXTILE PRODUCTS FROM CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , PROVISIONALLY LAID DOWN BY COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3019/77 OF 30 DECEMBER 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 357 , P . 1 ) AND COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 265/78 OF 7 FEBRUARY 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 42 , P . 1 ) AND DEFINITIVELY LAID DOWN BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3059/78 OF 21 DECEMBER 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 365 , P . 1 ) REPLACED ON 23 DECEMBER 1982 BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3589/82 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 374 , P . 106 ).
14 THOSE RULES , WHICH SEEK ONLY TO CONTROL THE QUANTITIES OF TEXTILE PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , PURSUE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE FROM THAT OF REGULATION NO 1224/80 , AS AMENDED , WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO ESTABLISH A FAIR , UNIFORM AND NEUTRAL SYSTEM OF CUSTOMS VALUATION OF GOODS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF . THE LATTER REGULATION MUST THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE RULES ON THE SYSTEM OF EXPORT AND IMPORT LICENCES .
Cornelis Henrick Fabius v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-02-09
7 IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY DECIDED IN A NUMBER OF CASES ( CASE 90/74 F . DEBOECK V COMMISSION ( 1975 ) ECR 1123 ; CASE 67/81 M . H . RUSKE V COMMISSION ( 1982 ) ECR 661 ), THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ENJOYS A WIDE DISCRETION IN DECIDING UPON THE CRITERIA OF ABILITY REQUIRED FOR THE POSTS TO BE FILLED AND IN DETERMINING THE RULES AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMPETITIONS ARE ORGANIZED IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE CRITERIA AND IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE .
Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Rewe-Markt Herbert Kureit v Hauptzollämter Flensburg, Itzehoe and Lübeck-West.
Date: 1984-02-14
31 THAT ARGUMENT MUST ALSO BE REJECTED . IN FACT , AS THE COURT HAS STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 7 JULY 1981 , CITED ABOVE : ' ' IN ADOPTING DIRECTIVE 69/169 , AND THE SECOND AND THIRD DIRECTIVES OF 12 JUNE 1972 AND 10 DECEMBER 1978 RESPECTIVELY WHICH SUPPLEMENT IT , THE COUNCIL INTENDED GRADUALLY TO ESTABLISH A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF EXEMPTIONS FROM TURNOVER TAX AND EXCISE DUTY FOR GOODS CONTAINED IN TRAVELLERS '  PERSONAL LUGGAGE . CONSEQUENTLY IN THIS FIELD THE MEMBER STATES ARE LEFT WITH ONLY THE RESTRICTED POWER GIVEN TO THEM BY THE DIRECTIVES TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE DIRECTIVES . ' '  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COMMUNITY RULES ARE EXHAUSTIVE IN THE MATTER AND THAT THE MEMBER STATES RETAIN ONLY THE RESTRICTED POWER GIVEN TO THEM BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DIRECTIVES THEMSELVES .
45 THE COURT NOTES THAT IT IS CLEAR BOTH FROM THE AIMS OF DIRECTIVE 69/169 AND FROM THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) THEREOF ITSELF THAT THE CONCESSIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THAT DIRECTIVE IN RELATION TO TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR GOODS CONTAINED IN THE PERSONAL LUGGAGE OF PERSONS TRAVELLING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , ARE LIMITED TO TRAVELLERS ' ' COMING FROM MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY ' ' , THAT IS TO SAY , TRAVELLERS WHO GO FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO ANOTHER AFTER HAVING IN FACT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE PURCHASES IN THE MEMBER STATE OF DEPARTURE .
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1984-02-14
11 THAT ARGUMENT , TOO , IS NOT WELL FOUNDED . AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD ( JUDGMENT OF 25 . 9 . 1979 IN CASE 232/78 COMMISSION V FRENCH REPUBLIC ( 1979 ) ECR 2729 ) A MEMBER STATE CANNOT , IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES , PLEAD THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY AND RELY ON A POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY BY ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS OWN DEFAULT . NOR , THEREFORE , CAN A MEMBER STATE RELY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY TO CONTEST THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST IT FOR FAILURE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS .
Wolfgang Gewiese and Manfred Mehlich v Colin Scott Mackenzie.
Date: 1984-02-14
5 IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 102 OF THE ACT CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESSION AND THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES , THE POWER TO ADOPT MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE SEA HAS SINCE 1 JANUARY 1979 BEEN VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COUNCIL , ACTING ON A PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION .
Hasselblad (GB) Limited v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-02-21
46 IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE AGREEMENT PROHIBITS THE SALE OF HASSELBLAD CAMERAS TO OTHER DEALERS , INCLUDING AUTHORIZED DEALERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OR ELSEWHERE . AS THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY POINTS OUT , A PROHIBITION OF SALES BETWEEN AUTHORIZED DEALERS CONSTITUTES A RESTRICTION OF THEIR ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND , CONSEQUENTLY , A RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION . FURTHERMORE , THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT NEVER IMPEDED EXPORTS BY ITS DEALERS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF A CLEAR PROHIBITION OF EXPORTS .
