larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Margherita Baccini v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM).
Date: 1982-03-23
15 IT IS TRUE THAT ARTICLE 12 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 PROVIDES THAT : ' ' THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE FOR REDUCTION , SUSPENSION OR WITHDRAWAL OF BENEFIT IN CASES OF OVERLAPPING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS OR OTHER INCOME MAY BE INVOKED EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TO SUCH BENEFITS WAS ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OR SUCH INCOME ARISES IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ' ' . HOWEVER , HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN MENTIONED , THE PROVISIONS OF THAT PARAGRAPH MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH , FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT THE AMOUNT OF WHICH DEPENDS UPON A CLAIMANT ' S FITNESS FOR WORK , DO NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE WORKER ON THE DATE ON WHICH HE BECOMES UNEMPLOYED BUT TAKE AS EVIDENCE THAT A MIGRANT WORKER IS NOT FIT FOR WORK THE FACT THAT HE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GRANTED AN INVALIDITY PENSION IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE PURSUANT TO RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FIRST MEMBER STATE .
16 AS A RESULT OF THE FOREGOING THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION RAISED BY THE COUR DU TRAVAIL , MONS , MUST BE THAT ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY AND REGULATIONS NOS 1408/71 AND 574/72 OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT WHERE , UNDER THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE , THE RIGHT OF A MIGRANT WORKER TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT DEPENDS ON HIS FITNESS FOR WORK AND SUCH FITNESS FOR WORK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE SAID MEMBER STATE , THOSE AUTHORITIES MAY NOT REFUSE THE WORKER IN QUESTION UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS IN RECEIPT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF AN AGGREGATED AND APPORTIONED INVALIDITY PENSION DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY RULES .
Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG and Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG.
Date: 1982-03-23
10 IT IS TRUE , AS THE ARBITRATOR NOTED IN HIS QUESTION , THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL IN QUESTION AND THOSE OF AN ORDINARY COURT OR TRIBUNAL INASMUCH AS THE ARBITRATION IS PROVIDED FOR WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW , THE ARBITRATOR MUST DECIDE ACCORDING TO LAW AND HIS AWARD HAS , AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES , THE FORCE OF RES JUDICATA , AND MAY BE ENFORCEABLE IF LEAVE TO ISSUE EXECUTION IS OBTAINED . HOWEVER , THOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE ARBITRATOR THE STATUS OF A ' ' COURT OR TRIBUNAL OF A MEMBER STATE ' '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY .
11 THE FIRST IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTE IS THAT WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO IN 1973 THE PARTIES WERE FREE TO LEAVE THEIR DISPUTES TO BE RESOLVED BY THE ORDINARY COURTS OR TO OPT FOR ARBITRATION BY INSERTING A CLAUSE TO THAT EFFECT IN THE CONTRACT . FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE PARTIES WERE UNDER NO OBLIGATION , WHETHER IN LAW OR IN FACT , TO REFER THEIR DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION .
12 THE SECOND POINT TO BE NOTED IS THAT THE GERMAN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION TO OPT FOR ARBITRATION NOR ARE THEY CALLED UPON TO INTERVENE AUTOMATICALLY IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR . THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , AS A MEMBER STATE OF THE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM COMMUNITY LAW WITHIN ITS TERRITORY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 AND ARTICLES 169 TO 171 OF THE TREATY , HAS NOT ENTRUSTED OR LEFT TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS THE DUTY OF ENSURING THAT SUCH OBLIGATIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH IN THE SPHERE IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE .
14 AS THE COURT HAS CONFIRMED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1981 BROEKMEULEN , CASE 246/80 ( 1981 ) ECR 2311 ), COMMUNITY LAW MUST BE OBSERVED IN ITS ENTIRETY THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY OF ALL THE MEMBER STATES ; PARTIES TO A CONTRACT ARE NOT , THEREFORE , FREE TO CREATE EXCEPTIONS TO IT . IN THAT CONTEXT ATTENTION MUST BE DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT IF QUESTIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW ARE RAISED IN AN ARBITRATION RESORTED TO BY AGREEMENT THE ORDINARY COURTS MAY BE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THEM EITHER IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR COLLABORATION WITH ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS , IN PARTICULAR IN ORDER TO ASSIST THEM IN CERTAIN PROCEDURAL MATTERS OR TO INTERPRET THE LAW APPLICABLE , OR IN THE COURSE OF A REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD - WHICH MAY BE MORE OR LESS EXTENSIVE DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES - AND WHICH THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO EFFECT IN CASE OF AN APPEAL OR OBJECTION , IN PROCEEDINGS FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE EXECUTION OR BY ANY OTHER METHOD OF RECOURSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION .
