larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Arben Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Date: 2003-03-06
39.  It should be noted at the outset that the authority of a preliminary ruling does not preclude the national court or tribunal to which it is addressed from taking the view that it is necessary to make a further reference to the Court before giving judgment in the main proceedings.  Such a procedure may be justified when the national court or tribunal encounters difficulties in understanding or applying the judgment, when it refers a fresh question of law to the Court, or again when it submits new considerations which might lead the Court to give a different answer to a question submitted earlier (order in Case 69/85   Wünsche   [1986] ECR 947, paragraph 15).
40.  The Court has, moreover, consistently ruled that, as the power to formulate the questions to be referred is vested in the national court or tribunal alone, the parties cannot alter the wording of those questions (Case 5/72   Grassi   [1972] ECR 443, paragraph 4, and Case C-297/94   Bruyère and Others   [1996] ECR I-1551, paragraph 19).
41.  It follows that the Court must in principle confine its examination to the matters which the court or tribunal making the reference has decided to submit to it for consideration.  The Court must therefore, as regards application of the relevant national rules, proceed on the basis of the situation which that court or tribunal considers to be established; it cannot be bound by suppositions raised by one of the parties to the main proceedings which the national court or tribunal has merely reproduced but on which it has not expressed an opinion.
46.  Concerning the present case, the Court held, in paragraph 30 of its judgment in   Kaba  , that, as Community law stands at present, the right of nationals of a Member State to reside in another Member State is not unconditional.  The Court referred in this regard, first, to the provisions on the free movement of persons contained in Title III of Part Three of the Treaty and the secondary legislation adopted to give them effect and, second, to the provisions of Part Two of the Treaty, more particularly Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC), which, while granting citizens of the Union the right to move and reside freely within the Member States, expressly refers to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
47.  It should also be added that, with regard more specifically to the situation of a migrant worker who is a national of a Member State, that person's right of residence is not unconditional inasmuch as it is subject to the condition that the person remains a worker or, where relevant, a person seeking employment (see, in this connection, Case C-292/89   Antonissen   [1991] ECR I-745), unless he or she derives that right from other provisions of Community law.
Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG v Bezirksregierung Hannover.
Date: 2003-03-06
38.  In that respect, with regard to the common agricultural policy, it should be noted, first, that the Commission alone is in a position constantly to keep a close watch on agricultural market trends and to act quickly when necessary. Therefore, according to the settled case-law of the Court, the Council may confer on it wide powers of discretion and action in this sphere. When it does so, the limits of those powers must be determined in the light of the essential general aims of the market organisation (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 133/85 to 136/85   Rau and Others   [1987] ECR 2289, paragraph 31, and Case C-359/89   SAFA   [1991] ECR I-1677, paragraph 16).
39.  Second, according to settled case-law, the Community institutions have a wide measure of discretion in relation to the common agricultural policy in view of the tasks attributed to them by the EC Treaty (see,   inter alia  , Case C-63/00   Schilling and Nehring   [2002] ECR I-4483, paragraph 39). Given that discretion, the Community judicature must limit itself to examining whether or not the exercise of that discretion is vitiated by any manifest error or misuse of powers and whether or not the authority concerned has manifestly exceeded the limits of its power of assessment (see,   inter alia  , Case C-189/01   Jippes and Others   [2001] ECR I-5689, paragraph 80).
49.  The Court notes that, according to settled case-law, the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the Treaty, which prohibits all discrimination in the context of the common agricultural policy, is merely a specific expression of the general principle of equal treatment, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified (Case 203/86   Spain   v   Council   [1988] ECR 4563, paragraph 25, Case C-15/95   EARL de Kerlast   [1997] ECR I-1961, paragraph 35, and Case C-292/97   Karlsson and Others   [2000] ECR I-2737, paragraph 39).
56.  It is settled case-law that, in the sphere of the common organisation of the markets, whose purpose involves constant adjustments to meet changes in the economic situation, economic operators cannot legitimately expect that they will not be subject to restrictions arising from future market policy rules or structural policy. In addition, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations may be invoked as against Community rules only to the extent that the Community itself has previously created a situation which can give rise to a legitimate expectation (see, to that effect, Case C-63/93   Duff and Others   [1996] ECR I-569, paragraph 20).
