larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 1995-04-06
5 According to the settled case-law of the Court, 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 Community directives.
7 On the other hand, contrary to what the Commission maintained, the Court does not have to take account of the lack of communication of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the directive, since the Kingdom of Spain had not adopted those provisions within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion (see the judgment in Case C-303/93 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR I-1901, at paragraph 6).
SA des Sucreries de Fontaine-le-Dun-Bolbec-Auffay (SAFBA) v Ministre du Budget.
Date: 1995-05-04
30 However, that was not the only condition laid down by the rules. Determination of the amount of the levy is also essential in order to circumscribe the exact scope of the obligation which cannot otherwise be regarded as having materialized.
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1995-05-04
11 With regard to the argument derived from Article 3(1) of Directive 89/665, cited above, it must be pointed out (judgment of 24 January 1995 in Case C-359/93 Commission v Netherlands [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 13) that the special procedure provided for by that directive can neither derogate from nor replace the powers of the Commission under Article 169 of the Treaty.
15 So far as concerns the argument based on the value of the contracts in question, the framework agreement turns into a whole the various contracts which it governs and the total value of those contracts is greater than ECU 200 000. Furthermore, as the Commission has correctly pointed out, any other interpretation of the first indent of Article 5(1)(a) of the directive would allow contract awarders to circumvent the obligations which it imposes.
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1995-05-10
9 The Court has consistently held that due consultation of the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty constitutes an essential formal requirement disregard of which means that the measure concerned is void (Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, paragraph 33).
I10 In the context of the consultation procedure, however, nothing in Community law requires the Council to abstain from any consideration of a Commission proposal or from any search for a general approach or even for a common position within the Council before the Parliament' s opinion is delivered provided that it does not adopt its final position before being apprised of the opinion. Furthermore, such a prohibition is not called for by any institutional or procedural objective.
17 The Court has consistently held that the duty to consult the Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty includes a requirement that the Parliament be reconsulted on each occasion on which the text finally adopted, viewed as a whole, departs substantially from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted (Case C-65/90 Parliament v Council [1992] ECR I-4593, paragraph 16, and Case C-388/92 Parliament v Council [1994] ECR I-2067). Each amendment referred to by the applicant must therefore be considered.
30 As the Court has held, in particular in relation to the common agricultural policy, the procedure by which the Council adopts regulations relating to a Community policy, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Parliament, applies solely to the basic regulations containing the essential elements of the matter to be dealt with and the provisions implementing those regulations may be adopted by the Council according to a different procedure (Case 25/70 Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle v Koester [1970] ECR 1161, paragraph 6, and Case 46/86 Romkes v Officier van Justitie [1987] ECR 2671, paragraph 16).
Rheinhold & Mahla NV v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid.
Date: 1995-05-18
15 Moreover, in Case 104/76 Jansen v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz [1977] ECR 829, paragraph 7, the Court held that Article 4 determines the matters covered by Regulation No 1408/71 in terms which make it clear that the national social security schemes are subject in their entirety to the application of the rules of Community law.
18 The Court has held on several occasions that the fact that a State has not mentioned a law in that declaration does not have the effect of excluding that law ipso facto from the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 (see Case 35/77 Beerens v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening [1977] ECR 2249, paragraph 9, and Case 70/80 Vigier v Bundesversicherungsanstalt fuer Angestellte [1981] ECR 229, paragraph 15).
23 As the Advocate General has rightly pointed out in point 16 of his Opinion, the decisive factor is that there must be a link between the provision in question and the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71, and that link must be direct and sufficiently relevant.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-05-18
18 It follows from the foregoing that the action is admissible.
Substance
20 The Italian Government contends, first, that even if the term "technical reasons" in Article 9(b) of Directive 71/305 should be interpreted restrictively, that interpretation cannot go so far as to deprive that derogating provision of all practical significance. Thus it argues that "technical reasons" capable of justifying the carrying out of works by a particular contractor should not be construed as the technical capacity of a particular undertaking alone to carry out certain works and considers that objective circumstances and conditions which affect the execution of works in a particular situation may constitute such reasons.