Alexander Moksel Import-Export GmbH & Co. Handels-KG v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1982-03-25
17 AS THE BASIC REGULATION NO 1504/76 CONSTITUTES A MEASURE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND CONFERS A RIGHT TO ADVANCE FIXING OF REFUNDS IN THE SECTOR IN QUESTION , IT APPEARS THAT SUCH A RIGHT MAY BE TOTALLY SUSPENDED ONLY BY MEANS OF ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE MEASURE . SINCE ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 3318/80 CONCERNS BOTH EARLIER APPLICATIONS AND THOSE LODGED DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION , THE NATURE OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE AS A REGULATION IS NOT CALLED IN QUESTION MERELY BY THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OR EVEN THE IDENTITY OF CERTAIN TRADERS CONCERNED , ESPECIALLY WHERE SUCH A POSSIBILITY BY DEFINITION DID NOT EXIST FOR OTHER TRADERS ALSO COVERED BY REGULATION NO 3318/80 .
C.H.W. v G.J.H.
Date: 1982-03-31
12 THAT PROVISION IN FACT HAS IN VIEW CASES IN WHICH PROVISIONAL MEASURES ARE ORDERED IN A CONTRACTING STATE WHERE ' ' UNDER THIS CONVENTION ' '  A COURT OF ANOTHER CONTRACTING STATE HAS JURISDICTION AS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER . THEREFORE IT MAY NOT BE RELIED ON TO BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION PROVISIONAL OR PROTECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO MATTERS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM IT . THAT IS HOW THE THIRD QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED .

THE FOURTH QUESTION
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Hong-Kong Trade Development Council.
Date: 1982-04-01
6 THAT PURPOSE , WHICH THE SECOND DIRECTIVE MENTIONS IN ITS PREAMBLE WHILST AT THE SAME TIME REFERRING TO THE FIRST DIRECTIVE , 67/227 , OF THE SAME DATE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1967 , P . 14 ), IS EVIDENT FROM THE PREAMBLE TO THE LATTER DIRECTIVE , WHICH REFERS TO THE NEED TO ACHIEVE SUCH HARMONIZATION OF LEGISLATION CONCERNING TURNOVER TAXES AS WILL ELIMINATE FACTORS WHICH MAY DISTORT CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION AND THEREFORE TO SECURE NEUTRALITY IN COMPETITION , IN THE SENSE THAT WITHIN EACH COUNTRY SIMILAR GOODS SHOULD BEAR THE SAME TAX BURDEN , WHATEVER THE LENGTH OF THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION CHAIN .
9 UNDER THAT SYSTEM IT IS CLEAR THAT TAX IS NO LONGER DEDUCTIBLE WHEN THE CHAIN OF TRANSACTIONS HAS COME TO AN END . IT IS THEN CHARGED TO THE FINAL CONSUMER WHO CANNOT PASS ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX UNLESS THERE IS A FURTHER TRANSACTION IN WHICH A PRICE IS PAID .
10 WHERE A PERSON ' S ACTIVITY CONSISTS EXCLUSIVELY IN PROVIDING SERVICES FOR NO DIRECT CONSIDERATION , THERE IS NO BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AND THE FREE SERVICES IN QUESTION ARE THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO VALUE ADDED TAX . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PERSON PROVIDING SERVICES MUST BE ASSIMILATED TO A FINAL CONSUMER BECAUSE HE IS AT THE FINAL STAGE OF THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION CHAIN . IN FACT , THE LINK BETWEEN HIM AND THE RECIPIENT OF THE GOODS OR SERVICE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN ANY CATEGORY OF CONTRACT LIKELY TO BE THE SUBJECT OF TAX HARMONIZATION GIVING RISE TO NEUTRALITY IN COMPETITION ; IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , SERVICES PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE ARE DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER FROM TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS WHICH , WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE VALUE ADDED TAX SYSTEM , PRESUPPOSE THE STIPULATION OF A PRICE OR CONSIDERATION .
