larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2002-12-12
33.  It is settled case-law that the choice of the legal basis for a Community measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, which include in particular the aim and the content of the measure (see,   inter alia  , Case C-300/89   Commission   v   Council   [1991] ECR I-2867, paragraph 10, and Case C-269/97   Commission   v   Council   [2000] ECR I-2257, paragraph 43).
34.  If examination of a Community measure reveals that it pursues a twofold purpose or that it has a twofold component and if one is identifiable as the main or predominant purpose or component, whereas the other is merely incidental, the measure must be founded on a single legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant purpose or component (see Case C-155/91   Commission   v   Council   [1993] ECR I-939, paragraphs 19 and 21, Case C-42/97   Parliament   v   Council   [1999] ECR I-869, paragraphs 39 and 40, and Case C-36/98   Spain   v   Council   [2001] ECR I-779, paragraph 59).
35.  By way of exception, if it is established that the measure simultaneously pursues several objectives which are inseparably linked without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, the measure must be founded on the corresponding legal bases (see Case C-300/89   Commission   v   Council  , cited above, paragraphs 13 and 17,   Parliament   v   Council  , cited above, paragraphs 38 and 43, Case C-336/00   Huber   [2002] ECR I-7699, paragraph 31, and Opinion 2/00, cited above, paragraph 23).
40.  It is clear from the terms in which the Energy Star Agreement is couched, in particular from Articles I and V, that the Energy Star labelling program is essentially intended to enable manufacturers to use, in accordance with a procedure for the mutual recognition of registrations, a common logo to identify for consumers certain products complying with a common set of energy-efficiency specifications which they intend to sell on the American and Community markets. An instrument having a direct impact on trade in office equipment is therefore involved.
41.  It is true that in the long term, depending on how manufacturers and consumers in fact behave, the programme should have a positive environmental effect as a result of the reduction in energy consumption which it should achieve. However, that is merely an indirect and distant effect, in contrast to the effect on trade in office equipment which is direct and immediate.
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2003-01-09
23.  It is appropriate to refer to Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95, which sets out the various stages which must be gone through during the procedure for the clearance of EAGGF accounts. It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice (see in particular Case C-61/95   Greece   v   Commission   [1998] ECR I-207, paragraph 39) that the procedure introduced by that regulation constitutes a specific procedure giving effect to the   audi alteram partem   rule, during which the Member States concerned are provided with all the guarantees necessary for them to present their point of view.
36.  It is clear from the case-law of the Court, in particular from   Belgium   v   Commission  , cited above (paragraphs 33 and 34) and from Case C-243/97   Greece   v   Commission   [2000] ECR I-5813 (paragraph 53), that as regards the inspections carried out by Commission staff in connection with the clearance of EAGGF accounts, the Member State concerned cannot disprove the Commission's findings without substantiating its own claims by providing evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. If it is not able to show that they are inaccurate, the Commission's findings are likely to raise serious doubts as to the existence of an appropriate and effective body of supervisory measures and inspection procedures.
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2003-01-09
6.  The claims made by the Italian Government, which is seeking the annulment of a negative adjustment of ITL 26 282 760 219 in total, on the ground that the EAGGF had clearly derived unjustified enrichment in respect of that amount, are therefore incomprehensible. As the Advocate General stated at point 6 et seq. of his Opinion, it is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, and from the case-law relating to that provision, that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the basic legal and factual particulars on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.
Nani Givane and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Date: 2003-01-09
29. At the outset, it is appropriate to recall that, in the context of the freedom of movement for workers, Article 48(3)(d) of the EC Treaty grants nationals of Member States the right to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which are to be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.  The conditions of entitlement to the worker ' s right to remain in the host Member State are set out in Article 2 of Regulation No 1251/70.  The fundamental condition for the acquisition of that right is, in the usual situation provided for by Article 2(1)(a), a degree of established connection with the host State, which is evidenced by a three-year period of continuous residence and a period of employment during the last 12 months preceding the end of a worker ' s working life due to his reaching the age laid down by the law of that Member State for entitlement to an old-age pension.
36. As the Court held in Case C-296/95  EMU Tabac and Others  [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 36, all the language versions must, in principle, be recognised as having the same weight and this cannot vary according to the size of the population of the Member States using the language in question.
37. According to settled case-law, the various language versions of a provision of Community law must be uniformly interpreted, and thus, in the case of divergence between those versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see Case 30/77  Bouchereau  [1977] ECR 1999, paragraph 14; Case C-449/93  Rockfon  [1995] ECR I-4291, paragraph 28; and Case C-236/97  Skatteministeriet  v  Codan  [1998] ECR I-8679, paragraph 28; and Case C-420/98  W.N.  [2000] ECR I-2847, paragraph 21).
