larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Shell International Chemical Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1999-07-08
60 With regard, secondly, to the alleged breach of procedure, it should be borne in mind that, pursuant to Article 168A of the EC Treaty (now Article 225 EC) and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. The appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it does not constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice (see, inter alia, Case C-53/92 P Hilti v Commission [1994] ECR I-667, paragraphs 10 and 42).
63 As regards the request for measures of inquiry, the case-law of the Court (see, in particular, Case 77/70 Prelle v Commission [1971] ECR 561, paragraph 7, and Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 53) makes it clear that, if made after the oral procedure is closed, such a request can be admitted only if it relates to facts which may have a decisive influence on the outcome of the case and which the party concerned could not put forward before the close of the oral procedure.
67 Secondly, even when submitting its application, the applicant was in a position to identify the documents sought and to provide the Court of First Instance with at least minimum evidence of the expediency of those measures of inquiry or measures of organisation of procedure for the purposes of the proceedings, in order to prove that the Polypropylene Decision had been altered after its adoption by the College of the Members of the Commission, as some of the applicants in the PVC cases had done (see, to that effect, the judgment of 17 December 1998 in Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraphs 93 and 94).
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1999-07-08
12 The Council, supported by the Spanish Government, considers the action to be inadmissible in so far as it is based on infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, since the Parliament has failed to provide any relevant indication as to how that infringement was such as to impair its prerogatives.  It further argues that the first subparagraph of Article 228(3) of the Treaty constitutes the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the contested regulation, since the fisheries agreement with Mauritania does not have important budgetary implications within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 228(3).
Admissibility
13 Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the Parliament may bring an action before the Court for the annulment of an act of another institution provided that it does so in order to protect its prerogatives.  The Court has held that that condition is satisfied where the Parliament indicates in an appropriate manner the substance of the prerogative to be safeguarded and how that prerogative is allegedly infringed (see, in particular, Case C-303/94 Parliament v Council [1996] ECR I-2943, paragraph 17).
24 The Council therefore maintains that, in order to assess whether an agreement has important budgetary implications, it is necessary to refer to the overall budget of the Community, and that it did not act in a manifestly erroneous and arbitrary manner in seeking merely an opinion of the Parliament for a fisheries agreement under which annual expenditure amounted to 0.07% of that budget.
Société Baxter, B. Braun Médical SA, Société Fresenius France and Laboratoires Bristol-Myers-Squibb SA v Premier Ministre, Ministère du Travail et des Affaires sociales, Ministère de l'Economie et des Finances and Ministère de l'Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l'Alimentation.
Date: 1999-07-08
9 It should be observed first of all that the freedom of establishment conferred by Article 52 of the Treaty on the nationals of a Member State, giving them the right to take up activities as self-employed persons and pursue them on the same conditions as those laid down by the law of the Member State of establishment for its own nationals, comprises, pursuant to Article 58 of the Treaty, for companies constituted in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, the right to carry on business in the Member State concerned through a branch, agency or subsidiary (see Case C-1/93 Halliburton Services v Staatssecretaris van Financiën [1994] ECR I-1137, paragraph 14).
10 Next, it follows from the case-law of the Court (see Case C-330/91 The Queen v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Commerzbank [1993] ECR I-4017, paragraph 14) that the rules regarding equality of treatment prohibit not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality or, in the case of a company, its seat, but all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result.
11 Finally, it must also be borne in mind that, as the Court has repeatedly stated (see, in particular, Halliburton Services, paragraph 16), since the end of the transitional period Article 52 of the Treaty has been directly applicable notwithstanding the absence, in a particular area, of the directives provided for in Articles 54(2) and 57(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 44(1) EC and 47(1) EC).
18 The Court has repeatedly held that effectiveness of fiscal supervision constitutes an overriding requirement of general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see, inter alia, Case C-250/95 Futura Participations and Singer v Administration des Contributions [1997] ECR I-2471, paragraph 31). A Member State may therefore apply measures which enable the amount of costs deductible in that State as research expenditure to be ascertained clearly and precisely.
