larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Procureur de la République and others v Bruno Giry and Guerlain SA and others.
Date: 1980-07-10
6 WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TASK GIVEN IT BY ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY , THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY TO A GIVEN CASE BUT THE NEED TO REACH A USEFUL INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW ENABLES IT TO EXTRACT FROM THE FACTS OF THE MAIN DISPUTE THE DETAILS NECESSARY FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AND THE FORMULATION OF AN APPROPRIATE REPLY .
15 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1969 IN CASE 14/68 WALT WILHELM AND OTHERS V BUNDESKARTELLAMT ( 1969 ) ECR 1 , COMMUNITY LAW AND NATIONAL LAW ON COMPETITION CONSIDER RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES FROM DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW . WHEREAS ARTICLES 85 AND 86 REGARD THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSTACLES WHICH MAY RESULT FROM TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , NATIONAL LAW PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSIDERATIONS PECULIAR TO IT AND CONSIDERS RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES ONLY IN THAT CONTEXT . IT FOLLOWS THAT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION IN REGARD TO SITUATIONS WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION .
16 HOWEVER , IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT THE COURT STRESSED THAT PARALLEL APPLICATION OF NATIONAL COMPETITION LAW CAN ONLY BE PERMITTED IN SO FAR AS IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE UNIFORM APPLICATION , THROUGHOUT THE COMMON MARKET , OF THE COMMUNITY RULES ON CARTELS OR THE FULL EFFECTS OF THE MEASURES ADOPTED IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RULES .
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 1980-07-10
27 ON THE OTHER HAND , THE FACT THAT COASTAL FISHERMEN FROM NORTHERN IRELAND WERE PERMITTED TO TAKE FROM THAT STOCK AN ADDITIONAL CATCH OF 400 TONNES , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERIOD AT WHICH THIS WAS DONE , COMPROMISES A CONSERVATION NEED THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE AND SERIOUSNESS OF WHICH ARE BEYOND ALL QUESTION . SINCE THE MEASURE CLOSING THE FISHERY ADOPTED IN SEPTEMBER 1978 WAS ALREADY BELATED , IN VIEW OF THE SITUATION WHICH HAD BEEN ASCERTAINED , THIS ADDITIONAL CONCESSION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED EITHER AS AN ' ' INTERIM MEASURE ' ' . AS THE COMMISSION HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED IN THE REASONED OPINION , IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO ADOPT INTERIM MEASURES IN FAVOUR OF THE FISHERMEN IN QUESTION , AS FOR OTHER FISHERMEN IN THE COMMUNITY , IF THE UNITED KINGDOM HAD RAISED THIS QUESTION IN DUE TIME WITHIN A COMMUNITY PROCEDURE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES RECALLED ABOVE . IN THIS INSTANCE , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF RESERVING THAT CONCESSION TO FISHING BOATS OF UNDER 35 FEET REGISTERED LENGTH WAS TO RESERVE TO THE COASTAL FISHERY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION A MEASURE WHICH WAS IN ITSELF INCOMPATIBLE WITH RECOGNIZED CONSERVATION NEEDS . THE COURT WOULD REFER IN THIS CONNEXION TO THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPHS 69 TO 80 OF ITS DECISION IN THE JUDGMENT OF 16 FEBRUARY 1978 ( COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES V IRELAND ), SUPRA , WHICH RELATE TO A SIMILAR MEASURE .
45 UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THAT REGULATION , MEMBER STATES WERE UNDER A DUTY TO TAKE THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THOSE PROVISIONS WERE COMPLIED WITH . THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DUTY TO CONSULT THE COMMISSION AND TO SEEK ITS APPROVAL APPLIES TO MEASURES OF THAT KIND . AS THE COURT HAS STATED IN PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE DECISION IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 4 OCTOBER 1979 IN CASE 141/78 , FRENCH REPUBLIC V UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND , THAT DUTY IS GENERAL AND APPLIES TO ANY MEASURES OF CONSERVATION EMANATING FROM THE MEMBER STATES AND NOT FROM THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES . CONSEQUENTLY , THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY A MEMBER STATE IN IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY REGULATION ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY OF CONSULTATION LAID DOWN IN ANNEX VI TO THE HAGUE RESOLUTION AS WELL AS FROM THE DUTY OF NOTIFICATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF REGULATION NO 101/76 . THE REASON FOR THIS TWOFOLD DUTY IS PARTICULARLY EVIDENT IN VIEW OF THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM , WHICH CONSISTED IN BRINGING INTO FORCE A LICENSING SYSTEM THE APPLICATION OF WHICH WAS ENTIRELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ISLE OF MAN AUTHORITIES .