Gerrit Holdijk and others.
Date: 1982-04-01
6 AS THE DANISH GOVERNMENT HAS RIGHTLY EMPHASIZED , THE INFORMATION FURNISHED IN THE DECISIONS MAKING THE REFERENCES DOES NOT SERVE ONLY TO ENABLE THE COURT TO GIVE HELPFUL ANSWERS BUT ALSO TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO SUBMIT OBSERVATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 20 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT ( EEC ). IT IS THE COURT ' S DUTY TO ENSURE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT OBSER    VATIONS IS SAFEGUARDED , IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT , BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISION , ONLY THE DECISIONS MAKING THE REFERENCES ARE NOTIFIED TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES .
8 AS REGARDS THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION , IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY , TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE COMPATIBILITY OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED NATIONAL RULES WITH COMMUNITY LAW BUT ONLY UPON THE INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF COMMUNITY LAW . IT IS APPROPRIATE THEREFORE TO REGARD THE QUESTION SUBMITTED AS ASKING WHETHER COMMUNITY LAW MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT , WITH A VIEW TO THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS , MAINTAIN OR INTRODUCE UNILATERAL RULES CONCERNING ENCLOSURES FOR FATTING CALVES .

THE ANSWER TO BE GIVEN
12 AS REGARDS THE RULES ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETS , IT SHOULD IN THE FIRST PLACE BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH AN ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF EXEMPTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS FROM ANY NATIONAL PROVISIONS INTENDED TO ATTAIN OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN THOSE COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION , EVEN THOUGH SUCH PROVISIONS MAY , BY AFFECTING THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION , HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE VOLUME OR THE COST OF NATIONAL PRODUCTION AND THEREFORE ON THE OPERATION OF THE COMMON MARKET IN THE     SECTOR CONCERNED . THE PROHIBITION OF ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PRODUCERS IN THE COMMUNITY , LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ), REFERS TO THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION AND NOT TO THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION RESULTING FROM NATIONAL RULES WHICH ARE GENERAL IN CHARACTER AND PURSUE OTHER OBJECTIVES .
13 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS KEPT FOR FARMING PURPOSES IN THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING COMMON ORGANIZATIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS RENDERING THE NATIONAL RULES IN THAT FIELD INAPPLICABLE PENDING THE POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS AT A LATER STAGE . SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY ' S CONCERN FOR THE HEALTH AND PROTECTION OF ANIMALS , AS EVINCED , INTER ALIA , BY ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY AND BY COUNCIL DECISION NO 78/923/EEC , OF 19 JUNE 1978 , CONCERNING THE CONCLUSION OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS KEPT FOR FARMING PURPOSES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1978 , L 323 , P . 12 ).
Pabst & Richarz KG v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg.
Date: 1982-04-29
12 IT IS , HOWEVER , NOT FOR THE COURT OF JUSTICE BUT FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS WHICH HAVE GIVEN RISE TO THE DISPUTE AND TO ESTABLISH THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH THEY HAVE FOR THE JUDGMENT WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO DELIVER .
22 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS IRRELEVANT TO ESTABLISH WHETHER SUCH MEASURES OF RELIEF MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 92 AND 93 OF THE TREATY . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT AND IN PARTICULAR FROM THE JUDGMENT OF 21 MAY 1980 ( CASE 73/79 COMMISSION V ITALY ( 1980 ) ECR 1547 ) THAT A MEASURE CARRIED OUT BY MEANS OF DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION , WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AT THE SAME TIME AS FORMING PART OF AN AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 92 , SHOULD IN ANY CASE BE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 95 .
Firma Wilhelm Fromme v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung.
