larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Badische Anilin- & Soda-Fabrik AG v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1972-07-14
14 THE DECISION CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE SETS OUT CLEARLY AND COHERENTLY THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF FACT AND LAW ON WHICH IT IS BASED .
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ELEMENTS OF FACT AND THE CONSIDERATIONS PUT FORWARD IN EVIDENCE OF THE INFRINGEMENTS IN DISPUTE ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE INFRINGEMENTS IS A MATTER RELATING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
FINALLY, SINCE THE DECISION WAS ONE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF TEN DIFFERENT UNDERTAKINGS, THE FACT THAT IT ADOPTED AN ATTITUDE WITH REGARD TO ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY ONLY SOME OF THE ADDRESSEES, WITHOUT STATING WHICH, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A FAULT VITIATING THE LEGALITY OF THAT MEASURE .
J. R. Geigy AG v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1972-07-14
20 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE TREATY AND TO THE RULES RELATING TO ITS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, IN COMMENCING ON 31 MAY 1967 PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE PRICE INCREASE OF JANUARY 1964, EXCEEDED ANY REASONABLE LIMITATION PERIOD .
21 THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE COMMISSION' S POWER TO IMPOSE FINES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON COMPETITION DO NOT LAY DOWN ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATION .
IN ORDER TO FULFIL THEIR FUNCTION, LIMITATION PERIODS MUST BE FIXED IN ADVANCE .
THE FIXING OF THEIR DURATION AND THE DETAILED RULES FOR THEIR APPLICATION COME WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
ALTHOUGH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISIONS ON THIS MATTER, THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY HAS THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING THE COMMISSION FROM INDEFINITELY DELAYING THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO IMPOSE FINES, ITS CONDUCT IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING A BAR TO THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER AS REGARDS PARTICIPATION IN THE CONCERTED PRACTICES OF 1964 AND 1965 .
44 THE FACT THAT A SUBSIDIARY HAS SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPUTING ITS CONDUCT TO THE PARENT COMPANY .
SUCH MAY BE THE CASE IN PARTICULAR WHERE THE SUBSIDIARY, ALTHOUGH HAVING SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY, DOES NOT DECIDE INDEPENDENTLY UPON ITS OWN CONDUCT ON THE MARKET, BUT CARRIES OUT, IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO IT BY THE PARENT COMPANY .
WHERE THE SUBSIDIARY DOES NOT ENJOY ANY REAL AUTONOMY IN DETERMINING ITS COURSE OF ACTION ON THE MARKET, THE PROHIBITIONS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE INAPPLICABLE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IT AND THE PARENT COMPANY WITH WHICH IT FORMS ONE ECONOMIC ENTITY .
IN VIEW OF THE UNITY OF THE GROUP THUS FORMED, THE ACTIONS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES MAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PARENT COMPANY .
Sandoz AG v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1972-07-14
14 THE COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT AND WHERE APPROPRIATE THE DUTY TO INSTITUTE FRESH INQUIRIES DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IF IT APPEARS FROM THE COURSE OF THAT PROCEDURE THAT ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ARE NECESSARY .
SUCH INQUIRIES WOULD RENDER IT NECESSARY TO SEND AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED ONLY IF THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS LED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE NEW FACTS INTO ACCOUNT AGAINST THE UNDERTAKINGS OR TO ALTER MATERIALLY THE EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTESTED INFRINGEMENTS .
SUCH IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS .
IT APPEARS FROM THE TEXT OF THE NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS THAT THE FACTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AGAINST THE APPLICANT WERE CLEARLY SET OUT THEREIN .
THAT NOTICE CONTAINS ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR DETERMINING THE OBJECTIONS MADE AGAINST THE APPLICANT, AND IN PARTICULAR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE INCREASES OF 1964, 1965 AND 1967 WERE ANNOUNCED AND IMPLEMENTED .
AMENDMENTS CONCERNING THE PRECISE COURSE OF THE FACTS INCLUDED IN THE CONTESTED DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED TO THE COMMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE DO NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE .
Azienda Colori Nazionali - ACNA S.p.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1972-07-14
32 ALTHOUGH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISIONS ON THIS MATTER, THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY HAS THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING THE COMMISSION FROM INDEFINITELY DELAYING THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO IMPOSE FINES, ITS CONDUCT IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING A BAR TO THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER AS REGARDS PARTICIPATION IN THE CONCERTED PRACTICES OF 1964 AND 1965 .