19 However, national legislation which absolutely prevents the taxpayer from submitting evidence that expenditure relating to research carried out in other Member States has actually been incurred cannot be justified in the name of effectiveness of fiscal supervision.
20 The taxpayer should not be excluded a priori from providing relevant documentary evidence enabling the tax authorities of the Member State imposing the levy to ascertain, clearly and precisely, the nature and genuineness of the research expenditure incurred in other Member States.
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1999-07-08
19 Second, it must be noted that, even if certain results relating to the objectives of the Directive have been achieved before the expiry of the period prescribed thereby for the implementation of programmes, that does not excuse a Member State from drawing up the programmes required (Case C-347/97 Commission v Belgium [1999] ECR I-309, paragraph 18).
20 As the Court has already held, incomplete practical measures and fragmentary legislation cannot discharge the obligation of a Member State to draw up programmes with a view to attaining certain objectives, as required by Article 6 of the Directive (Case C-298/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-3301, paragraph 16).
23 In that connection, it must be stated that, although the French authorities have taken positive measures in relation to the objectives set out in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Directive, they constitute no more than a series of legislative provisions or ad hoc measures which do not possess the characteristics of an organised and coordinated system of objectives such as to make it possible to regard them as programmes within the meaning of Article 6 (see Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 23).
Criminal proceedings against Maria Amélia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos.
Date: 1999-07-08
9 Where a Community regulation does not specifically provide any penalty for an infringement or refers for that purpose to national laws, regulations and administrative provisions, Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) requires the Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law (see, in particular, Case 68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 2965, paragraph 23).
10 For that purpose, while the choice of penalties remains within their discretion, the Member States must ensure in particular that infringements of Community law are penalised under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive (Commission v Greece, paragraph 24).
11 Moreover, the national authorities must proceed, with respect to infringements of Community law, with the same diligence as that which they bring to bear in implementing corresponding national laws (Commission v Greece, paragraph 25).
12 The same reasoning applies where a Community regulation lays down particular penalties for infringement, but does not exhaustively list the penalties that the Member States may impose, as is the case with the regulation on the ESF.
14 Consequently the answer to the second question must be that Article 5 of the Treaty requires the Member States to take all effective measures to penalise conduct harmful to the financial interests of the Community. Such measures may include criminal penalties even where the Community legislation only provides for civil ones. The penalty provided for must be analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of similar nature and importance, and must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1999-07-08
12 Just as the Court has held in relation to registration of a ship (see Case C-221/89 Factortame and Others [1991] ECR I-3905, paragraph 22), it must be held that where an aircraft constitutes an instrument by which a Community national pursues an economic activity which involves a fixed establishment in another Member State, registration of that aircraft cannot be dissociated from the exercise of the freedom of establishment.  The conditions laid down for the registration of aircraft must therefore not discriminate on grounds of nationality or form an obstacle to the exercise of that freedom.
14 The argument, submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium in its defence, that it has been the practice of the authorities since 1996 not to apply the provisions in question, does not in any way alter that finding.  As the Court has consistently held, mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty (see Case C-334/94 Commission v France [1996] ECR I-1307, paragraph 30).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1999-07-08
15 Moreover, the fact that the Greek Government is continuing to make every effort to implement the programmes in question is no defence. As Advocate General Jacobs observed at point 16 of his Opinion, an action based on Article 169 of the Treaty requires only an objective finding of a failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations and not proof of any inertia or opposition on the part of the Member State concerned (see Case 301/81 Commission v Belgium [1983] ECR 467, paragraph 8).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1999-07-08
11 It is enough to observe in this regard that the Court has consistently held that the incompatibility of national legislation with Community provisions, even provisions which are directly applicable, can be finally remedied only by means of national provisions of a binding nature which have the same legal force as those which must be amended, and that the provisions of a directive must be implemented with unquestionable binding force and with the specificity, precision and clarity required in order to satisfy the requirement of legal certainty, under which, in the case of a directive intended to confer rights on individuals, persons concerned must be enabled to ascertain the full extent of their rights (Case C-197/96 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-1489, paragraphs 14 and 15).
