larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
European Parliament v Giuliana Gaspari.
Date: 1998-11-19
17 In that regard it need only be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, although a complaint through administrative channels is an indispensable preliminary to bringing an action against an act adversely affecting a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply, it is not the function of that complaint to bind strictly and absolutely the judicial stage of the proceedings, provided that the claims submitted at the latter stage change neither the cause nor the object of the complaint (see, in particular, Joined Cases 75/82 and 117/82 Razzouk and Beydoun v Commission [1984] ECR 1509, paragraph 9).
21 In that regard, it must be observed that the Court of First Instance found, in paragraph 19 of the contested judgment, that `notwithstanding the wording of the first plea in law, which refers only to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations', Mrs Gaspari's arguments in support of this plea `are in fact intended to show also that her rights of defence were infringed in that, despite her request to that effect, her attending medical practitioner did not receive the report of the medical officer on which the contested decision is based'.  Accordingly, the plea was not new but was properly expressed in different terms by the Court of First Instance.
26 Regard must be had to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice according to which the purpose of the statement of the reasons on which a decision adversely affecting an official is based, required by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the decision and to provide the person concerned with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded (see, in particular, Case 195/80 Michel v Parliament [1981] ECR 2861, paragraph 22, and Case C-188/96 P Commission v V [1997] ECR I-6561, paragraph 26).  The requirement of a statement of reasons must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case, in particular the measure at issue and the nature of the reasons relied on (Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63).
33 Applied to the procedure for the medical examination referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, that principle requires that the person concerned, assisted if need be by his attending medical practitioner, should be in a position to make his views properly known concerning the conclusions of the medical examination and contest the merits thereof (Case T-169/95 Quijano v Commission [1997] ECR II-273, paragraph 44).  Since the person concerned is unable properly to contest the merits of such conclusions without being apprised of the medical findings on which they are based, that principle requires that the person concerned be in a position to make his views known on the entire report of the medical officer.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1998-11-25
18 As regards those arguments relating to internal difficulties, it is sufficient to observe that, as the Court has consistently held, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-259/94 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1947, paragraph 5, and Case C-298/95 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-6747, paragraph 18).
25 With regard to those assertions concerning Royal Decree No 484/95, it should first of all be noted 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 State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and subsequent changes cannot be taken into account by the Court (Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraph 20, and Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95 Commission v Greece [1998] ECR I-3343, paragraph 38).
27 Furthermore, as the Court has consistently held, only specific programmes including, in accordance with Article 7(3), quality objectives with regard to the waters referred to in Article 1 may be considered to be programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive (Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95 Commission v Greece, cited above, paragraph 35).
30 However, even though, as the Spanish Government has asserted, certain limits on discharges and a number of quality objectives relating to some 30 substances in List II have been implemented by Decree No 484/95 and pursue the same aims as a programme within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive, such legislation constitutes only a series of ad hoc legislative measures which cannot amount to an organised and coordinated system of quality objectives relating to specific watercourses or bodies of standing water and cannot, therefore, be considered to be a programme within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive.
Giuseppe Manfredi v Regione Puglia.
Date: 1998-11-25
30 In those circumstances, that recital cannot be relied upon to interpret Article 6(1) of Regulation No 822/87, as amended by Regulation No 1325/90, in a manner clearly contrary to its wording.
Criminal proceedings against André Ambry.
Date: 1998-12-01
22 Article 7 of Directive 90/314 requires Member States to provide for security for the refund of money paid over, or for the repatriation of consumers, in the event of the insolvency of the operator from whom they bought the travel. That provision must be interpreted as prescribing a result whereby package travellers enjoy rights guaranteeing their repatriation and the refund of money that they have paid over, the aim being that of consumer protection (see Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94 and C-188/94 to C-190/94 Dillenkofer and Others v  Federal Republic of Germany [1996] ECR I-4845, paragraphs 35 and 42).
Commission of the European Communities v Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd.
Date: 1998-12-03
49 The Court's jurisdiction under an arbitration clause derogates from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be interpreted restrictively.  The Court may hear and determine only claims arising from a contract concluded with the Community which contains the arbitration clause or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract (Case 426/85 Commission v Zoubek [1986] ECR 4057, paragraph 11).