Vereeniging van Cementhandelaren v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1972-10-17
10 THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE NOTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 99/63 OF THE COMMISSION WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT WAS SIGNED NOT BY A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, BUT THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR COMPTITION BY DELEGATION .
11 IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR COMPETITION MERELY SIGNED THE NOTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS WHICH THE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPETITION MATTERS HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD DELEGATED TO HIM .
12 THAT OFFICIAL THEREFORE ACTED NOT UNDER A DELEGATION OF POWERS, BUT MERELY UNDER AN AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION .
13 SUCH AN AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES A MEASURE CONCERNING THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 27 OF THE PROVISIONAL RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY OF 8 APRIL 1965 ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION .
14 THE SUBMISSION BASED, IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONTESTED DECISION, ON AN ALLEGED FORMAL DEFECT IN THE NOTIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS CANNOT THEREFORE BE UPHELD .
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
( A ) ADVERSE EFFECT ON COMPETITION WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET
29 AN AGREEMENT EXTENDING OVER THE WHOLE OF THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE BY ITS VERY NATURE HAS THE EFFECT OF REINFORCING THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF MARKETS ON A NATIONAL BASIS, THEREBY HOLDING UP THE ECONOMIC INTERPENETRATION WHICH THE TREATY IS DESIGNED TO BRING ABOUT AND PROTECTING DOMESTIC PRODUCTION .
Boehringer Mannheim GmbH v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1972-12-14
3 IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF A FINE THE COMMISSION MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF PENALTIES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORNE BY THE SAME UNDERTAKING FOR THE SAME ACTION, WHERE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF THE CARTEL LAW OF A MEMBER STATE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, HAVE BEEN COMMITTED ON COMMUNITY TERRITORY . IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION MAY ALSO BE UNDER A DUTY TO SET A PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF A THIRD STATE AGAINST ANOTHER PENALTY IF IN THE CASE IN QUESTION THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT COMPLAINED OF BY THE COMMISSION, ON THE ONE HAND, AND BY THE AMERICAN AUTHORITIES, ON THE OTHER, ARE IDENTICAL .
5 THE COMMUNITY CONVICTION WAS DIRECTED ABOVE ALL TOWARDS THE GENTLEMEN' S AGREEMENT FOR THE DIVISION OF THE COMMON MARKET AND GREAT BRITAIN AND TOWARDS THE RESTRICTION OF THE PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC QUINIDINE TO THE NEDCHEM, BOEHRINGER AND BUECHLER UNDERTAKINGS . ALTHOUGH THE CONVICTION INCURRED IN THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE BEEN BASED IN PART ON THOSE FACTORS, IT RELATED TO A WIDER BODY OF FACTS AND WAS DIRECTED IN PARTICULAR AGAINST THE AGREEMENT ON QUINQUINA BARK AND THE ACQUISITION AND DIVISION OF AMERICAN STRATEGIC STOCKS BY THE CARTEL, AND THE SUCCESSIVE APPLICATION OF PARTICULARLY HIGH SELLING PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF 1966 . THE PARTIES DISAGREE AS TO THE APPRAISAL OF THE ACTIONS ON WHICH THIS LATTER CONVICTION WAS BASED IN SUBSTANCE BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPLICANT WAS DELIVERED ON THE BASIS OF A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE SO THAT ONLY THE INDICTMENT IS AVAILABLE AND NOT THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD OR A REASONED JUDGMENT WHICH IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING THE DOUBTS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE CONVICTION . IT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ACTIONS ARE IDENTICAL, WHICH IT WAS FOR THIS REASON UNABLE TO DO .
S.p.A. Marimex v Italian Finance Administration.
Date: 1972-12-14
4 ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT : " THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 30 TO 34 SHALL NOT PRECLUDE PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS ... JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF ... THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND LIFE OF HUMANS, ANIMALS ... ".
SINCE THIS PROVISION CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION FROM THE BASIC RULE THAT ALL OBSTACLES TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES SHALL BE ELIMINATED IT MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND THUS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AUTHORIZING MEASURES OF A DIFFERENT NATURE FROM THOSE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 30 AND 34 .
5 CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 36 DOES NOT PREVENT SANITARY INSPECTIONS NEVERTHELESS IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS THEREBY PERMITTING THE IMPOSITION OF CHARGES LEVIED ON IMPORTED GOODS SUBJECTED TO THE SAID INSPECTIONS AND INTENDED TO COVER THE COSTS THEREOF .