21 The Italian Government maintains, secondly, that in this case "technical reasons" within the meaning of Article 9(b) of Directive 71/305 justified the contract in question being awarded to a particular contractor, namely the undertaking already responsible for carrying out the works in progress. In that connection it refers to the technical interplay between the works in progress and the work involved in the contract at issue. Thus it would have been impossible to complete the work which was the subject of the tenth supplementary report before putting in place part of the structures which were the subject of the eleventh and twelfth reports, to set up two different building sites at the same time because of the shortage of space, and to carry out the work in progress separately from the work at issue, because of the close structural connection of the foundations.
23 It follows from the Court' s judgment in Case 199/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 1039, at paragraph 14, that the provisions of Article 9 of Directive 71/305, which authorize derogations from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of the rights conferred by the Treaty in connection with public works contracts, must be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving the actual existence of exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation lies on the person seeking to rely on those circumstances.
24 In view of the wording of Article 9(b) of Directive 71/305, the Italian Government was obliged, in order to justify recourse to a private contract procedure for the works in question, not only to establish the existence of "technical reasons" within the meaning of that provision, but also to prove that those "technical reasons" made it absolutely essential that the contract in question be awarded to the undertaking Rozzi Costantino, which was responsible for the works in progress.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-06-01
24 Consequently, Member States may not create a category of dental practitioners which does not correspond to any category provided for by the directives in question.
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen v Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH.
Date: 1995-06-01
8 It is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the Common Customs Tariff and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-395/93 Neckermann Versand [1994] ECR I-4027, at paragraph 5). Likewise, for the purpose of interpreting the Common Customs Tariff, the Court has consistently held that both the notes which head the chapters of the Common Customs Tariff and the Explanatory Notes to the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council are important means for ensuring the uniform application of the Tariff and as such may be regarded as useful aids to its interpretation (same judgment, at paragraph 5).
13 In this connection it should be noted that the intended use of a product may constitute an objective criterion for classification if it is inherent to the product, and that inherent character must be capable of being assessed on the basis of the product' s objective characteristics and properties (see the judgment in Case 36/71 Henck [1972] ECR 187, at paragraph 4).
14 Accordingly, if the intended use of the mixture inherent to its particular characteristics meant that it would be used for the preparation of infusion solutions for artificial parenteral nutrition, the product would have to be regarded as falling under heading 30.03.
17 Since the use of the product in question in human nutrition by way of mouth is a purely theoretical possibility it would therefore appear that, on the basis of its objective characteristics and properties ° being sterile, pyrogen-free, with a high level of purity and precise dosage of the various amino acids ° the said product is naturally intended for medical use and more particularly for the preparation of infusion solutions by the addition of water.
18 Consequently the reply to the national court must be that the CCT, as amended by Regulation No 3618/86, must be interpreted to the effect that a sterile powder made up of amino acids mixed in precise proportions and used for the preparation of infusion solutions falls under heading 30.03 (subheading 30.03 A II (b)).
Hauptzollamt München-West v Analog Devices GmbH.
Date: 1995-06-01
8 A later amendment of the description of a product on which duties have been suspended cannot retroactively affect the interpretation of the description previously applied for that purpose (Case 58/85 Ethicon v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe [1986] ECR 1131, paragraph 13). Moreover, where a provision is ambiguous it must be interpreted according to the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part (Case C-338/90 Hamlin Electronics v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt [1992] ECR I-2333, paragraph 12).
Dimitrios Coussios v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1995-06-01
19 In the first place, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, officials do not have a personal right to promotion even if they fulfil the conditions for promotion (judgment in Case 123/75 Kuester v Parliament [1976] ECR 1701, paragraph 10). Furthermore, the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter (judgment in Kuester, cited above, paragraph 12). Consequently, the appellant' s claim that, if he could not be assigned to the post in question, he was entitled to be assigned to an equivalent post is groundless.