SA Lancôme and Cosparfrance Nederland BV v Etos BV and Albert Heyn Supermart BV.
Date: 1980-07-10
23 TO DECIDE , ON THE ONE HAND , WHETHER AN AGREEMENT MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IT IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO FORESEE WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF PROBABILITY ON THE BASIS OF A SET OF OBJECTIVE FACTORS OF LAW OR OF FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION MAY HAVE AN INFLUENCE , DIRECT OR INDIRECT , ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL , ON THE PATTERN OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
24 ON THE OTHER HAND , IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER AN AGREEMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROHIBITED BY REASON OF THE DISTORTION OF COMPETITION WHICH IS ITS OBJECT OR ITS EFFECT , IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE COMPETITION WITHIN THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WOULD OCCUR IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AGREEMENT IN DISPUTE . TO THAT END , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN PARTICULAR THE NATURE AND QUANTITY , LIMITED OR OTHERWISE , OF THE PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT , THE POSITION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PARTIES ON THE MARKET FOR THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED , AND THE ISOLATED NATURE OF THE DISPUTED AGREEMENT OR , ALTERNATIVELY , ITS POSITION IN A SERIES OF AGREEMENTS . IN THAT REGARD , THE     COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 DECEMBER 1967 IN CASE 23/67 BRASSERIE DE HAECHT I ( 1967 ) ECR 407 THAT , ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DECISIVE , THE EXISTENCE OF SIMILAR CONTRACTS IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH , TOGETHER WITH OTHERS , IS CAPABLE OF BEING A FACTOR IN THE ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH THE CONTRACT MUST BE JUDGED .
26 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE THAT AGREEMENTS ON WHICH A SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS BASED WHICH RELIES ON TESTS FOR ADMISSION WHICH GO BEYOND SIMPLE OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE SELECTION POSSESS ALL THE CONSTITUENTS MAKING THEM INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 85 ( 1 ) WHEN THOSE AGREEMENTS , EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS , IN THE ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE MADE AND ON THE BASIS OF A NUMBER OF OBJECTIVE ELEMENTS OF LAW OR OF FACT , MAY AFFECT TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND HAVE AS THEIR OBJECT OR EFFECT THE PREVENTION , RESTRICTION OR DISTORTION OF COMPETITION .

THE THIRD QUESTION
Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Sas Mediterranea importazione, rappresentanze, esportazione, commercio (MIRECO).
Date: 1980-07-10
11 A COMPARISON OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEMS SHOWS THAT THE PROBLEM OF DISPUTING CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY CLAIMED OR THE REFUNDING OF CHARGES PAID BUT NOT OWED IS SETTLED IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES , AND EVEN WITHIN A SINGLE MEMBER STATE , ACCORDING TO THE VARIOUS KINDS OF TAXES OR CHARGES IN QUESTION . IN CERTAIN CASES , OBJECTIONS OR CLAIMS OF THIS TYPE ARE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS AND TIME-LIMITS UNDER THE LAW WITH REGARD BOTH TO COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES AND TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS .
12 IN OTHER CASES , CLAIMS FOR REPAYMENT OF CHARGES WHICH WERE PAID BUT NOT OWED MUST BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE ORDINARY COURTS , MAINLY IN THE FORM OF CLAIMS FOR THE RECOVERY OF OVER-PAYMENTS . SUCH ACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VARYING LENGTHS OF TIME , IN SOME CASES FOR THE LIMITATION PERIOD LAID DOWN UNDER THE GENERAL LAW , WITH THE RESULT THAT MEMBER STATES INVOLVED MAY BE FACED WITH AN ACCUMULATION OF CLAIMS FOR A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT WHERE CERTAIN NATIONAL TAX PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY LAW .
Hauptzollamt Köln-Rheinau v Chem-Tec.
Date: 1980-07-11
11 HOWEVER , AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 FEBRUARY 1977 IN JOINED CASES 69 AND 70/76 ( DITTMEYER ( 1977 ) ECR AT P . 238 ), ALTHOUGH THE OPINIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF NOMENCLATURE CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT MEANS OF ENSURING THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES AND AS SUCH MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID AID TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TARIFF , NEVERTHELESS SUCH OPINIONS DO NOT HAVE LEGALLY BINDING FORCE SO THAT , WHERE APPROPRIATE , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEIR CONTENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTUAL PROVISIONS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND WHETHER THEY ALTER THE MEANING OF SUCH PROVISIONS .