IN FACT THIS CHARGE IS NOT INTRINSICALLY NECESSARY TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 36 AND IS THUS CAPABLE OF CONSTITUTING AN ADDITIONAL BARRIER TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE .
CONSEQUENTLY THE QUESTION SUBMITTED CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY .
THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE DISPUTED CHARGES WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 22 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 805/68
Arend van de Poll KG v Hauptzollamt Trier.
Date: 1972-12-14
5 THIS EXPLANATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE RELATING TO HEADING 23.07, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT " THIS HEADING EXCLUDES : ... ( B ) SIMPLE MIXTURES OF CEREAL GRAINS ... ( C ) PREPARATIONS WHICH, WHEN ACCOUNT IS TAKEN, IN PARTICULAR, OF THE NATURE, PURITY AND PROPORTIONS OF THE COMPONENTS, THE HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS COMPLIED WITH DURING MANUFACTURE AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE INDICATIONS GIVEN ON THE PACKAGING OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THEIR USE, CAN BE USED INDIFFERENTLY FOR FEEDING ANIMALS OR AS HUMAN FOOD ".
THESE NOTES PERMIT TWO DISTINCT CRITERIA TO BE DEDUCED : FIRST, FROM THE PARTICULAR USE TO WHICH THE PRODUCT IS TO BE PUT AS FORAGE AND, SECONDLY, FROM THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF USING THE SAME PRODUCT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1973-01-11
12 IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT WAS CLOSELY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE CONTESTED DECISION AND WAS THEREFORE AWARE OF THE REASON WHY THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THAT IT SHOULD ACCEDE TO THE DEMAND FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY THE SAID GOVERNMENT, INSOFAR AS IT REFERRED TO EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER A FOOD AID PROGRAMME .
SA Brasserie de Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen.
Date: 1973-02-06
16 WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF REEXAMINING THE QUESTION WHETHER BY THE WORDS " AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES " ARTICLE 9 ALSO REFERS TO THE NATIONAL COURTS ACTING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 85 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY, IT IS SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT ARTICLE 9, WHEN REFERRING TO THE INITIATION OF A PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLES 2, 3 OR 6, OBVIOUSLY CONCERNS AN AUTHORITATIVE ACT OF THE COMMISSION, EVIDENCING ITS INTENTION OF TAKING A DECISION UNDER THE SAID ARTICLES .
26 SUCH NULLITY IS THEREFORE CAPABLE OF HAVING A BEARING ON ALL THE EFFECTS, EITHER PAST OR FUTURE, OF THE AGREEMENT OR DECISION .
27 CONSEQUENTLY, THE NULLITY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 85 ( 2 ) IS OF RETROACTIVE EFFECT .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1973-02-07
9 THE OBJECT OF AN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 169 IS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION' S REASONED OPINION, AND EVEN WHEN THE DEFAULT HAS BEEN REMEDIED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE SAME ARTICLE, PURSUIT OF THE ACTION STILL HAS AN OBJECT .
THIS OBJECT HOLDS IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE, AS REGARDS THE PREMIUMS FOR SLAUGHTERING THE OBLIGATION PLACED ON THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC IS FAR FROM BEING COMPLETELY PERFORMED; THE QUESTION OF THE PAYMENT TO THOSE ENTITLED OF INTEREST ON THE OVERDUE PAYMENTS, IS NOT SETTLED, AND THE COMPLAINTS DEVELOPED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS RELATE NOT ONLY TO THE DELAY IN CARRYING OUT THE REGULATIONS BUT ALSO TO CERTAIN OF THE METHODS OF APPLICATION WHICH HAVE IN EFFECT WEAKENED THEIR EFFICACITY .
10 AS REGARDS THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PREMIUMS FOR NON-MARKETING, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT IN ANY CASE BE ALLOWED TO RELY UPON A FAIT ACCOMPLI OF WHICH IT IS ITSELF THE AUTHOR SO AS TO ESCAPE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS .
11 MOREOVER, IN THE FACE OF BOTH A DELAY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION AND A DEFINITE REFUSAL, A JUDGMENT BY THE COURT UNDER ARTICLES 169 AND 171 OF THE TREATY MAY BE OF SUBSTANTIVE INTEREST AS ESTABLISHING THE BASIS OF A RESPONSIBILITY THAT A MEMBER STATE CAN INCUR AS A RESULT OF ITS DEFAULT, AS REGARDS OTHER MEMBER STATES, THE COMMUNITY OR PRIVATE PARTIES .