Criminal proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme.
Date: 1998-12-03
18 On that point, the Court observes that its case-law has long established that all measures capable of hindering intra-Community trade, whether directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, constitute measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions (Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5).
20 That conclusion is not altered by the fact that the measure in question applies to only part of the national territory (on this point, see Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad and Publivía v Departamento de Sanidad [1991] ECR I-4151, paragraph 24; Joined Cases C-277/91, C-318/91 and C-319/91 Ligur Carni and Others [1993] ECR I-6621, paragraph 37).
21 Moreover, contrary to the Danish Government's argument that the prohibition on keeping certain bees on the island of Læsø must be regarded as a regulation on selling arrangements within the meaning of the judgment in Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, this Court finds, on the contrary, that the legislation in question concerns the intrinsic characteristics of the bees.  In those circumstances, its application to the facts of the case cannot be a matter of a selling arrangement within the meaning of the judgment in Keck and Mithouard (Case C-368/95 Familiapress v Heinrich Bauer Verlag [1997] ECR I-3689, paragraph 11).
33 On this question, the Court considers that measures to preserve an indigenous animal population with distinct characteristics contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity by ensuring the survival of the population concerned.  By so doing, they are aimed at protecting the life of those animals and are capable of being justified under Article 36 of the Treaty.
35 It does, however, have to be determined whether the national legislation was necessary and proportionate in relation to its aim of protection, or whether it would have been possible to achieve the same result by less stringent measures (Case 124/81 Commission v United Kingdom [1983] ECR 203, paragraph 16).
KappAhl Oy.
Date: 1998-12-03
15 It follows from Articles 2 and 10 of the Act of Accession that it is based on the principle that the provisions of Community law apply ab initio and in toto to new Member States, derogations being allowed only in so far as they are expressly laid down by transitional provisions (see, mutatis mutandis, Case 258/81 Metallurgiki Halyps v Commission [1982] ECR 4261, paragraph 8).
17 It follows that if Article 99 of the Act of Accession did not authorise the maintenance of customs duties such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it would be contrary to Article 9 of the Treaty to levy them, in so far as they relate to products which, under Article 10(1) of the Treaty, are definitively and wholly assimilated to products originating in the Member States (Case 41/76 Criel née Donckerwolcke and Schou v Procureur de la République and Director General of Customs [1976] ECR 1921, paragraph 17).
18 Article 99 of the Act of Accession constitutes a derogation from the Treaty rules on free movement of goods and must therefore be interpreted restrictively (see, to that effect, Case 77/82 Peskeloglou v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1983] ECR 1085, paragraph 12). Moreover, the derogations permitted by the Act of Accession from the rules laid down by the Treaty must be interpreted in such a way as to facilitate achievement of the objectives of the Treaty and application in full of its rules (Joined Cases 194/85 and 241/85 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 1037, paragraph 20).
23 On this point, it need only be observed that neither individual statements of position nor joint declarations of the Member States may be used for the purpose of interpreting a provision where, as in the present case, their content is not reflected in its wording and therefore has no legal significance (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94 Bautiaa and Société Française Maritime v Directeur des Services Fiscaux [1996] ECR I-505, paragraph 51; Case C-292/89 R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745, paragraph 18; and Case 143/83 Commission v Denmark [1985] ECR 427, paragraph 13).
Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt and Transports A.M. Schoonbroodt SPRL v Belgian State.
Date: 1998-12-03
14 In that respect, it is sufficient to recall that, as the Belgian Government and the Commission conceded, the Court has repeatedly held that it has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on questions concerning Community provisions in situations where the facts of the cases being considered by the national courts were outside the scope of Community law but where those provisions had been rendered applicable by domestic law (see, most recently, Case C-28/95 Leur-Bloem v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ordernemingen Amsterdam 2 [1997] ECR I-4161, paragraph 27 and Case C-130/95 Giloy v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost [1997] ECR I-4291, paragraph 23).
15 That is the case in the main proceedings where the relevant provisions of Belgian law refer to principles of Community law.
20 However, there is no significant difference, in the context of the main proceedings, between the definitions of the term `standard tanks' used in the various provisions which may prove to be relevant.