12 THE SAME CONCLUSION MUST APPLY IN REGARD TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES OF THE CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL .
Peter Überschär v Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte.
Date: 1980-10-08
16 ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY , OF WHICH THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY IS MERELY A SPECIFIC ENUNCIATION , IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL     PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW . THIS PRINCIPLE REQUIRES THAT SIMILAR SITUATIONS SHALL NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNLESS DIFFERENTIATION IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED .
Attorney General v Juan C. Burgoa.
Date: 1980-10-14
6 THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 234 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY BETWEEN ONE OR MORE MEMBER STATES ON THE ONE HAND , AND ONE OR MORE THIRD COUNTRIES ON THE OTHER , SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY . THAT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OBLIGATION ON THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO TAKE , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE , ALL APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ELIMINATE ANY INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN SUCH AGREEMENTS AND THE TREATY . ARTICLE 234 IS OF GENERAL SCOPE AND IT APPLIES TO ANY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT , IRRESPECTIVE OF SUBJECT-MATTER , WHICH IS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY .
8 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 27 FEBRUARY 1962 IN CASE 10/61 COMMISSION V ITALY ( 1962 ) ECR 1 , THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION IS TO LAY DOWN , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW , THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY DOES NOT AFFECT THE DUTY OF THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES UNDER A PRIOR AGREEMENT AND TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS THEREUNDER .
9 ALTHOUGH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 234 MAKES MENTION ONLY OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES , IT WOULD NOT ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE IF IT DID NOT IMPLY A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY NOT TO IMPEDE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER STATES WHICH STEM FROM A PRIOR AGREEMENT . HOWEVER , THAT DUTY OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS IS DIRECTED ONLY TO PERMITTING THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PRIOR AGREEMENT AND DOES NOT BIND THE COMMUNITY AS REGARDS THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRY IN QUESTION .
SARL Maïseries de Beauce v Office national interprofessionnel des céréales (ONIC).
Date: 1980-10-15
41 THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT BY ADOPTING IN VARIOUS SUCCESSIVE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS , IN PARTICULAR REGULATION NO 938/77 , A SYSTEM FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS ON PRODUCTS PROCESSED FROM MAIZE AND WHOSE PRICE DEPENDS ON THAT OF MAIZE WHICH RESULTS IN ESTABLISHING FOR THE VARIOUS PRODUCTS OBTAINED BY PROCESSING A GIVEN QUANTITY OF MAIZE IN A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURING PROCESS MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS THE SUM OF WHICH AMOUNTS TO A FIGURE CLEARLY IN EXCESS OF THAT OF THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNT FIXED FOR THAT GIVEN QUANTITY OF MAIZE , THE COMMISSION HAS INFRINGED THE BASIC REGULATION , REGULATION NO 974/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 12 MAY 1971 , AND ARTICLE 43 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY .

C - CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY
46 FOR THESE REASONS IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE FIXING OF THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS WHICH RESULT FROM THE SYSTEM OF CALCULATING THOSE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS ON PRODUCTS PROCESSED FROM MAIZE CONTAINED IN REGULATION NO 938/77 HAS BEEN FOUND INVALID DOES NOT ENABLE THE CHARGING OR PAYMENT OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ON THE BASIS OF THAT REGULATION TO BE CHALLENGED AS REGARDS THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT .
René Hochstrass v Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Date: 1980-10-16
12 THE APPLICANT ' S ARGUMENTS MUST BE REJECTED . IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT AN OFFICIAL WHO HAS NOT AND HAS NEVER HAD THE NATIONALITY OF THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS SITUATED MAY BE SUBJECT , BY REASON OF HIS STATUS AS AN ALIEN , TO A NUMBER OF INCONVENIENCES BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT , OF A CIVIC , FAMILY , EDUCATIONAL , CULTURAL AND POLITICAL NATURE , WHICH THE NATIONALS OF THE COUNTRY DO NOT EXPERIENCE . AS THE FOREIGN RESIDENCE ALLOWANCE IS INTENDED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DISADVANTAGES WHICH OFFICIALS UNDERGO AS A RESULT OF THEIR STATUS AS ALIENS , THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE WAS ENTITLED , IN APPLYING ITS DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT TO THAT SITUATION , TO RELY ON THE SINGLE CRITERION OF NATIONALITY , WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE , THE OBJECT OF WHICH IS ' ' TO COMPENSATE OFFICIALS FOR THE EXTRA EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF TAKING UP EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES AND BEING THEREBY OBLIGED TO CHANGE THEIR RESIDENCE ' '  ( CASE 21/74 AIROLA , PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE DECISION OF 20 FEBRUARY 1975 , ( 1975 ) ECR 221 AT P . 228 ), THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE ADOPTED AS THE PRINCIPLE CRITERION THAT OF THE OFFICIAL ' S USUAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE , CONSIDERING NATIONALITY AS OF ONLY SECONDARY IMPORTANCE .
14 ALTHOUGH IN BORDER-LINE CASES FORTUITOUS PROBLEMS MUST ARISE FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY GENERAL AND ABSTRACT SYSTEM OF RULES , THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS RESORTED TO CATEGORIZATION , PROVIDED THAT IT IS NOT IN ESSENCE DISCRIMINATORY HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVE WHICH IT PURSUES .
SA Roquette Frères v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1980-10-29
25 WHEN THE IMPLEMENTATION BY THE COUNCIL OF THE AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF THE COMMUNITY INVOLVES THE NEED TO EVALUATE A COMPLEX ECONOMIC SITUATION , THE DISCRETION WHICH IT HAS DOES NOT APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BUT ALSO TO SOME EXTENT TO THE FINDING OF THE BASIC FACTS INASMUCH AS , IN PARTICULAR , IT IS OPEN TO THE COUNCIL TO RELY IF NECESSARY ON GENERAL FINDINGS . IN REVIEWING THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER THE COURT MUST CONFINE ITSELF TO EXAMINING WHETHER IT CONTAINS A MANIFEST ERROR OR     CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWER OR WHETHER THE AUTHORITY IN QUESTION DID NOT CLEARLY EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION .
33 THE CONSULTATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 43 ( 2 ), AS IN OTHER SIMILAR PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY , IS THE MEANS WHICH ALLOWS THE PARLIAMENT TO PLAY AN ACTUAL PART IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY , SUCH POWER REPRESENTS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR IN THE INSTITUTIONAL BALANCE INTENDED BY THE TREATY . ALTHOUGH LIMITED , IT REFLECTS AT COMMUNITY LEVEL THE FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE THAT THE PEOPLES SHOULD TAKE PART IN THE EXERCISE OF POWER THROUGH THE INTERMEDIARY OF A REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY . DUE CONSULTATION OF THE PARLIAMENT IN THE CASES PROVIDED FOR BY THE TREATY THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ESENTIAL FORMALITY DISREGARD OF WHICH MEANS THAT THE MEASURE CONCERNED IS VOID .
34 IN THAT RESPECT IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT OBSERVANCE OF THAT REQUIREMENT IMPLIES THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS EXPRESSED ITS OPINION . IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED BY THE COUNCIL ' S SIMPLY ASKING FOR     THE OPINION . THE COUNCIL IS , THEREFORE , WRONG TO INCLUDE IN THE REFERENCES IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 1293/79 A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS BEEN CONSULTED .
36 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE RAISED BY THAT ARGUMENT OF THE COUNCIL IT SUFFICES TO OBSERVE THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ON 25 JUNE 1979 WHEN THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION NO 1293/79 AMENDING REGULATION NO 1111/77 WITHOUT THE OPINION OF THE ASSEMBLY THE COUNCIL HAD NOT EXHAUSTED ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF OBTAINING THE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF THE PARLIAMENT . IN THE FIRST PLACE THE COUNCIL DID NOT REQUEST THE APPLICATION OF THE EMERGENCY PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE INTERNAL REGULATION OF THE PARLIAMENT ALTHOUGH IN OTHER SECTORS AND AS REGARDS OTHER DRAFT REGULATIONS IT AVAILED ITSELF OF THAT POWER AT THE SAME TIME . FURTHER THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE MADE USE OF THE POSSIBILITY IT HAD UNDER ARTICLE 139 OF THE TREATY TO ASK FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY ESPECIALLY AS THE BUREAU OF THE PARLIAMENT ON 1 MARCH AND 10 MAY 1979 DREW ITS ATTENTION TO THAT POSSIBILITY .