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Date: 2003-03-06
18. As the Court has consistently held, observance of the principle laid down in Article 49 EC requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality but also the abolition of any restriction liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services (see, in particular, Case C-58/98  Corsten  [2000] ECR I-7919, paragraph 33, and Case C-131/01  Commission  v  Italy  [2003] ECR I-1659, paragraph 42).
20. It must be added that the principles of legal certainty and the protection of individuals require, in areas covered by Community law, that the Member States ' legal rules should be worded unequivocally so as to give the persons concerned a clear and precise understanding of their rights and obligations and enable national courts to ensure that those rights and obligations are observed (see, to this effect,  Case C-306/91  Commission  v  Italy  [1993] ECR I-2133, paragraph 14).
24. According to settled case-law, Article 10 EC makes it clear that the Member States are required to cooperate in good faith with the enquiries of the Commission pursuant to Article 226 EC, and to provide the Commission with all the information requested for that purpose (see,  inter alia , Case 192/84  Commission  v  Greece  [1985] ECR 3967, paragraph 19, and Case C-375/92  Commission  v  Spain  [1994] ECR I-923, paragraphs 24 to 26).
Francesca Caprini v Conservatore Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA).
Date: 2003-03-06
4.  According to the second and third recitals in its preamble, the Directive seeks to protect commercial agents in their relations with their principals, to promote the security of commercial transactions, and to facilitate trade in goods between Member States by harmonising their legal systems within the area of commercial representation.  To those ends, the Directive establishes,   inter alia  , rules governing the rights and obligations of the parties (Articles 3 to 5), the remuneration of commercial agents (Articles 6 to 12) and the conclusion and termination of agency contracts (Articles 13 to 20).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2003-03-06
16.  In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-352/01   Commission   v   Spain   [2002] ECR I-10263, paragraph 6).
18.  Furthermore, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or situations within its internal legal order in order to justify its failure to fulfil obligations under Community law (see, in particular, Case C-13/00   Commission   v   Ireland   [2002] ECR I-2943, paragraph 21).
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Date: 2003-03-06
6.  Suffice it in this regard to note that, according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State 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-173/01   Commission   v   Greece   [2002] ECR I-6129, paragraph 7).
7.  Likewise, it follows from settled case-law that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal order in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see,   inter alia  , Case C-286/01   Commission   v   France   [2002] ECR I-5463, paragraph 13).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2003-03-13
8.  It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see,   inter alia  , Case C-71/99   Commission   v   Germany   [2001] ECR I-5811, paragraph 29, and Case C-110/00   Commission   v   Austria   [2001] ECR I-7545, paragraph 13).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2003-03-13
7.  It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see,   inter alia  , Case C-71/99   Commission   v   Germany   [2001] ECR I-5811, paragraph 29, and Case C-110/00   Commission   v   Austria   [2001] ECR I-7545, paragraph 13).
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2003-03-20
19.  It is to be observed that the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure laid down in Article 226 EC is to give the Member State the opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law or to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the complaints made by the Commission (Case 293/85   Commission   v   Belgium   [1988] ECR 305, paragraph 13; order in Case C-266/94   Commission   v   Spain   [1995] ECR I-1975, paragraph 16, and Case C-1/00   Commission   v   France   [2001] ECR I-9989, paragraph 53).
20.  The proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also so as to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter (Commission   v   France  , cited above at paragraph 19, paragraph 53).
21.  Thus, the pre-litigation procedure pursues the following three objectives: to allow the Member State to put an end to any infringement, to enable it to exercise its rights of defence and to define the subject-matter of the dispute with a view to bringing an action before the Court (Case C-362/01   Commission   v   Ireland   [2002] ECR I-0000, paragraph 18).
22.  In light of the foregoing, it is, in principle, for the Commission to set out, in its reasoned opinion, its assessment of the Member State's observations set out in its response to the letter of formal notice (see   Commission   v   Ireland  , cited above at paragraph 21, paragraph 19).
