larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Hermann Schräder HS Kraftfutter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Gronau.
Date: 1989-07-11
9 The latter interpretation must be accepted . The co-responsibility levy in the cereals sector seeks to contribute to stabilizing the market in cereals by restricting growth on that market which is characterized by structural surpluses . Its role is therefore comparable to the role of the other intervention measures provided for by the common organization of the market in cereals, as is clear from Article 4 ( 4 ) of Regulation No 2727/75, as modified by Regulation No 1579/86, which provides that the levy "shall be regarded as one of the intervention measures designed to stabilize agricultural markets ...". Such a measure comes within the scope of Articles 39 and 40 of the Treaty, and consequently Article 43 of the Treaty is an appropriate and adequate legal basis for it, regardless of the amount of the levy .
15 The Court has recognized in particular, notably in the judgment in Case 44/79, cited above, that both the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession form part of the general principles of Community law . However, those principles do not constitute an unfettered prerogative, but must be viewed in the light of the social function of the activities protected thereunder . Consequently, the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession may be restricted, particularly in the context of a common organization of the market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and that they do not constitute a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes upon the very substance of the rights guaranteed . The question whether the co-responsibility levy scheme is compatible with the protection of fundamental rights must be considered in the light of those criteria .
21 The Court has consistently held that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Community law . By virtue of that principle, measures imposing financial charges on economic operators are lawful provided that the measures are appropriate and necessary for meeting the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question . Of course, when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, the least onerous measure must be used and the charges imposed must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued .
22 However, with regard to judicial review of compliance with the abovementioned conditions, it must be stated that, in matters concerning the common agricultural policy, the Community legislator has a discretionary power which corresponds to the political responsibilities imposed by Articles 40 and 43 . Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution intends to pursue ( see in particular the judgment in Case 179/84 Bozzetti v Invernizzi (( 1985 )) ECR 2301 ).
Daniel Cornée and others v Coopérative agricole laitière de Loudéac (Copall) and Laiterie coopérative du Trieux.
Date: 1989-07-11
12 Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 857/84 provides that : "Producers who have adopted milk production development plans under Directive 72/159/EEC lodged before 1 March 1984 may obtain, according to the Member State' s decision ... if the plan is still being implemented, a special reference quantity taking account of the milk and milk product quantities provided for in the development plan ." That provision enables producers holding a milk production development plan approved under Directive 72/159/EEC to enjoy the fruits of the investments which they have made in the implementation of such a plan .
13 From the wording of the aforementioned provision it is clear that it grants to the Member States a discretionary power to decide whether special reference quantities should be allocated to the producers mentioned in that provision and, if so, to determine their size .
26 With regard to that question, it should be observed first of all that the implementation of a milk production development plan which has been approved by the competent national authorities does not confer on the producer concerned the right to produce the quantity of milk corresponding to the plan' s objective without being subject to any restrictions stemming from Community rules adopted after the plan was approved, in particular in the context of market or structural policy, unless those restrictions affect the producers having such a plan in a specific way, owing precisely to the implementation of their plan .
27 Consequently, when a common organization of the agricultural markets provides for the imposition of a levy on deliveries of products which exceed certain reference quantities, in order to reduce structural surpluses on the market in question, producers having a development plan, even one approved prior to the entry into force of the levy scheme, cannot rely on any alleged legitimate expectation based on the implementation of their plan in order to oppose any reductions in such reference quantities, provided that the reductions are permitted under the relevant Community rules and do not relate specifically to the reference quantities of that category of producer .
Friedrich Binder GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall.
Date: 1989-07-12
15 It must be borne in mind first of all that Article 5(2 ) of Regulation No 1697/79 lays down the following three requirements which must all be fulfilled before the competent authorities may waive post-clearance recovery :
( i ) the non-collection of the duties must be the result of an error made by the competent authorities themselves;
( ii ) the error must not have reasonably been detectable by the person liable, the latter having acted in good faith; and, finally,
( iii ) the person liable must have observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in force as far as his customs declaration is concerned .
16 As the Court ruled in its judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Luebeck-Ost (( 1987 )) ECR 4199, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that if all those requirements are fulfilled the person liable is entitled to the waiver of the recovery of the duty in question .