Date: 1982-05-06
6 HOWEVER , IN ITS ABOVE-MENTIONED DECISIONS THE COURT HAS PLACED LIMITS ON BOTH THE EXPRESS REFERENCE TO NATIONAL LAWS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION NO 729/70 AND THE IMPLIED REFERENCE WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE NECESSARY IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES . THUS THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LAW MUST NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SCOPE OR IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY LAW BY MAKING THE RECOVERY OF SUMS WRONGLY PAID IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE . NOR MAY IT MAKE THE RECOVERY OF SUCH SUMS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OR DETAILED RULES LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE WHICH APPLY TO SIMILAR PROCEDURES GOVERNED BY NATIONAL LAW ALONE . IN SUCH MATTERS THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MUST PROCEED WITH THE SAME CARE AS THEY EXERCISE IN IMPLEMENTING CORRESPONDING NATIONAL LAWS SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR , IN ANY WAY , THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY LAW .
7 IN ESTABLISHING THOSE LIMITS ON THE REFERENCE TO NATIONAL LAW THE COURT HAS HELD WITH REGARD TO THE RELATIONSHIP TO PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING SIMILAR , BUT PURELY NATIONAL , DISPUTES THAT THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LAW ON THE BASIS OF THAT REFERENCE MUST BE EFFECTED IN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY MANNER AS COMPARED WITH THOSE PROCEDURES . THE RULE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION SO ENUNCIATED ALSO IMPLIES THAT THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN WRONGLY GRANTED PECUNIARY ADVANTAGES     BASED ON COMMUNITY LAW MUST NOT BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THOSE IMPOSED ON UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE WRONGLY RECEIVED SIMILAR ADVANTAGES BASED ON NATIONAL LAW , ASSUMING , HOWEVER , THAT THE TWO GROUPS OF RECIPIENTS ARE IN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS AND THEREFORE THAT THAT DIFFERENT TREATMENT IS NOT OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIABLE .
8 SINCE AT ITS PRESENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY LAW HAS NO RULES GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE RECOVERY OF WRONGLY-PAID DENATURING PREMIUMS AND PARTICULARLY AS TO WHETHER INTEREST SHOULD BE CHARGED ON THEIR RECOVERY , IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT , WITHIN THE LIMITS INDICATED ABOVE , IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW FOR A MEMBER STATE TO CHARGE , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS NATIONAL LAW , INTEREST WHICH , IN THE ABSENCE OF RULES REQUIRING IT TO BE PAID TO THE COMMUNITY , ACCRUES TO ITS OWN BUDGET .
Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1982-05-06
6 ON 9 JULY 1976 , THE APPELLANT IN THE MAIN ACTION , THE UNDERTAKING WUNSCHE HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT , APPLIED TO THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES FOR THE ISSUE OF A LICENCE TO IMPORT 1 000 TONNES OF PRESERVED MUSHROOMS FROM TAIWAN . THE AUTHORITIES REFUSED THE APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM DESCRIBED ABOVE AND THE UNDERTAKING THEN BROUGHT AN ACTION BEFORE THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT ( ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ) FRANKFURT AM MAIN , CLAIMING THAT AFTER 1 JULY 1976 IT WAS NO LONGER JUSTIFIED IN MAINTAINING THAT SYSTEM . ITS ACTION WAS DISMISSED AND IT THEN BROUGHT AN APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW BY WAY OF A DIRECT ACTION BEFORE THE BUNDESVERWALTUNGSGERICHT .
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1982-05-25
6 IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR FAILURE TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION , IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSION TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE OBLIGATION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED . IT IS THE COMMISSION ' S RESPONSIBILITY TO PLACE BEFORE THE COURT THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO ENABLE THE COURT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OBLIGATION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED , AND IN SO DOING THE COMMISSION MAY NOT RELY ON ANY PRESUMPTION .