24.  First, the Commission is not empowered to determine conclusively, by reasoned opinions formulated pursuant to Article 226 EC or other statements of its position in the course of such proceedings, the rights and duties of a Member State or to afford that State guarantees concerning the compatibility of a given line of conduct with Community law (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 142/80 and 143/80   Essevi and Salengo   [1981] ECR 1413, paragraph 16).
25.  Second, a Member State cannot rely on difficulties in interpreting a directive in order to delay transposing it until after the prescribed period has expired (Case C-316/99   Commission   v   Germany   [2001] ECR I-2037, paragraph 9).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2003-03-20
14.  It is appropriate to note, in the first place, that Article 4(1) and (2) of the Directive require the Member States to classify as SPAs the territories meeting the ornithological criteria specified by those provisions (see to that effect, Case C-355/90   Commission   v   Spain   [1993] ECR I-4221, paragraphs 26, 27 and 32).
15.  Secondly, it is important to point out that neither the economic nor the recreational requirements mentioned in Article 2 of the Directive may be taken into account when selecting an SPA and defining its boundaries (see, to that effect, Case C-3/96   Commission   v   Netherlands   [1998] ECR I-3031, paragraph 59).
18.  In addition, it is not disputed that a large number and area of the sites listed in the IBA Inventory 89 have not been classified as SPAs by the Italian authorities.  In that regard, it is necessary to point out that the Italian Government, although it maintained, at the hearing, that that inventory required revision, admitted that it had not been in a position to challenge it with a more persuasive document.  In those circumstances, in view of the scientific nature of the IBA Inventory 89, and of the absence of any scientific evidence adduced by the Italian Republic, tending particularly to show that the obligations flowing from Article 4(1) and (2) of the Directive could be satisfied by classifying as SPAs sites other than those appearing in that inventory and covering a smaller total area, that inventory, although not legally binding on the Member State concerned, can be used by the Court as a basis of reference for assessing whether the Italian Republic has classified a sufficient number and area of territories as SPAs for the purposes of the abovementioned provisions of the Directive (see, to that effect,   Commission   v   Netherlands  , cited above, paragraphs 68 to 70).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2003-03-20
11.  It suffices to point out, in that regard, that according to settled case-law, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see,   inter alia  , Case C-148/00   Commission   v   Italy   [2001] ECR I-9823, paragraph 7) and that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its own legal order to justify failure to implement a directive within the prescribed period (see, to that effect, Case C-276/98   Commission   v   Portugal   [2001] ECR I-1699, paragraph 20 and Case C-392/01   Commission   v   Spain   [2002] ECR I-11111, paragraph 9).
Criminal proceedings against Matthias Hoffmann.
Date: 2003-04-03
2.  The questions were raised in the course of an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesgerichtshof by Mr Hoffman, a concert promoter, following his conviction for, among other things, not having paid value added tax (hereinafter   "VAT"  ) on the fees paid to three soloist singers for concert engagements in Germany.
Community law
24.  In that regard it must be noted that, at paragraph 17 of the judgment in   Gregg  , the Court held, in relation to Article 13A(1)(b) and (g) of the Sixth Directive, in respect of certain social and medical services, that the term   "organisation"   is in principle sufficiently broad to include natural persons as well, and that the exemptions referred to in that provision are not confined to the activities carried on by legal persons, but may also extend to activities carried on by individuals.  The Court stated, at paragraph 18 of the same judgment that, while the meaning of   "organisation"   suggests the existence of an individualised entity performing a particular function, that condition is also satisfied by one or more natural persons running a business.
38.  First, the activities which are to be exempted from VAT, those which may be exempted by the Member States and those which may not, as well as the conditions to which the activities eligible for exemption may be made subject by the Member States, are specifically defined by the content of Article 13A of the Sixth Directive.  Second, as is confirmed by paragraph 2(a) of that article, which authorises, but does not oblige, the Member States to restrict exemption to bodies other than public-law bodies which do not have a systematic profit-making aim, the commercial nature of an activity does not preclude it from being, in the context of Article 13A of the Sixth Directive, an activity in the public interest.
39.  The possible restrictions on the benefit of the exemptions provided for by Article 13A of the Sixth Directive may be imposed, as is pointed out at paragraphs 28 and 29 of this judgment, only in the context of the application of paragraph 2 of that provision.