19 It must first be pointed out in that regard that the applicable Community provisions relating to the customs tariff must be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities . From the date of that publication, they constitute the sole relevant positive law, of which all are deemed to be aware . A tariff manual such as the Gebrauchs-Zolltarif, drawn up by national authorities, therefore constitutes, as is clear from the terms of its table of contents, no more than a handbook for customs clearance . It brings together, for the convenience of all those involved in customs operations, the rules of national law and Community law, including the Common Customs Tariff, which is cited as one of the fundamental provisions . The statements in the tariff manual therefore clearly indicate that it is merely a compilation of rules which, in so far as they form part of Community law, have previously been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities . Such a document can therefore have no more than indicative character and in no case lead to the calling in question of the primacy of Community law .
Albert Alexis and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1989-07-13
9 In that regard, it should be pointed out that, as the Court has stated on a number of occasions ( see in particular the judgment in Joined Cases 87 and 130/77, 22/83, and 9 and 10/84 Salerno v Commission and Council (( 1985 )) ECR 2523 ), it is not only persons who have the status of officials or of employees other than local staff who may bring an action before the Court to contest a decision adversely affecting them, but also persons claiming that status .
Substance
Enichem Base and others v Comune di Cinisello Balsamo.
Date: 1989-07-13
19 The purpose of the third question is to determine whether Article 3(2 ) of Directive 75/442 gives individuals a right which they may enforce before the national courts in order to obtain the annulment or suspension of national rules falling within the scope of that provision on the ground that those rules were adopted without having previously been communicated to the Commission of the European Communities .
20 Article 3(2 ) merely requires the Member States to inform the Commission in good time of any draft rules within the scope of that provision, without laying down any procedure for Community monitoring thereof or making implementation of the planned rules conditional upon agreement by the Commission or its failure to object .
21 The obligation imposed on the Member States by Article 3(2 ) is intended to ensure that the Commission is informed of any plans for national measures regarding waste disposal so that it can consider whether Community harmonizing legislation is called for and whether the draft rules submitted to it are compatible with Community law, and take appropriate measures if necessary .
22 Neither the wording nor the purpose of the provision in question provides any support for the view that failure by the Member States to observe their obligation to give prior notice in itself renders unlawful the rules thus adopted .
23 It follows from the foregoing that the abovementioned provision concerns relations between the Member States and the Commission and does not give rise to any right for individuals which might be infringed by a Member State' s breach of its obligation to inform the Commission in advance of draft rules .
24 It must therefore be stated in reply to the third question that Article 3(2 ) of Directive 75/442, properly construed, does not give individuals any right which they may enforce before national courts in order to obtain the annulment or suspension of national rules falling within the scope of that provision on the ground that the rules were adopted without having been previously communicated to the Commission of the European Communities .
The fourth question
Lambregts Transportbedrijf PVBA v Belgian State.
Date: 1989-07-13
8 It should first be pointed out that Article 59, guaranteeing the freedom to provide services within the Community, became directly and unconditionally applicable on the expiry of the transitional period indicated in Article 8 of the Treaty, as the Court pointed out in its judgment of 17 December 1981 Case 279/80 Webb (( 1981 )) ECR 3305 . In that judgment, the Court also pointed out that that freedom involved the abolition of all discrimination against the person providing the service by reason of the fact that he is established in a Member State other than that in which the service is to be provided .
9 However, it should be observed that under Article 61(1 ) of the Treaty, freedom to provide services in the field of transport is governed by the provisions of the title relating to transport, namely Article 74 et seq . of the Treaty . According to Article 75(1 ) of the Treaty, the Council is to lay down common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States, the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State and any other appropriate provisions .
14 With regard to the legal consequences of that failure to implement the principle of freedom to provide services in international and domestic transport, it should be pointed out that in its judgment of 22 May 1985 Case 13/83 Parliament v Council (( 1985 )) ECR 1513, the Court decided that the Council had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 75 of the Treaty but nevertheless pointed out that the effect of that fact was not to render Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty directly applicable in the transport sector . During the period at issue, in 1982, freedom to provide services in the field of international transport was thus ensured only within, from or to the Member State in which the undertaking was established and was subject to the issue of a transport licence under the bilateral or Community quotas for the Member State concerned .