I. Schroeder KG v the Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1973-02-07
14 WITH REGARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE EXISTING OPPORTUNITIES OF CIRCUMVENTION, IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE LEGALITY OF A COMMUNITY ACT CANNOT DEPEND ON RETROSPECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS OF ITS EFFICACY . SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS A QUESTION OF COMPLEX ECONOMIC MEASURES, WHICH FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR EFFICACY NECESSARILY REQUIRE A WIDE DISCRETION AND MOREOVER AS REGARDS THEIR EFFECTS FREQUENTLY PRESENT AN UNCERTAINTY FACTOR, THE OBSERVATION SUFFICES THAT THESE MEASURES DO NOT APPEAR ON ISSUE AS OBVIOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE REALIZATION OF THE DESIRED OBJECT . THIS OBSERVATION NEEDED TO BE MADE BOTH WITH REGARD TO THE COSTS OF THE ALLEGED CIRCUMVENTION POSSIBILITIES AND THE UNCERTAIN DURATION OF THE PROTECTIVE MEASURE . MOREOVER THE CONSIDERABLE RECESSION IN IMPORTS AFTER THE DISPUTED MEASURE CAME INTO FORCE SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT AS INEFFECTIVE AS ALLEGED .
C - INFRINGEMENT OF GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES ( FIRST AND SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE ON THE SECOND QUESTION )
Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company Inc. v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1973-02-21
15 THE APPLICANTS CANNOT DISPUTE THAT EUROPEMBALLAGE, FOUNDED ON 20 FEBRUARY 1970, IS A SUBSIDIARY OF CONTINENTAL . THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THIS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY HAS ITS OWN LEGAL PERSONALITY DOES NOT SUFFICE TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT ITS CONDUCT MIGHT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PARENT COMPANY . THIS IS TRUE IN THOSE CASES PARTICULARLY WHERE THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY DOES NOT DETERMINE ITS MARKET BEHAVIOUR AUTONOMOUSLY, BUT IN ESSENTIALS FOLLOWS DIRECTIVES OF THE PARENT COMPANY .
24 BUT IF ARTICLE 3 ( F ) PROVIDES FOR THE INSTITUTION OF A SYSTEM ENSURING THAT COMPETITION IN THE COMMON MARKET IS NOT DISTORTED, THEN IT REQUIRES A FORTIORI THAT COMPETITION MUST NOT BE ELIMINATED . THIS REQUIREMENT IS SO ESSENTIAL THAT WITHOUT IT NUMEROUS PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY WOULD BE POINTLESS . MOREOVER, IT CORRESPONDS TO THE PRECEPT OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE TREATY ACCORDING TO WHICH ONE OF THE TASKS OF THE COMMUNITY IS " TO PROMOTE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY A HARMONIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ". THUS THE RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION WHICH THE TREATY ALLOWS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO HARMONIZE THE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY, ARE LIMITED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 . GOING BEYOND THIS LIMIT INVOLVES THE RISK THAT THE WEAKENING OF COMPETITION WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE AIMS OF THE COMMON MARKET .
26 IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE CONDITION IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 86 IS TO BE INTERPRETED WHEREBY IN ORDER TO COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION A DOMINANT POSITION MUST HAVE BEEN ABUSED . THE PROVISION STATES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ABUSIVE PRACTICES WHICH IT PROHIBITS . THE LIST MERELY GIVES EXAMPLES, NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE ENUMERATION OF THE SORT OF ABUSES OF A DOMINANT POSITION PROHIBITED BY THE TREATY . AS MAY FURTHER BE SEEN FROM LETTERS ( C ) AND ( D ) OF ARTICLE 86 ( 2 ), THE PROVISION IS NOT ONLY AIMED AT PRACTICES WHICH MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CONSUMERS DIRECTLY, BUT ALSO AT THOSE WHICH ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THEM THROUGH THEIR IMPACT ON AN EFFECTIVE COMPETITION STRUCTURE, SUCH AS IS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 3 ( F ) OF THE TREATY . ABUSE MAY THEREFORE OCCUR IF AN UNDERTAKING IN A DOMINANT POSITION STRENGTHENS SUCH POSITION IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE DEGREE OF DOMINANCE REACHED SUBSTANTIALLY FETTERS COMPETITION, I . E . THAT ONLY UNDERTAKINGS REMAIN IN THE MARKET WHOSE BEHAVIOUR DEPENDS ON THE DOMINANT ONE .