Boussac Saint-Frères SA v Brigitte Gerstenmeier.
Date: 1980-10-29
9 ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY PROHIBITS ANY DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY WITHIN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE TREATY . THAT ARTICLE FORBIDS NOT ONLY OVERT DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF NATIONALITY BUT ALSO ALL COVERT FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH , BY THE APPLICATION OF OTHER CRITERIA OF DIFFERENTIATION , LEAD IN FACT TO THE SAME RESULT .
Procureur de la République v Samuel Wilner.
Date: 1980-12-04
4 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE JUDICIAL COOPERATION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 177 , WHEREBY NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE ARE CALLED UPON , EACH WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS OWN JURISDICTION , TO CONTRIBUTE DIRECTLY AND RECIPROCALLY TO THE REACHING OF A DECISION AIMED AT ENSURING THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES , THE COURT MAY EXTRACT FROM THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION SUBMITTED AND THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE NATIONAL COURT THE MATTERS OF COMMUNITY LAW NECESSARY FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAW THE LEGAL PROBLEM WITH WHICH IT IS FACED .
Giuseppe Grasselli v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1980-12-10
18 THE NOTICES OF PAYMENT WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SENT TO THE APPLICANT EACH MONTH AND WHICH CONTAINED A STATEMENT OF HIS PECUNIARY RIGHTS WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE FIRST STATEMENT CANNOT CAUSE THOSE PERIODS TO START TO RUN AFRESH . AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD ( JUDGMENT OF 14 APRIL 1970 IN CASE 24/69 , NEBE V COMMISSION , ( 1970 ) ECR 145 ; JUDGMENT OF 8 MAY 1973 IN CASE 33/72 , GUNNELLA V COMMISSION , ( 1973 ) ECR 475 ), A MEASURE WHICH CONTAINS NO NEW FACTOR AS COMPARED WITH A PREVIOUS MEASURE CONSTITUTES A PURELY CONFIRMATORY MEASURE AND CANNOT THEREFORE HAVE THE EFFECT OF SETTING A FRESH TIME-LIMIT IN FAVOUR OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE EARLIER MEASURE WAS ADDRESSED .
SpA Acciaierie e Ferriere Lucchini v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1980-12-11
2 THE APPLICANT FIRST OF ALL REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT THE BASIC DECISION , DECISION NO 3000/77/ECSC , WAS ILLEGAL . IN ITS REPLY , IT SUBSEQUENTLY TOOK NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 18 MARCH 1970 IN JOINED CASES 154/78 , 205 AND 206/78 , 226 TO 228/78 , 263 AND 264/78 , 31 , 39 , 83 AND 85/79 , SPA FERRIERE VALSABBIA AND OTHERS , IN WHICH THE COURT DISMISSED THE SUBMISSION BASED BY THE APPLICANTS ON THE ILLEGALITY OF GENERAL DECISION NO 962/77/ECSC OF 4 MAY 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 114 , P . 1 ); DECISION NO 3000/77/ECSC MERELY PROLONGS THAT DECISION AS REGARDS CONCRETE REINFORCING BARS AND EXTENDS IT TO HOT-ROLLED WIDE STRIPS AND MERCHANT BARS . CONSEQUENTLY , THE APPLICANT LIMITED ITS APPLICATION TO THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION IMPOSING A FINE OF 31 OCTOBER 1979 ON THE GROUND OF ILLEGALITY ' ' CONSISTING IN DEFECTS PERTAINING TO THAT DECISION ' ' ; IN THE ALTERNATIVE IT REQUESTED THE AMENDMENT OF THAT DECISION BY REDUCING THE FINE TO A ' ' PURELY NOMINAL ' '  LEVEL .
6 WITH REGARD TO THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF DECISION NO 3000/77/ECSC , IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT PROVISION MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THAT THE MINIMUM LEGAL PRICE INCLUDED EXTRAS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE PRICE-LISTS PUBLISHED BEFORE MINIMUM PRICES WERE INTRODUCED BY DECISION NO 962/77 OF 4 MAY 1977 , BUT EXCLUSIVELY AS REGARDS THE QUALITIES FOR WHICH THE MINIMUM LEGAL PRICE WAS FIXED AND WHICH ARE LISTED EXHAUSTIVELY AND SPECIFICALLY IN ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF THE DECISION ; THIS MEASURE DOES NOT THEREFORE CONCERN MERCHANT BARS AS A WHOLE BUT ONLY MERCHANT BARS IN ORDINARY MILD STEEL , THE ONLY QUALITY OF MERCHANT BARS SPECIFIED IN THE DECISION WHICH CANNOT INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL CHARGE WHATSOEVER . IT IS MOREOVER NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND TO THIS EFFECT THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE COURT TO ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF DECISION NO 3000/77/ECSC IN THE JUDGMENT OF 18 MARCH 1980 ( CASE 154/78 , VALSABBIA AND OTHERS , PARAGRAPH 176 OF THE DECISION ), WHICH ONLY REFERRED TO CONCRETE REINFORCING BARS .