Francis Olbrechts and Ingeborg Olbrechts, née Hogrefe, v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1989-07-13
10 It must be borne in mind that, although a decision is properly notified within the meaning of the Treaty if it reaches the addressee and puts the latter in a position to take cognizance of it ( Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission (( 1973 )) ECR 215 ), it is for the party claiming that an action is out of time to prove the date on which the decision was notified ( Case 108/79 Belfiore v Commission (( 1980 )) ECR 1769, and Joined Cases 193 and 194/87 Maurissen v Court of Auditors (( 1989 )) ECR 1045 )
Wisselink en Co. BV and others v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 1989-07-13
13 Community law, as it now stands, does not, however, contain any specific provision designed to exclude or limit the power of the Member States to introduce taxes other than turnover taxes . That power is expressly confirmed by Article 33 of the Sixth Directive, which provides that : "Without prejudice to other Community provisions, the provisions of this Directive shall not prevent a Member State from maintaining or introducing taxes on insurance contracts, taxes on betting and gambling, excise duties, stamp duties and, more generally, any taxes, duties or charges which cannot be characterized as turnover taxes ".
14 As the Court pointed out in its judgment of 8 July 1986 in Case 73/85 Kerrutt v Finanzamt Moenchengladbach-Mitte (( 1986 )) ECR 2219, it is apparent from Article 33 that Community law permits systems of taxation which are concurrent with the system of value-added tax . The Member States may therefore introduce taxes which cannot be characterized as turnover taxes even where, as in this case, charging them on a transaction which is already subject to value-added tax leads to the double taxation of that transaction .
18 As the Court has held, in particular in its judgment of 27 November 1985 in Case 295/84 Rousseau Wilmot cited above ) and its judgment of 3 March 1988 in Case 252/86 Bergandi v Directeur-Général des Impots (( 1988 )) ECR 1343, the principle of the common system of value-added tax consists, by virtue of Article 2 of the First Directive, in the application to goods and services up to the retail stage of a general tax on consumption which is exactly proportional to the price of the goods and services, irrespective of the number of transactions which take place in the production and distribution process before the stage at which the tax is charged . However, value-added tax is chargeable on each transaction only after deduction of the amount of value-added tax borne directly by the costs of the various price components . The procedure for deduction is so arranged by Article 17(2 ) of the Sixth Directive that taxable persons are authorized to deduct from the value-added tax for which they are liable the value-added tax which the goods have already borne .
Juan Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1989-07-13
9 The Court has consistently held that such claims are inadmissible ( see in particular the judgment of 10 December 1969 in Case 12/69 Gustav Wonnerth v Commission (( 1969 )) ECR 577, paragraph 6 ).
The application for the annulment of the decision to reject the applicant' s candidature
The submission that the statement of reasons for the contested decision was inadequate
10 The Court has consistently held that the requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the reasons on which it is based is intended to enable the Court 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 ( judgment of 9 June 1983 in Case 225/82 Verzyck v Commission (( 1983 )) ECR 1991 ).
14 In the absence of any provision to the contrary contained in either a regulation or a directive applicable to competitions organized by the Community institutions for the purposes of recruitment or in the Notice of Competition, the requirement of possession of a university degree is necessarily to be construed in the light of the definition of such a degree in the legislation of the Member State in which the candidate completed the studies on which he relies .
24 Secondly, even if the Notice of Competition in question were, as the applicant claims, more restrictive than Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, which states that category A duties require "university education or equivalent professional experience", it follows from the judgments of this Court that that submission cannot be upheld . Article 5 seeks to provide a general definition of the minimum level required for an official of the category in question, drawn up according to the nature of the duties to which the posts correspond, and does not concern conditions of recruitment . Those are governed by the provisions of Article 29 and Annex III to the Staff Regulations and there is nothing to prevent there being fixed in notices of competition conditions in relation to certain posts or certain categories of posts which are more rigorous than those which correspond to the minimum requirements resulting from the classification of posts, whether such conditions are fixed in order to fill a specific vacant post or for the purpose of constituting a reserve with which to fill posts in a certain category ( judgment in Case 117/78 Orlandi v Commission (( 1979 )) ECR 1613; judgment in Case 178/78 Szemerey v Commission (( 1979 )) ECR 2855 ).