RI.SAN. Srl v Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro SpA and Ischia Ambiente SpA.
Date: 1999-09-09
23 The answer to be given to the first question must therefore be that Article 55 of the Treaty does not apply in a situation such as that in the main proceedings in which all the facts are confined to within a single Member State and which does not therefore have any connecting link with one of the situations envisaged by Community law in the area of the freedom of movement for persons and freedom to provide services.
The second question
Gabriele Gruber v Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 1999-09-14
19 As the Advocate General points out in paragraph 23 of his Opinion, Silhouette's objection amounts to a criticism of the assessment of the facts and the application of national law by the Landesgericht. However, the Court has consistently held that it is for the national courts to furnish it with the factual and legal information necessary to give useful answers to the questions they submit to it. According to that same case-law, it is for the national court to interpret the national provisions at issue. The Court cannot therefore substitute its own judgment for that of the national court as regards the question whether those provisions apply in the case before it.
22 It must be observed first of all that it is not contested that termination payments constitute `pay' within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty. The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the calculation of the amount of termination payment which the claimant may claim.
25 According to settled case-law, indirect discrimination arises where a national measure, although formulated in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of far more women than men (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-1/95 Gerster [1997] ECR I-5253, paragraph 30).
26 It is also clear from the case-law of the Court that Article 119 of the Treaty precludes the application of provisions which maintain differences of treatment between male and female workers as a result of the application of criteria not based on sex where those differences of treatment are not attributable to objective factors unrelated to sex discrimination (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-167/97 Seymour-Smith and Perez [1999] ECR I-623, paragraph 52).
DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH v Finanzamt Bergheim.
Date: 1999-09-14
26 Any other interpretation of Article 20 of the Directive would mean that such potential debts would not be shown in the balance sheet, which would lead to an overestimate of the assets.  Such a result would be incompatible not only with the principle of making valuations on a prudent basis, the observance of which is prescribed by Article 31(1)(c) of the Directive, but also with the principle of the `true and fair view', compliance with which is the primary objective of the Directive (see Case C-234/94 Tomberger [1996] ECR I-3133, paragraph 17, rectified by order of the Court of 10 July 1997, not published in the ECR), and according to which the annual accounts of the companies to which the Directive applies must give a true and fair view of their assets and liabilities, of their financial position and of their profit or loss (see the fourth recital in the preamble to the Directive and Article 2(3) and (5) of the Directive).
27 The principle of a true and fair view requires that the accounts reflect the activities and transactions which they are supposed to describe and that the accounting information be given in the form judged to be the soundest and most appropriate for satisfying third parties' needs for information, without harming the interests of the company.
31 Since the Directive does not define what is meant by `exceptional cases', this expression must be interpreted in the light of the Directive's aim, which, as indicated in paragraph 26 above, is that the annual accounts of the companies concerned must give a true and fair view of their assets, of their financial position and of their profit or loss (see, also, to this effect the judgment in Tomberger, cited above).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1999-09-14
42 The existence of a difficult political situation in a third State which is a contracting party, as in the present case, cannot justify a failure to fulfil obligations. If a Member State encounters difficulties which make it impossible to adjust an agreement, it must denounce the agreement.
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1999-09-14
9 As the Commission has pointed out, it is settled case-law that 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-214/96 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-7661, paragraph 18).
Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl.
Date: 1999-09-16
19 That line of argument must be accepted.  If the certificate did not cover the actual medicinal product, as protected by the basic patent and one of the possible forms of which is the subject-matter of a marketing authorisation, the fundamental objective of Regulation No 1768/92, as set out in the first and second recitals in the preamble thereto, which is to provide for sufficient protection to encourage research in the pharmaceutical field, which plays a decisive role in the continuing improvement in public health, could not, for the reasons set out in paragraph 18 of this judgment, be attained.
26 As Community law now stands, the provisions concerning patents have not yet been made the subject of harmonisation at Community level or of an approximation of laws.
Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA and Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH v Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung für den Bundesminister für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten.
Date: 1999-09-16
23 In the first place, as regards the provisions of Directive 93/37 cited by Fracasso and Leitschutz, it must be observed that Article 8(2) of Directive 93/37, which requires a contracting authority to inform candidates or tenderers as soon as possible of the grounds on which it decided not to award a contract in respect of which a prior call for competition was made, or to recommence the procedure, does not provide that such a decision is to be limited to exceptional cases or has necessarily to be based on serious grounds.
25 It follows that the contracting authority's option, implicitly recognised by Directive 93/37, to decide not to award a contract put out to tender or to recommence the tendering procedure is not made subject by that directive to the requirement that there must be serious or exceptional circumstances.
26 Second, it should be observed that, according to the 10th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/37, the aim of that directive is to ensure the development of effective competition in the award of public works contracts (see also, on the subject of Directive 71/305, Case 31/87 Beentjes [1988] ECR 4635, paragraph 21).
31 It follows that, to meet the objective of developing effective competition in the area of public contracts, Directive 93/37 seeks to organise the award of contracts in such a way that the contracting authority is able to compare the different tenders and to accept the most advantageous on the basis of objective criteria such as those listed by way of example in Article 30(1) (see, to that effect, on the subject of Directive 71/305, Beentjes, cited above, paragraph 27).
32 Where, on conclusion of one of the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down by Directive 93/37, there is only one tender remaining, the contracting authority is not in a position to compare prices or other characteristics of various tenders in order to award the contract in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter 3 of Title IV of Directive 93/37.
33 It follows from the foregoing that the contracting authority is not required to award the contract to the only tenderer judged to be suitable.
34 The answer to the first part of the question is, therefore, that Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37 must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority is not required to award the contract to the only tenderer judged to be suitable.
The second part of the question
36 In that connection, it need merely be observed that, since no specific implementing measure is necessary for compliance with the requirements listed in Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37, the resulting obligations for the Member States are therefore unconditional and sufficiently precise (see, to that effect, on the subject of Article 20 of Directive 71/305, essentially reproduced in Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37, Beentjes, cited above, paragraph 43).
Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and Others v Régie nationale des usines Renault SA.
Date: 1999-09-16
8 The national court found that the Court of Justice has never ruled on the question of the compatibility with Article 119 of the Treaty of an allowance of the kind in question in the main proceedings although in its judgment in Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475 it did consider a relatively similar case.
13 Consideration classified as pay includes, inter alia, consideration paid by the employer by virtue of legislative provisions and under a contract of employment whose purpose is to ensure that workers receive income even where, in certain cases specified by the legislature, they are not performing any work provided for in their contracts of employment (Case C-360/90 Bötel [1992] ECR I-3589, paragraphs 14 and 15; see also Case C-33/89 Kowalska [1990] ECR I-2591, paragraph 11, and Case C-262/88 Barber [1990] ECR I-1889, paragraph 12, and Gillespie, cited above, paragraph 13).
15 While such a payment is not made periodically and is not indexed on salary, its characteristics do not, contrary to what Renault contends, alter its nature of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty (see Case 12/81 Garland [1982] ECR 359, paragraph 9).
16 According to the case-law of the Court, the principle of equal pay, like the general principle of non-discrimination of which it is a particular expression, presupposes that male and female workers whom it covers are in comparable situations (see Gillespie, cited above, paragraphs 16 to 18).
18 In its answer to a question put by the Court, Renault mentioned several occupational disadvantages, inherent in maternity leave, which arise for female workers as a result of being away from work.
20 As the United Kingdom Government and the Commission rightly point out, Article 119 of the Treaty does not preclude the making of a payment such as that in question in the main proceedings exclusively to female workers since it is designed to offset the occupational disadvantages, such as those mentioned by Renault. In this case, male and female workers are, in their view, in different situations, which excludes any breach of the principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty.
22 The answer to be given to the national court must therefore be that the principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty does not preclude the making of a lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity leave where that payment is designed to offset the occupational disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of their being away from work.