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1995-06-01
7 That argument cannot be accepted. It is settled case-law (judgment in Case C-80/92 Commission v Belgium [1994] ECR I-1019) that amendments of national legislation are irrelevant for the purposes of giving judgment on the subject-matter of an action for failure to fulfil obligations if they have not been implemented before the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion.
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-06-01
5 On this point, it must be stated firstly that, as the Commission argues, it is settled case-law that in the exercise of its powers under Article 169 of the Treaty, the Commission does not have to show the existence of an interest in bringing proceedings since, in the general interests of the Community, its function is to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty are applied by the Member States (Judgment in Case 167/73 Commission v France [1974] ECR 359, paragraph 15).
Claudine Delavant v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse für das Saarland.
Date: 1995-06-08
15 Furthermore, pursuant to Article 19(2), the provisions of Article 19(1) are applicable by analogy to members of the family of the worker who reside in the territory of a Member State other than the competent State, as specified above, in so far as they are not entitled to sickness benefits under the legislation of the State in whose territory they reside. Subject to that latter proviso, it follows that members of the family of the worker are subject to the legislation of the State in which that person works so far as concerns the conditions of their entitlement to receive benefits; once that entitlement is recognized, they have the right to receive, at the expense of the State in which the person works, benefits in kind provided by the institution of their place of residence within the limits and in accordance with the provisions of the legislation administered by that institution.
Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Date: 1995-06-15
10 The Court has consistently held that in order to ensure that directives are fully applied in fact as well as in law, Member States must provide a precise legal framework in the field in question, by adopting rules of law capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to allow individuals to know their rights and rely on them before the national courts (see, inter alia, Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567, paragraph 24).
Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1995-06-29
20 With respect to the action against the decision of 23 December 1992, it should be noted that the Court has consistently held that an action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have legal effects (Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263, paragraph 42).
37 It is settled law that where the wording of secondary Community law is open to more than one interpretation, preference should be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty rather than the interpretation which leads to its being incompatible with the Treaty (Case 218/82 Commission v Council [1983] ECR 4063, paragraph 15). Consequently, even though the provision to the effect that the framework would remain valid until the following review organized by the Commission may appear ambiguous, it must be understood in a manner consistent with the Treaty provision it is intended to implement (see, as an instance of the application of that principle, Joined Cases 201/85 and 202/85 Klensch v Secrétaire d' Etat [1986] ECR 3477, paragraph 21).
Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v Temic Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH.
Date: 1995-06-29
18 It appears from the preamble to Regulation No 1999/85 that the inward processing relief arrangements were established so as not to put at a disadvantage internationally Community undertakings which use goods from non-member countries in order to manufacture products for export by giving them the possibility of acquiring such goods under the same conditions as undertakings from non-member countries.
19 Thus, that system allows goods imported from non-member countries to escape customs duties if they undergo certain working or processing operations in the Community and are then re-exported as compensating products outside the Community.
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. v Privatkellerei Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG.
Date: 1995-06-29
28 Accordingly, the fact that a brand name is presented in a conspicuous manner does not mean that it is likely to cause confusion or mislead the persons to whom it is addressed, even if it contains a word that has been designated by the rules in question as information which may be used in the appellation of a quality wine psr.
29 Moreover, the wording of Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 shows that it is aimed primarily at prohibiting the untruthful use of brand names, a point which is not at issue in this case.
SCAC Srl v Associazione dei Produttori Ortofrutticoli.
Date: 1995-06-29
27 The Court has consistently held that that prohibition of discrimination is only a specific expression of the general principle of equality in Community law, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, inter alia, Case C-309/89 Codorniu v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, paragraph 26).
28 The fact that a measure adopted within the framework of the common organization of a market may affect producers in different ways, depending upon the particular nature of their production, does not constitute discrimination if that measure is determined on the basis of objective rules, which are formulated to meet the needs of the general common organization of the market (see Case C-311/90 Hierl v Hauptzollamt Regensburg [1992] ECR I-2061, paragraph 19).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1995-06-29
9 That argument cannot be accepted. It is settled case-law that mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty (see the judgment in Case C-235/91 Commission v Ireland [1992] ECR I-5917, paragraph 10).