45. Those provisions are intended to ensure freedom of movement for workers by enabling their family members to join them.  As the Court has noted in its case-law, the importance of ensuring the protection of the family life of nationals of the Member States and the right of residence of the members of their family has been recognised by the Community legislature (see, to that effect, particularly, Case C-60/00  Carpenter  [2002] ECR I-6279, paragraph 38).  It is in the interest of the worker and his family that, should that worker die prematurely, his family members should, as a rule, be entitled to reside in the territory of the host Member State.
Rudolf Maierhofer v Finanzamt Augsburg-Land.
Date: 2003-01-16
25.  Further, it should also be borne in mind that according to settled case-law the exemptions provided for by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive have their own independent meaning in Community law and that they must therefore be given a Community definition (see Case C-358/97   Commission   v   Ireland   [2000] ECR I-6301, paragraph 51).
26.  Thus, the interpretation of the expression   "letting of immovable property"   in Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive cannot be determined by the interpretation given by the civil law of a Member State.  It is therefore necessary, contrary to the German Government's submission, to consider the meaning of the expression   "letting of immovable property"  .
27.  In interpreting a provision of Community law, it is appropriate to consider its wording as well as the context in which it occurs and the objectives of the rules of which it forms part (see Case C-223/98   Adidas   [1999] ECR I-7081, paragraph 23, and Case C-191/99   Kvaerner   [2001] ECR I-4447, paragraph 30).
30.  The Court has thus held that a national provision which extended to certain movable property the exemption from VAT which, pursuant to Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive, is restricted exclusively to the letting of immovable property was contrary to the provisions of that directive (see Case C-60/96   Commission   v   France   [1997] ECR I-3827, paragraph 16).
32.  By contrast, the buildings at issue in the case before the national court, described at paragraph 13 of this judgment, are not mobile; nor can they be easily moved. They are buildings with a concrete base erected on concrete foundations sunk into the ground.  They can be dismantled on expiry of the lease for subsequent re-use but by having recourse to eight persons over ten days.
33.  Such buildings made of structures fixed to or in the ground must be regarded as immovable property.  In that connection, it is significant that the structures cannot be easily dismantled or easily moved but, contrary to the German Government's submission, there is no need for them to be inseverably fixed to or in the ground. Nor is the term of the lease decisive for the purpose of determining whether the buildings at issue are movable or immovable property.
39.  In that regard, it is appropriate to point out that Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive defines exempt transactions by reference to the nature of the transactions effected.  In order to determine whether a transaction comprises a letting or construction or repair work, account must be taken of its essential features (see, as regards Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive, Case C-349/96   CPP   [1999] ECR I-973, paragraph 29), irrespective of the way in which it might be artificially presented.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2003-01-16
19.  Article 11 of the Directive lays down strict conditions for the setting free of any animals in the context of experiments within the meaning of the Directive (Case C-152/00   Commission   v   France   [2002] ECR I-6973, paragraph 41). Such setting free requires an authorisation from the competent authority, which may be granted only where that is necessary for the legitimate purposes of the experiment, the authority is satisfied that the maximum possible care has been taken to safeguard the well-being of the animal concerned, the animal's state of health allows it to be set free as proposed and there is no danger for public health and the environment by reason of its being set free.
29.  First, it is clear from the Court's case-law that Article 22 of the Directive, which concerns recognition by Member States of the validity of data generated by animal experiments carried out in the territory of another Member State for one of the purposes listed in Article 3 of the Directive, that is to say the development, the manufacture and the quality, effectiveness and safety testing of drugs, foodstuffs or other substances or products and the protection of the environment, does indeed require the adoption of appropriate measures of transposition (see Case C-268/97   Commission   v   Belgium   [1998] ECR I-6069, paragraph 14, and   Commission   v   France  , cited above, paragraph 59).
Criminal proceedings against Annie Pansard and Others, joined as party: Comité Région pêches maritimes.
Date: 2003-01-16
19.  Second, in order to provide a helpful answer to the national court which has referred a question to it for a preliminary ruling, the Court may deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national court has not referred in its question (Case 35/85   Tissier   [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 9, and Case C-107/98   Teckal   [1999] ECR I-8121, paragraph 39).
28.  It must be borne in mind that, by virtue of Article 102 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the adjustments to the Treaties, the power to adopt measures for the protection of the biological resources of the sea has since 1 January 1979 been vested exclusively in the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission (Case 24/83   Gewiese and Mehlich   [1984] ECR 817, paragraph 5).
29.  Furthermore, the Court has already held that once the Community has, pursuant to Article 40 of the EC Treaty, adopted legislation establishing an organisation of the market in a given sector, the Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it (Case 111/76   Van den Hazel   [1977] ECR 901, paragraph 13, and Case C-44/94   Fishermen's Organisations and Others   [1995] ECR I-3115, paragraph 52).
31.  Admittedly, the existence of a common organisation of the market does not prevent the competent authorities of a Member State from adopting national measures on the terms provided for by Community legislation forming part of that organisation (Fishermen's Organisations and Others  , cited above, paragraph 53).
Libor Cipra and Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach.
Date: 2003-01-16
18.  It is settled case-law that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see,   inter alia  , Case C-415/93   Bosman   [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 59, and Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99   Agorà and Excelsior   [2001] ECR I-3605, paragraph 18).