Paul G. Bollmann v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof.
Date: 1973-03-01
4 PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE 177 ARE NON-CONTENTIOUS AND ARE IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT, AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE MERELY INVITED TO STATE THEIR CASE WITHIN THE LEGAL LIMITS LAID DOWN BY THE NATIONAL COURT .
BY THE EXPRESSION " PARTIES ", ARTICLE 20 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE EEC COURT REFERS TO THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT .
5 ON THE OTHER HAND, ARTICLES 69 TO 75 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE REFER TO COSTS IN CONTENTIOUS PROCEEDINGS .
THE PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO BY THOSE PROVISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHED BY THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES, AND ARE CLOSED BY A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE COURT WHICH DECIDES DEFINITIVELY THE DISPUTE WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PROCEEDINGS .
ARTICLE 73 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ALSO REFERS TO EXPENSES INCURRED IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WHEN DEFINING THE RECOVERABILITY OF " EXPENSES NECESSARILY INCURRED BY THE PARTIES ".
ARTICLE 74 IS RESTRICTED TO SETTLING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE RECOVERY OF THOSE EXPENSES .
IN VIEW OF THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTENTIOUS PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY, ONE CANNOT, WITHOUT EXPRESS PROVISION, EXTEND TO THE LATTER PROCEEDINGS THE RULES LAID DOWN SOLELY FOR CONTENTIOUS PROCEEDINGS .
6 IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW, THEREFORE, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE RECOVERY OF COSTS AND THE RECOVERABILITY OF EXPENSES NECESSARILY INCURRED BY THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW APPLICABLE TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DEVOLVES ON THE COMPETENT NATIONAL COURTS TO CONSIDER, IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR NATIONAL LAW, THE EXTENT TO WHICH MATTERS INCIDENTAL TO AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .
Westzucker GmbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Zucker.
Date: 1973-03-14
14 THUS THE COMMISSION ENJOYS A SIGNIFICANT FREEDOM OF EVALUATION, WHICH MUST BE EXERCISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ECONOMIC POLICY LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 1009/67 WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
WHEN EXAMINING THE LAWFULNESS OF THE EXERCISE OF SUCH FREEDOM, THE COURTS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN EVALUATION OF THE MATTER FOR THAT OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BUT MUST RESTRICT THEMSELVES TO EXAMINING WHETHER THE EVALUATION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CONTAINS A PATENT ERROR OR CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWER .
19 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 191 OF THE EEC TREATY, REGULATIONS SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE " ON THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THEM OR, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, ON THE TWENTIETH DAY FOLLOWING THEIR PUBLICATION ".
BY THIS PROVISION THE TREATY RESERVED TO THE COMPETENT INSTITUTIONS THE RIGHT TO SPECIFY THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTS ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES .
IN THIS CASE, THE IMMEDIATE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 354/69 IS OBVIOUSLY JUSTIFIED BY THE NECESSITY TO PREVENT, DURING THE TIME WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE ELAPSED BETWEEN PUBLICATION OF THE MEASURE AND ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE, THE DEPOSIT OF APPLICATIONS FOR DENATURING CERTIFICATES WHICH, DUE IN PARTICULAR TO THEIR LONG DURATION, COULD HAVE COMPROMISED THE EFFECT OF THE MEASURE OF ECONOMIC POLICY TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION .
THIS CLAUSE DID NOT HAVE TO BE ESPECIALLY REASONED AS IT EXPRESSED A REQUIREMENT OF EFFICIENCY INHERENT IN THE VERY NATURE OF THE MEASURE INTRODUCED BY THE REGULATION .
Antonio Marcato v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1973-03-15
2 THE APPLICANT POINTS OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED COMPETITION NOTICE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) ( G ) OF ANNEX III OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF THE MEASURES IN DISPUTE, IN SO FAR AS IT FIXED NEITHER AN AGE LIMIT NOR AN EXTENSION OF AGE LIMIT APPLICABLE TO STAFF WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR' S SERVICE WITH THE COMMUNITIES .