23 It should be pointed out that when adopting provisions granting suspension of customs duties, the Council must take account of the requirements of legal certainty and of the difficulties confronting national customs administrations (Case 58/85 Ethicon v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe [1986] ECR 1131, paragraph 12).  It follows that such provisions are to be interpreted strictly according to their terms and may not therefore be applied, contrary to their wording, to products which they do not mention (Joined Cases C-47/95 to C-50/95, C-60/95, C-81/95, C-92/95 and C-148/95 Olasagasti and Others v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1996] ECR I-6579, paragraph 20).
Aloys Schröder, Jan Thamann and Karl-Julius Thamann v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1998-12-10
24 When new cases of classical swine fever were reported in other regions of Niedersachsen, Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 94/178/EC of 23 March 1994 concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Germany and repealing Decisions 94/27/EC and 94/28/EC (OJ 1994 L 83, p. 54, hereinafter "Decision 94/178") extended to the entire territory of the Land of Niedersachsen the bans on dispatch not only to other Member States but also to other parts of Germany. Furthermore, Article 1(2) of the same decision laid down a ban on movement within Niedersachsen itself as regards the parts of its territory particularly threatened, namely the area mentioned in Annex II to that decision to the area mentioned in Annex I.
35 On this point, it is sufficient to observe that the appellants' arguments do not indicate in a sufficiently precise and substantiated manner the pleas in law relied on to show an infringement of the law by the contested judgment. By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. The Court of Justice has consistently held that that requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance (see, inter alia, Case C-48/96 P Windpark Groothusen v Commission [1998] ECR I-2873, paragraph 56).
Bestuur van het Landelijk instituut sociale verzekeringen v C.J.M. Voeten and J. Beckers.
Date: 1998-12-10
24 The first point to note is that according to paragraphs 9 to 16 of the judgment in Martínez Vidal, cited above, Article 51(1) of the Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that where there are administrative checks and a medical examination of a person in receipt of invalidity benefits who is staying or resident in a Member State other than that where the institution responsible for payment is located, those checks and that examination must be carried out by the institution where he is staying or resident, with the competent institution being entitled, if it deems necessary, to carry out an additional examination. To that end, the competent institution may require the person in question to travel to the Member State in which it is established, provided that it reimburses the associated travel and subsistence expenses and that the person is able to make the journey without prejudice to his health.
Georg Bruner v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
Date: 1998-12-10
25 That interpretation cannot be accepted.  It is common ground that, because of their composition, the products in question correspond exactly to the definition of hind quarters with one difference, namely that, because of the way in which they are cut, the two quarters are not wholly separated but still attached to one another by the skin of the back.  Because the content is the same even if the presentation is not, it is necessary to consult the general rules on the interpretation of the combined nomenclature in order to decide whether the products under consideration can fit into the specific category or must be classified under the residual heading.
26 General rule 2(a) requires that the determining criterion for classification be that of the essential character of the complete or finished article, regardless of the form in which it is presented, which may be incomplete, unfinished or unassembled.
27 Clearly, when determining the nature of the product, the fact that the two hind quarters of which it is composed have not been wholly separated but remain attached to one another by a piece of skin does not affect its essential characteristic of being constituted of two hind quarters of chicken.
30 In that connection, it should be noted that in Boehringer Mannheim, cited above, at paragraph 18, the Court took the view that the term `not normally', which appears in the commentary on general rule 2(a), means that it cannot be altogether ruled out that that rule of interpretation applies to tariff headings in chapters 1 to 38 of the CCT.  In addition, the Court stated that the essential characteristics criterion can only relate to a product `which is so close to the finished product that it can come under the same tariff heading as the finished product', without taking into account the place of that product within the CCT.
Glob-Sped AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach.
Date: 1998-12-10
26 It is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and for ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN.  There are also explanatory notes drawn up, as regards the CN, by the Commission and, as regards the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, by the Customs Cooperation Council, which may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force (see, in particular, Case C-201/96 LTM v FIRS [1997] ECR I-6147, paragraph 17).
27 It is therefore necessary to examine whether the products at issue in the main proceedings exhibit the objective characteristics and properties defined under CN heading No 3004, which, as the Court held in paragraph 13 of the judgment in Bioforce, cited above, must be interpreted in the light of medical developments.