19.  Nevertheless, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction (see, to that effect, Case 244/80   Foglia   [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21). The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see,   inter alia  , Case C-379/98   PreussenElektra   [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 39).
22.  On the facts as described by the national court, however, it appears likely that, as the Austrian Government and the Commission submit, the carriage of goods in question may be governed by the AETR Agreement.  To that extent, the Court can provide an interpretation of Community law which may assist the national court in deciding the case in the main proceedings and it may therefore deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national court has not referred in the text of its question (see, in particular, Case C-304/00   Shawson and Gagg  & Sons   [2002] ECR I-10737, paragraphs 57 and 58).
35.  In interpreting a provision of Community law, it is appropriate to consider also the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it forms part (see, in particular, Case C-223/98   Adidas   [1999] ECR I-7081, paragraph 23, and Case C-191/99   Kvaerner   [2001] ECR I-4447, paragraph 30).
47.  It has consistently been held that the principle of legal certainty, which in this case is the only potentially relevant superior rule, requires that rules imposing obligations on persons must be clear and precise so that they may know without ambiguity what are their rights and obligations and take steps accordingly (see, to that effect, Case 169/80   Gondrand Frères and Garancini   [1981] ECR 1931, paragraph 17).
Criminal proceedings against Ulf Hammarsten.
Date: 2003-01-16
24.  In that regard, the Court has held that in the case of a dispute concerning a sector governed by a common organisation of the market the problem raised should be examined first from that point of view, taking account of the precedence, by virtue of Article 32(2) EC, of the specific measures taken in the context of the common agricultural policy over the general provisions of the Treaty concerning the establishment of the common market (Case 177/78   McCarren   [1979] ECR 2161, paragraph 9).
28.  In that regard, it is settled case-law that where there is a regulation on the common organisation of the market in a given sector the Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measures which might undermine or create exceptions to it (see, in particular, Case 83/78   Redmond   [1978] ECR 2347, paragraph 56, Case C-1/96   Compassion In World Farming   [1998] ECR I-1251, paragraph 41, Case C-428/99   Van den Bor   [2002] ECR I-127, paragraph 35, and Case C-113/00   Spain   v   Commission   [2002] ECR I-7601, paragraph 73).
29.  It is also settled case-law that the establishment of a common organisation of the agricultural markets does not prevent the Member States from applying national rules intended to attain an objective relating to the general interest other than those covered by the common organisation even if those rules are likely to have an effect on the functioning of the common market in the sector concerned (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 141/81 to 143/81   Holdijk   [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 12, Case 118/86   Nertsvoederfabriek Nederland   [1987] ECR 3883, paragraph 12, and Case C-309/96   Annibaldi   [1997] ECR I-7493, paragraph 20).
30.  It must be observed, first, that the prohibition which arises from Swedish legislation on narcotic drugs, on the cultivation and possession of industrial hemp covered by the common organisation of the market in the hemp sector directly undermines that common organisation.
31.  That prohibition deprives farmers in Sweden of any possibility of claiming the benefit of the aid which is provided for by Regulation No 1308/70 and the conditions for the granting of which are laid down by Regulation No 619/71.
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2003-01-16
9.  It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see,   inter alia  , Case C-29/01   Commission   v   Spain   [2002] ECR I-2503, paragraph 11).
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 2003-01-16
11.  However, it is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see,   inter alia  , Case C-147/00   Commission   v   France   [2001] ECR I-2387, paragraph 26).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2003-01-16
11.  It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see,   inter alia  , Case C-133/94   Commission   v   Belgium   [1996] ECR I-2323, paragraph 17).
Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2003-01-21
44.  That procedure is initiated by a Member State notifying derogating national provisions to the Commission, followed by a phase during which the Commission carries out an assessment of the facts in the file to determine whether the requisite conditions are fulfilled, and ends with the Commission's decision approving or rejecting those national provisions. To that end, it falls to the Commission to examine whether the grounds put forward by the Member State are well founded. It is not to decide until it has verified that the national provisions are not a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
45.  In that context, no new legal situation can be said to have been established before the final step in that procedure has been taken. It is only then that, through approval or rejection by the Commission, a measure likely to affect the earlier legal situation arises (Case C-319/97   Kortas   [1999] ECR I-3143, paragraphs 27 and 28).
46.  It is also settled case-law that, in the absence of transitional provisions, new rules apply immediately to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rules (see,   inter alia  , Case 62/00   Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer  [2002] ECR I-1049, paragraph 50).
80.  Article 95(5) EC requires that the introduction of national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure be based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to the Member State concerned arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, and that the proposed provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them be notified to the Commission.
81.  Since the conditions are clearly cumulative, they must all be satisfied if the national derogating provisions are not to be rejected by the Commission.
88.  Given the cumulative nature of the requirements of Article 95(5) EC, there is no need to consider the conditions relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment and to the problem specific to the Federal Republic of Germany.