7 IT SHOULD NEVERTHELESS ALSO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE OBLIGED , BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE EEC TREATY , TO FACILITATE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE COMMISSION ' S TASKS WHICH , UNDER ARTICLE 155 OF THE EEC TREATY , CONSIST IN PARTICULAR OF ENSURING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS PURSUANT THERETO ARE APPLIED . IT IS FOR THOSE REASONS THAT ARTICLE 12 OF THE DIRECTIVE IN QUESTION , LIKE OTHER DIRECTIVES , IMPOSES UPON THE MEMBER STATES AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION .
8 THE INFORMATION WHICH THE MEMBER STATES ARE THUS OBLIGED TO SUPPLY TO THE COMMISSION MUST BE CLEAR AND PRECISE . IT MUST INDICATE UNEQUIVOCALLY THE LAWS , REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS BY MEANS OF WHICH THE MEMBER STATE CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS SATISFIED THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON IT BY THE DIRECTIVE . IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION , THE COMMISSION IS NOT IN A POSITION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MEMBER STATE HAS EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY IMPLEMENTED THE DIRECTIVE . THE FAILURE OF A MEMBER STATE TO FULFIL THAT OBLIGATION , WHETHER BY PROVIDING NO INFORMATION AT ALL OR BY PROVIDING INSUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND PRECISE INFORMATION , MAY OF ITSELF JUSTIFY RECOURSE TO THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE FAILURE TO FULFIL THE OBLIGATION .
15 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS DID NOT ADOPT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIODS THE PROVISIONS NEEDED TO ENSURE THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE IN QUESTION AND MUST BE DECLARED TO HAVE FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY .
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1982-05-25
6 IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR FAILURE TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION , IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSION TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE OBLIGATION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED . IT IS THE COMMISSION ' S RESPONSIBILITY TO PLACE BEFORE THE COURT THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO ENABLE THE COURT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OBLIGATION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED , AND IN SO DOING THE COMMISSION MAY NOT RELY ON ANY PRESUMPTION .
12 IT IS TRUE THAT EACH MEMBER STATE IS FREE TO DELEGATE POWERS TO ITS DOMESTIC AUTHORITIES AS IT CONSIDERS FIT AND TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVE BY MEANS OF MEASURES ADOPTED BY REGIONAL OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES . THAT DOES NOT HOWEVER RELEASE IT FROM THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE BY MEANS OF NATIONAL PROVISIONS OF A BINDING NATURE . THE DIRECTIVE IN QUESTION , ADOPTED INTER ALIA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 100 OF THE EEC TREATY , IS INTENDED TO APPROXIMATE THE APPLICABLE LAWS , REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS IN THE MEMBER STATES . MERE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES , WHICH BY THEIR VERY NATURE MAY BE ALTERED AT THE WHIM OF THE ADMINISTRATION , MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONSTITUTING THE PROPER FULFILMENT OF THE OBLIGATION DERIVING FROM THAT DIRECTIVE .
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1982-05-26
7 IT FOLLOWS FROM THAT JUDGMENT , IN PARTICULAR FROM PARAGRAPHS 12 AND 19 , THAT EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ) OF THE TREATY MUST BE CONNECTED WITH THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE IN SO FAR AS IT IS ENTRUSTED WITH THE EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY PUBLIC LAW AND WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFEGUARDING THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE , TO WHICH THE SPECIFIC INTERESTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES SUCH AS MUNICIPALITIES MUST BE ASSIMILATED .
Federal Republic of Germany and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1982-05-26
16 THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY , HOWEVER , REQUIRES THAT A PROVISION LAYING DOWN A PRECLUSIVE PERIOD , PARTICULARLY ONE WHICH MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING A MEMBER STATE OF THE PAYMENT OF FINANCIAL AID ITS APPLICATION FOR WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT HAS ALREADY INCURRED CONSIDERABLE EXPENDITURE , SHOULD BE CLEARLY AND PRECISELY DRAFTED SO THAT THE MEMBER STATES MAY BE MADE FULLY AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THEIR COMPLYING WITH THE TIME-LIMIT . NEITHER THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF COMMISSION DECISION 78/706 NOR THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT APPEARS JUSTIFIES THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE PERIOD IS A PRECLUSIVE PERIOD .