3 THE COMMISSION CLAIMS THAT THIS PLEA IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IRRELEVANT .
4 AN AGE LIMIT OF 50 OR 60 YEARS WOULD, ( IT IS CONTENDED ) SCARCELY HAVE ALTERED THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMPETITION WAS HELD, WHEREAS BY SETTLING A MAXIMUM AGE OF 40, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE APPLICANT' S CANDIDATURE FROM THE START .
5 BESIDES, IN THE CASE OF AN INTERNAL COMPETITION, THE SETTING OF AN AGE LIMIT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF OFFICIALS MAKING A CAREER .
6 THE SETTING OF AN AGE LIMIT COULD ONLY HAVE RESULTED EITHER IN ELIMINATING THE APPLICANT HIMSELF FROM THE COMPETITION, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO HIS INTEREST, OR ELSE IN ELIMINATING OTHER, POSSIBLY QUALIFIED, CANDIDATES, WHICH IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE RECOGNISED AS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF HIS .
7 FURTHER, IT IS APPOSITE TO POINT OUT THAT OWING TO THE ALTERATION INTRODUCED INTO ANNEX III OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS BY REGULATION 1473/72 ( OJ NO L 160, P . 1 ) THE INCLUSION OF AN AGE LIMIT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY MADE OPTIONAL, SO THAT THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMPETITION NOTICE WOULD NOT GIVE THE APPLICANT SATISFACTION .
8 FOR THESE REASONS THE PLEA IS INADMISSIBLE .
18 THE TASK OF A SELECTION BOARD IS MADE UP OF AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE STAGES, IN THE FIRST PLACE, AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICATIONS IN ORDER TO SELECT THE CANDIDATES ADMITTED TO THE COMPETITION, AND IN THE SECOND PLACE AN EXAMINATION OF THE ABILITIES OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THE POST TO BE FILLED IN ORDER TO DRAW UP A LIST OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES .
19 WHILST THE SECOND STAGE CONSISTS MAINLY OF COMPARISON, AND IS ACCORDINGLY COVERED BY THE SECRECY INHERENT IN THE TASK OF A SELECTION BOARD, THE FIRST, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE COMPETITION IS BASED ON FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS, ENTAILS THE MATCHING OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OFFERED BY THE CANDIDATES AGAINST THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE COMPETITION NOTICE;
L'Etoile-Syndicat général v W. E. de Waal.
Date: 1973-05-16
6 WHILST ARTICLE 52 REFERS TO THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF THE INSTITUTION LIABLE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT CAN INVOKE IN THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THE DAMAGE OCCURRED, THE BENEFIT OF SUBROGATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE VICTIM OR HIS DEPENDANTS, OR THE EXERCISE OF THE DIRECT RIGHTS REFERRED TO UNDER LETTER ( B ), IT IN NO WAY MODIFIES THE SYSTEM OF EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY, WHICH REMAINS SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF NATIONAL LAW ALONE .
Robert de Greef v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1973-05-30
45 THE FACTS ALLEGED AGAINST THE APPLICANT HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE CHOICE OF APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY MEASURE IS A MATTER FOR THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY .
C. J. Walder v Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank.
Date: 1973-06-07
6 IT IS CLEAR FROM THESE PROVISIONS THAT THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY CONVENTIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ARE REPLACED BY REGULATION NO 3 IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT ALLOW OF EXCEPTIONS SAVE FOR THE CASES EXPRESSLY STIPULATED BY THE REGULATION .
7 THE FACT THAT SOCIAL SECURITY CONVENTIONS CONCLUDED BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ARE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO PERSONS COVERED BY REGULATION NO 3 THAN THE REGULATION ITSELF IS THEREFORE NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AN EXCEPTION TO THIS PRINCIPLE UNLESS SUCH CONVENTIONS ARE EXPRESSLY PRESERVED BY THE REGULATION .
Leandro Tontodonati v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1973-07-12
8 THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATION CANNOT COMPEL AN OFFICIAL TO FULFIL TASKS ON A LEVEL HIGHER THAN HIS GRADE, THE FACT THAT HE AGREES TO FULFIL THEM CAN BE A FACTOR TO BE BORNE IN MIND IN CONNECTION WITH PROMOTION, BUT DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO BE RE-CLASSIFIED .
IN ANY CASE, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 45 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS, PROMOTION TO A HIGHER CATEGORY CAN ONLY ARISE FROM AN APPOINTMENT AS A RESULT OF COMPETITION .