Criminal proceedings against Anton Adriaan Fietje.
Date: 1980-12-16
7 BEFORE THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT , IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT , IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMON RULES RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF ALCOHOL , IT IS , IN PRINCIPLE , FOR THE MEMBER STATES TO REGULATE ALL MATTERS RELATING TO THE MARKETING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THEIR OWN TERRITORY , INCLUDING THE DESCRIPTION AND LABELLING OF THESE BEVERAGES , SUBJECT     TO ANY COMMUNITY MEASURE ADOPTED WITH A VIEW TO APPROXIMATING NATIONAL LAWS IN THESE FIELDS .
11 IF NATIONAL RULES RELATING TO A GIVEN PRODUCT INCLUDE THE OBLIGATION TO USE A DESCRIPTION THAT IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO INFORM THE PURCHASER OF THE NATURE     OF THE PRODUCT AND TO ENABLE IT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM PRODUCTS WITH IT MIGHT BE CONFUSED , IT MAY WELL BE NECESSARY , IN ORDER TO GIVE CONSUMERS EFFECTIVE PROTECTION , TO EXTEND THIS OBLIGATION TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS ALSO , EVEN IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE NECESSARY THE ALTERATION OF THE ORIGINAL LABELS OF SOME OF THESE PRODUCTS . AT THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY LEGISLATION , THIS POSSIBILITY IS RECOGNIZED IN SEVERAL DIRECTIVES ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO CERTAIN FOODSTUFFS AS WELL AS BY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/112/EEC OF 18 DECEMBER 1978 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE LABELLING , PRESENTATION AND ADVERTISING OF FOODSTUFFS FOR SALE TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , L 33 , P . 1 ).
14 WHEN CONSIDERING THESE ARGUMENTS IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT A MEASURE CAUGHT BY THE PROHIBITION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY DOES NOT ESCAPE THIS PROHIBITION SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS     EMPOWERED TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS , EVEN IF THIS POWER IS FREELY APPLIED TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS . ON THE OTHER HAND , IN THE CASE OF A MEASURE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY , THE TREATY DOES NOT FORBID IN PRINCIPLE PROVISION BEING MADE FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING DEROGATIONS THEREFROM BY INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATION . HOWEVER , EXCEPTIONS MUST NOT LEAD TO THE FAVOURING OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS BECAUSE THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OR A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES . SUBJECT TO THAT RESERVATION , IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE NETHERLANDS RULES PROVIDE ANY NEW FACTORS IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION PUT BY THE NATIONAL COURT .
Pierre Gratreau v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1980-12-18
22 ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS , AND MOST RECENTLY IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 5 JUNE 1980 IN CASE 24/79 OBERTHUR ( 1980 ) ECR 1743 , THE COURT HAS STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PERIODIC REPORT AS A CRITERION OF ASSESSMENT EACH TIME AN OFFICIAL ' S CAREER IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ADMINISTRATION . THUS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 45 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , OFFICIALS MAY BE PROMOTED     ONLY AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF THE OFFICIALS ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION AND OF THE REPORTS ON THEM . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE ABSENCE OF PERIODIC REPORTS MAY BE COMPENSATED FOR BY THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION ON AN OFFICIAL ' S MERITS , SUCH IS NOT , HOWEVER , THE CASE WITH A REPORT IRREGULARLY INCLUDED IN A PERSONAL FILE AFTER IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE OFFICIAL . MOREOVER , THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A PROPOSAL FOR PROMOTION , EVEN IN EULOGISTIC TERMS , AND A LIST OF THE OFFICIAL ' S PUBLICATIONS , DRAWN UP BY HIM AND CONTAINING NO OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THEIR SCIENTIFIC VALUE , CANNOT MAKE UP FOR THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER PERIODIC REPORT .