28 In that regard, as the documents before the Court show, it is undisputed that the vitamin C content of the products in question is much greater than what is necessary or recommended for general dietary purposes.  Furthermore, besides assisting the immune system of the human organism to resist infections in cases of, inter alia, asthenia or severe strain, such doses of vitamin C, which the human body is incapable of making for itself, are also recommended as treatment for allergic reactions and severe traumatisms, of the kind which may result from an injury or a surgical operation, or to combat deficiency-related illnesses, such as scurvy or Moeller-Barlow disease.
Florian Vorderbrüggen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld.
Date: 1998-12-16
25 Before a ruling can be given on the question of whether the first subparagraph of Article 3a(3) of Regulation No 1546/88, as amended by Regulation No 1033/89, is invalid for lack of power on the part of the Commission, it must be established whether that provision may be given an interpretation consistent with the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91 (Case C-98/91 Herbrink v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [1994] ECR I-223, paragraph 9).
35 On the basis of the distinction drawn in Article 5c(6) and (7) of Regulation No 804/68, as amended, between the general rules for application, including in particular those relating to the determination of the reference quantities and the special reference quantities referred to in Regulation No 857/84 and the detailed rules of application for which the Commission is responsible, it must be noted that, according to the Court's case-law, the Commission is authorised, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Council with a view to implementing a common organisation of the markets in the agricultural sector, to adopt all the detailed rules of application necessary for the proper functioning of the system provided for, so long as they are not contrary to the basic regulation or the implementing rules of the Council (Case C-358/88 Hopermann [1990] ECR I-1687, paragraph 8).
36 Within those limits, once the Council has laid down in its basic regulation the essential rules governing the matter in question, it may delegate to the Commission general implementing power without having to specify the essential components of the delegated power; for that purpose, a provision drafted in general terms provides a sufficient basis for the authority to act (Case C-240/90 Germany v Commission [1992] ECR I-5383, paragraph 41).
Stefan Demand v Hauptzollamt Trier.
Date: 1998-12-17
21 Since the operation resulted in a reduction greater than that initially envisaged, the German authorities offered the surplus to those producers who wished to increase their quota against payment of a sum equal to the amount paid by Land Rheinland-Pfalz by way of compensation to producers who had discontinued milk production.  To that end, a producer wishing to acquire an additional reference quantity was required, under paragraph 3.1.2, to conclude an assignment contract with a producer who was discontinuing production and pay the price to the relevant public authority.
35 Whilst the Community additional levy scheme in certain specific cases authorises the Member States, subject to observance of the total guaranteed quantity, to reallocate reference quantities which have been released, without transfer of the land with which they are associated, it does not lay down the detailed arrangements for such reallocation.  Therefore, it is incumbent on the Member States, in the exercise of that authorisation, to determine the procedures for reallocation, in compliance with general principles and fundamental rights upheld in Community law by decisions of the Court of Justice (see in particular Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609 and Case C-2/92 Bostock [1994] ECR I-955) and, in that context, to rule whether or not any payment must be made in consideration of the reallocation.
40 With regard more particularly to the right to property, which, according to the plaintiff in the main proceedings, has been infringed, the Court held, in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Irish Farmers' Association, cited above, that the regulations in question form part of a body of legislation intended to remedy the surpluses on the milk market and therefore correspond to aims pursued by the Community in the general interest and that the conversion into a definitive reduction without compensation does not affect the actual substance of that right.
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
Date: 1998-12-17
22 On this point, it must be noted that the special procedure under Directive 89/665 is a preliminary measure which can neither derogate from nor replace the powers of the Commission under Article 169 of the Treaty. That article gives the Commission discretionary power to bring an action before the Court where it considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty and that the State concerned has not complied with the Commission's reasoned opinion (Case C-359/93 Commission v Netherlands [1995] ECR I-157, paragraph 13).
36 In order to give full effect to the principle of free movement, the term `contracting authority' must be interpreted in functional terms (see, to that effect, the judgment of 10 November 1998 in Case C-360/96 Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden v BFI Holding [1998] ECR I-6821, paragraph 62).