SITA EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer.
Date: 2003-04-03
40.  In that regard, it must first be recalled that, for the purpose of applying the Directive and the Regulation, it must be possible to classify any waste treatment operation as either disposal or recovery, and a single operation may not be classified simultaneously as both a disposal and a recovery operation (Case C-6/00   ASA   [2002] ECR I-1961, paragraph 63).
52.  First of all, as regards the first part of that question, the Court has already held, in C-228/00   Commission   v   Germany   [2003] ECR I-1439, paragraph 47, that the criterion of the calorific value of waste is not relevant for the purpose of establishing whether an operation involving the combustion of waste is a recovery operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB to the Directive.
55.  As regards the second part of the third question, it should also be recalled that the Regulation does not preclude Member States from laying down, in acts having general scope, criteria for distinguishing between a recovery operation and a disposal operation, provided that the criteria comply with those laid down in the Directive (see, to that effect,   Commission   v   Germany  , cited above, paragraphs 35 and 36).
European Parliament v Ignacio Samper.
Date: 2003-04-03
28.  It should be recalled that for the Parliament to have an interest in bringing appeal proceedings the appeal must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for it (Case C-174/99 P   Parliament   v   Richard   [2000] ECR I-6189, paragraph 33).
30.  In those circumstances, it must be accepted that the decision of 31 July 2001 was taken in implementation of the judgment under appeal.  Accordingly, if it is upheld, the appeal would be likely to procure an advantage for the Parliament in that it would allow it to recover the arrears of salary paid to Mr Samper in compliance with the judgment under appeal.
31.  Finally, annulment of the judgment under appeal would in any event procure an advantage for the Parliament since it would secure indemnity against any action for compensation which might be brought by Mr Samper for the loss he claims to have suffered as a result of the contested decision.
35.  It must be pointed out that, in assessing the interests of the service and the qualifications and merits of the candidates to be taken into consideration in making a promotion decision pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority possesses a wide discretion, and in that connection the Community Court's review must be confined to the question whether, having regard to the various considerations which have influenced the administration in making its assessment, the latter has remained within reasonable bounds and has not used its power in a manifestly incorrect way.  The Community Court cannot therefore substitute its assessment of the qualifications and merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority (see Case 324/85   Bouteiller   v   Commission   [1987] ECR 529, paragraph 6).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 2003-04-10
20.  It should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, in relation to the transposition of a directive into the legal order of a Member State, it is essential for national law to guarantee that the national authorities will effectively apply the directive in full, that the legal position under national law should be sufficiently precise and clear and that individuals are made fully aware of their rights and, where appropriate, may rely on them before the national courts (Case C-365/93   Commission   v   Greece   [1995] ECR I-499, paragraph 9, and Case C-144/99   Commission   v   Netherlands   [2001] ECR I-3541, paragraph 17).
Michel Hendrickx v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).
Date: 2003-04-10
29.  According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, an applicant may amend his heads of claim and pleas in law following the replacement, in the course of the proceedings, of the contested decision by a decision with the same subject-matter (see, in particular,   Alpha Steel   v   Commission  , paragraph 8, and   Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter   v   Commission  , paragraph 11).
37.  To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the former, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance (see Case C-136/92 P   Commission   v   Brazzelli Lualdi and Others   [1994] ECR I-1981, paragraph 59; and the orders in Case C-422/97 P   Sateba   v   Commission   [1998] ECR I-4913, paragraph 30; Case C-437/98 P   Infrisa   v   Commission   [1999] ECR I-7145, paragraphs 28 and 29, and in Case C-274/00 P   Simon   v   Commission   [2002] ECR I-5999, paragraph 39).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2003-04-10
9.  It is important to note in this regard that it is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-147/00   Commission   v   France   [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26, and Case C-173/01   Commission   v   Greece   [2002] ECR I-6129, paragraph 7).
11.  It must be added that, according to equally settled case-law, a Member State may not seek to rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal order in order to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-276/98   Commission   v   Portugal   [2001] ECR I-1699, paragraph 20, and Case C-351/01   Commission   v   France   [2002] ECR I-8101, paragraph 9).