Ingrid Rinner-Kühn v FWW Spezial-Gebäudereinigung GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 1989-07-13
7 As the national court correctly observes, the continued payment of wages to an employee in the event of illness falls within the concept of "pay" within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty .
11 It is also clear from the order requesting a preliminary ruling that in percentage terms considerably less women than men work the minimum number of weekly or monthly hours required to entitle an employee to the continued payment of wages in the event of inability to work due to illness .
12 In such a situation, it must be concluded that a provision such as that in question results in discrimination against female workers in relation to male workers and must, in principle, be regarded as contrary to the aim of Article 119 of the Treaty . The position would be different only if the distinction between the two categories of employees were justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex ( see the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84, Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Karin Weber von Hartz, ( 1986 ) ECR 1607 ).
14 . It should, however, be stated that those considerations, in so far as they are only generalizations about certain categories of workers, do not enable criteria which are both objective and unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex to be identified . However, if the Member State can show that the means chosen meet a necessary aim of its social policy and that they are suitable and requisite for attaining that aim, the mere fact that the provision affects a much greater number of female workers than male workers cannot be regarded as constituting an infringement of Article 119 .
15 It is for the national court, which has sole jurisdiction to assess the facts and interpret the national legislation, to determine whether and to what extent a legislative provision, which, though applying independently of the sex of the worker, actually affects a greater number of women than men, is justified by reasons which are objective and unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex .
16 The reply to the question referred by the national court must therefore be that Article 119 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits employers to exclude employees whose normal working hours do not exceed 10 hours a week or 45 hours a month from the continued payment of wages in the event of illness, if that measure affects a far greater number of women than men, unless the Member State shows that the legislation concerned is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex .
Skatteministeriet v Morten Henriksen.
Date: 1989-07-13
10 A comparison of the various language versions of Article 13B(b ) of the Sixth Directive shows that there are differences of terminology in regard to the scope of the phrase "the letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles ". Although certain versions suggest that only open spaces for the parking of vehicles are encompassed by that phrase, others suggest that it also encompasses enclosed garages such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings .
11 In view of those differences, the scope of the contested phrase cannot be determined exclusively on the basis of an interpretation of its terms . In order to determine its meaning, recourse must therefore be had to the context in which it occurs and to the structure of the Sixth Directive .
14 However, it should be pointed out that the phrase "leasing or letting of immovable property", which is the subject of the exemption laid down in Article 13B(b ) of the Sixth Directive, necessarily also encompasses, in addition to the letting of the property which is the principal subject of the transaction, the letting of all property which is accessory to it .
15 Thus, the letting of premises and sites for parking vehicles cannot be excluded from the exemption where the letting thereof is closely linked to the letting of immovable property to be used for another purpose, such as residential or commercial property, which is itself exempt, so that the two lettings constitute a single economic transaction .
20 It should be pointed out, on the one hand, that although, according to the opening words of Article 13 B of the Sixth Directive, the Member States are to lay down the conditions for exemptions for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions and of preventing any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse, those "conditions" cannot define the content of the exemptions provided for .
Casa Fleischhandels-GmbH v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung.
Date: 1989-07-13
31 Whilst a recital in the preamble to a regulation may cast light on the interpretation to be given to a legal rule, it cannot in itself constitute such a rule . Moreover, the recital in question does not appear in any of the other language versions of Regulation No 1500/76 .
Schäfer Shop BV v Minister van Economische Zaken.
Date: 1989-09-21
14 As the Court has already held ( judgments of 1 October 1974 in Case 14/74 Norddeutsches Vieh - und Fleischkontor v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (( 1974 )) ECR 899, and of 27 September 1979 in Case 23/79 Gefluegelschlachterei Freystadt GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (( 1979 )) ECR 2789 ), the Protocol accords a special status to the German Democratic Republic, as a result of which the Federal Republic of Germany is exonerated from applying the normal rules of Community law to German internal trade and, consequently, the German Democratic Republic, while not a Member State of the Community, is not a non-member country vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Germany .