11 The Court has consistently held that a Member State may not rely on circumstances in its internal legal system to justify its failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down in Community directives (see the judgment in Case C-303/92 Commission v Netherlands [1993] ECR I-4739, paragraph 9).
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1995-06-29
5 With regard to Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, the Court has held that, in view of the purpose assigned to the preliminary stage of the Treaty infringement procedure, the formal letter of notice is intended to define the subject-matter of the dispute and to indicate to the Member State which is invited to submit its observations the factors enabling it to prepare its defence (Case 274/83 Commission v Italy [1985] ECR 1077, paragraph 19).
6 The opportunity for the Member State concerned to submit its observations constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty and, even if the Member State does not consider it necessary to avail itself thereof, observance of that guarantee is an essential formal requirement of the Treaty infringement procedure (ibid., paragraph 20).
7 Although it follows that the reasoned opinion provided for in Article 169 of the EEC Treaty must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which led the Commission to conclude that the State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty, it is not possible to impose such strict requirements as regards the formal letter of notice, which of necessity will contain only an initial brief summary of the complaints (ibid., paragraph 21).
Criminal proceedings against Michèle Voisine.
Date: 1995-07-05
22 That interpretation is confirmed by the other provisions of Regulation No 2392/89, in particular Articles 11 and 12 thereof.  Those articles reveal the Community legislature's intention to adopt, in that regulation, a detailed and complete code governing the description and presentation of wines.
23 It should be noted in this connection that the Community provisions relating to the labelling of wines constitute a highly developed set of rules aimed at the prevention in the marketing of wine of all practices which are of such a nature as to create false appearances, irrespective of whether such practices give rise in the minds of those engaged in the trade or of consumers to confusion with existing products or the erroneous impression of an origin or of characteristics which in reality do not exist (see Case 56/80 Weigand v Schutzverband Deutscher Wein [1981] ECR 583, at paragraph 18).
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Date: 1995-07-06
5 According to the settled case-law of the Court (see, for example, the judgment in Case C-147/94 Commission v Spain [1995] ECR I-0000, at paragraph 5), 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.
Umberto Perrotta v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse München.
Date: 1995-07-13
25 The Court has consistently held that, since the concept of force majeure does not have the same scope in the various spheres of application of Community law, its meaning must be determined by reference to the legal context in which it is to operate (see Case C-124/92 An Bord Bainne Cooperative and Compagnie Inter-Agra v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1993] ECR I-5061, paragraph 10).
Jennifer Meyers v Adjudication Officer.
Date: 1995-07-13
12 The Court has consistently held that, in view of the fundamental importance of the principle of equal treatment, the exclusion of social security matters from the scope of the directive provided for in Article 1(2) must be interpreted strictly (see the judgments in Case 151/84 Roberts v Tate & Lyle [1986] ECR 703, paragraph 35, and in Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 36).
13 Thus, the Court has held that a scheme of benefits cannot be excluded from the scope of the directive solely because, formally, it is part of a national social security system. Such a scheme may come within the scope of the directive if its subject-matter is access to employment, including vocational training and promotion, or working conditions. However, the directive is not rendered applicable simply because the conditions of entitlement for receipt of benefits may be such as to affect the ability of a single parent to take up employment (see the judgment in Joined Cases C-63/91 and C-64/91 Jackson and Cresswell v Chief Adjudication Officer [1992] ECR I-4737, paragraphs 27, 28 and 31).
17 According to the Jackson and Cresswell judgment, cited above, the fact that a scheme of benefits is part of a national social security system, which makes national remedies in the field of social security applicable in the main proceedings, cannot exclude it from the scope of the directive.
18 In its judgment in Case C-78/91 Hughes v Chief Adjudication Officer [1992] ECR I-4839, paragraph 19, the Court noted that family credit in Northern Ireland performed the dual function of keeping poorly paid workers in employment and of meeting family expenses. It considered that by virtue of that second function (paragraph 20), a benefit such as family credit fell within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6).