Roger Ivenel v Helmut Schwab.
Date: 1982-05-26
14 THE EXPERTS '  REPORT ON THE CONVENTION ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980 , C 282 , P . 1 ) EXPLAINS IN THAT RESPECT THAT THE ADOPTING OF A SPECIAL CONFLICT RULE IN RELATION TO CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT FOR MATTERS IN WHICH THE INTERESTS OF ONE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WERE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE OF THE OTHER AND TO SECURE THEREBY ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THE PARTY WHO FROM THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW WAS TO BE REGARDED AS THE WEAKER IN THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP .
20 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS , TAKEN AS A WHOLE , THAT THE OBLIGATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION IN THE CASE OF CLAIMS BASED ON DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AS A REPRESENTATIVE BINDING A WORKER TO AN UNDERTAKING IS THE OBLIGATION WHICH CHARACTERIZES THE CONTRACT .
Francis Aubin v Union nationale interprofessionnelle pour l'emploi dans l'industrie et le commerce (UNEDIC) and Association pour l'emploi dans les industries et le commerce des Yvelines (ASSEDIC).
Date: 1982-05-27
11 THAT GENERAL PROVISION , HOWEVER , WHICH APPEARS IN TITLE II OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , HEADED ' ' DETERMINATION OF THE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE ' ' , APPLIES ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES OR BENEFITS WHICH CONSTITUTE TITLE III OF THE SAME REGULATION .
12 THAT IS PRECISELY THE CASE WITH CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE III ON UNEMPLOYMENT , THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1976 ( CASE 39/76 BESTUUR DER BEDRIFSVERENIGING VOOR DE METAAL    NIJVERHEID V L . J . MOUTHAAN ( 1976 ) ECR 1901 ) GOVERN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( B ) ( II ) OF CHAPTER 6 SO AS TO ENSURE THAT MIGRANT WORKERS RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IN THE CONDITIONS MOST FAVOURABLE TO THE SEARCH FOR NEW EMPLOYMENT .
19 THOSE PROVISIONS OFFER THE WORKER A CHOICE . HE MAY APPLY TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT SCHEME IN THE STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED , OR CLAIM BENEFIT IN THE STATE WHERE HE RESIDES . IN THE CASE OF A WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED WORKER WHO ELECTS TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE WHERE HE RESIDES THAT CHOICE IS MADE ESSENTIALLY - INDEED , EXCLUSIVELY - BY THE WORKER ' S MAKING HIMSELF AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE OF THE STATE FROM WHICH HE IS CLAIMING THE BENEFITS . THE WORKER MAY NOT , HOWEVER , EITHER AGGREGATE THE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FROM BOTH STATES OR , IF HE HAS MADE HIMSELF AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE WHERE HE RESIDES , CLAIM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FROM THE STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED . WITH REGARD TO THAT LAST POINT THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 9 JULY 1975 ( CASE 20/75 GAETANO D ' AMICO , ( 1975 ) ECR 891 ), ' ' THE RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PRESUPPOSES THAT THE UNEMPLOYED PERSON IS AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYMENT BUREAU AT WHICH HE IS REGISTERED , AS APPEARS FROM CHAPTER 6 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 69 AND 71 THEREOF ' ' .
20 THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION PUT BY THE COUR DE CASSATION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT A NATIONAL OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY , WHO WORKED IN FRANCE UNTIL MADE REDUNDANT , WHO WAS NOT REGISTERED IN FRANCE AS A PERSON SEEKING WORK AND WHO RESIDED IN BELGIUM WHERE HE HAD APPLIED FOR SUCH REGISTRATION , IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ONLY THE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR BY BELGIAN LEGISLATION , IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE HAS THE STATUS OF A FRONTIER WORKER .

SECOND QUESTION
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1982-06-09
27 IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , ARTICLE 36 MUST BE STRICTLY INTERPRETED AND THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH IT LISTS MAY NOT BE EXTENDED TO CASES OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTIVELY LAID DOWN AND , FURTHERMORE , THAT ARTICLE 36 REFERS TO MATTERS OF A NON-ECONOMIC NATURE .