Walzstahl-Vereinigung and Thyssen Aktiengesellschaft v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-02-21
27 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE IT IS USEFUL TO RECALL THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 21 JUNE 1958 IN CASE 8/57 ( GROUPEMENT DES HAUTS FOURNEAUX ET ACIERIES BELGES V HIGH AUTHORITY ( 1958 ) ECR 245 ) THE COURT HELD THAT THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION BY THE ECSC TREATY ARE LIMITED BY THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS SET OUT IN TITLE III OF THE TREATY AND THAT , IN PARTICULAR , SUCH POWERS WOULD BE DIVERTED FROM THEIR LAWFUL PURPOSE IF IT APPEARED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD MADE USE OF THEM WITH THE EXCLUSIVE , OR AT ANY RATE THE MAIN , PURPOSE OF EVADING A PROCEDURE SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED BY THE TREATY FOR DEALING WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO COPE .
Allied Corporation and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1984-02-21
11 ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 3017/79 PROVIDES THAT ' ' ANTI-DUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTIES , WHETHER PROVISIONAL OR DEFINITIVE , SHALL BE IMPOSED BY REGULATION ' ' . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT , IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 , SUCH MEASURES ARE , IN FACT , AS REGARDS THEIR NATURE AND THEIR SCOPE , OF A LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER , INASMUCH AS THEY APPLY TO ALL THE TRADERS CONCERNED , TAKEN AS A WHOLE , THE PROVISIONS MAY NONE THE LESS BE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THOSE PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS WHO ARE CHARGED WITH PRACTISING DUMPING . IT IS CLEAR FROM ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3017/79 THAT ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES MAY BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS RESULTING FROM INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION PRICES AND EXPORT PRICES OF UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIED .
12 IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ARE LIABLE TO BE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THOSE PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS WHO ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THEY WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL OR WERE CONCERNED BY THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS .
15 HOWEVER , THE POSITION IS DIFFERENT IN THE CASE OF DEMUFERT , SINCE THAT APPLICANT IS AN IMPORTER ESTABLISHED IN ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES AND IS NOT REFERRED TO IN ANY OF THE MEASURES WHICH ARE CONTESTED IN THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE COURT . AS SUCH , THEREFORE , DEMUFERT IS CONCERNED BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTESTED REGULATIONS ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT COMES OBJECTIVELY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THOSE REGULATIONS . THE UNCONTESTED FACT THAT DEMUFERT ACTED AS IMPORTING AGENT FOR ALLIED DOES NOT ALTER THAT CONCLUSION . IN CONTRAST TO THE SITUATION CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 29 MARCH 1979 IN CASE 113/77 ( NTN TOYO BEARING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS , ( 1979 ) ECR 1185 , PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE DECISION ), IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED , AS IS STATED IN THE 10TH RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 349/81 , BY REFERENCE TO THE EXPORT PRICES OF AMERICAN PRODUCERS AND NOT BY REFERENCE TO THE RETAIL PRICE CHARGED BY EUROPEAN IMPORTERS , WITH THE RESULT THAT THE FINDINGS RELATING TO THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING ARE NOT OF DIRECT CONCERN TO DEMUFERT , WHEREAS THEY ARE OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THE PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS . IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , IN SO FAR AS IT WAS COMPELLED TO PAY ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES , IT IS OPEN TO THE APPLICANT TO BRING AN ACTION IN THE COMPETENT NATIONAL COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHICH IT CAN PUT FORWARD ITS ARGUMENT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS AT ISSUE .
St. Nikolaus Brennerei und Likörfabrik, Gustav Kniepf-Melde GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld.
Date: 1984-02-21
10 IN VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE TREATY , IT IS NECESSARY , IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THAT PROVISION , TO CONSIDER ITS WORDING , ITS CONTEXT AND ITS AIMS .
Gerda Kloppenburg v Finanzamt Leer.
Date: 1984-02-22
11 IN THAT REGARD , IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY DONE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS , THAT COMMUNITY LEGISLATION MUST BE UNEQUIVOCAL AND ITS APPLICATION MUST BE PREDICTABLE FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO IT . POSTPONEMENT OF THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF A MEASURE OF GENERAL APPLICATION , ALTHOUGH THE DATE INITIALLY SPECIFIED HAS ALREADY PASSED , IS IN ITSELF LIABLE TO UNDERMINE THAT PRINCIPLE . IF THE PURPOSE OF AN EXTENSION IS TO DEPRIVE INDIVIDUALS OF THE LEGAL REMEDIES WHICH THE FIRST MEASURE HAS ALREADY CONFERRED UPON THEM , SUCH AN EFFECT IN PRACTICE RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE AMENDING MEASURE .