larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and others.
Date: 2000-06-29
19 The Court notes, first, that the Horvath, Wolf, Einberger, Mol, Happy Family and Witzemann judgments, which concerned narcotic drugs and counterfeit currency, refer to goods which by their very nature and because of their special characteristics cannot be lawfully marketed or introduced into economic channels. Moreover, it is settled case-law that the principle of fiscal neutrality prevents any general distinction between lawful and unlawful transactions. Consequently, the mere fact that conduct amounts to an offence does not entail exemption from tax; that exemption applies only in specific circumstances where, owing to the special characteristics of certain goods or services, any competition between a lawful economic sector and an unlawful sector is precluded (see Lange, paragraph 19, Fischer, paragraph 28, Goodwin and Unstead, paragraph 9, and Case C-158/98 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Coffeeshop Siberië [1999] ECR I-3971, paragraphs 14 and 21).
20 That is not the case with the ethyl alcohol at issue in the main proceedings. As submitted by the Governments which presented written observations and by the Commission, ethyl alcohol is not a product whose marketing is prohibited by its very nature or because of its special characteristics.
22 Also immaterial is the fact that ethyl alcohol in the pure state is subject in the Member State concerned to a special system of authorisation both for its production and marketing and for its import and export (see, to that effect, Lange, paragraph 17).
Corrado Politi v European Training Foundation.
Date: 2000-06-29
11 In that regard, it should be pointed out, first, that the appeal seeks to challenge the classification by the Court of First Instance, in paragraphs 33 and 39 of the contested order, of the letters of 5 November and 31 December 1997 and the inferences which it drew from them as regards calculation of the periods prescribed for lodging a complaint and bringing an action. However, it is settled law that the classification of an act or a measure for legal purposes by the Court of First Instance, in this case the question whether a letter is to be regarded as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, is a question of law which may be raised in an appeal (see, in that regard, Case C-19/93 P Rendo and Others v Commission [1995] ECR I-3319, paragraph 26).
15 It should be pointed out at the outset that the periods for lodging complaints and bringing actions referred to in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are matters of public policy and cannot be left to the discretion of the parties or the Court, which must ascertain, of its own motion if need be, whether they have been complied with. Those periods meet the requirement of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice (see, in particular, Case 79/70 Müllers v Economic and Social Committee [1971] ECR 689, paragraph 18, and Case 276/85 Cladakis v Commission [1987] ECR 495, paragraph 11).
17 It follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that an act whereby an official or servant specifically challenges an administrative measure which adversely affects him constitutes a complaint for the purposes of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations (see, in particular, Case 167/86 Rousseau v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 2705, paragraph 8). It is necessary, in that regard, to give priority to the content of the document rather than its form or title. Paragraph 29 of the contested order is consistent with that case-law.
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2000-07-04
34 It must be borne in mind that the Court has already held that, in such circumstances, in so far as denunciation of such an agreement is possible under international law, it is incumbent on the Member State concerned to denounce it (see, to that effect, Case C-170/98 Commission v Belgium [1999] ECR I-5493, paragraph 42).
37 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, given its role as guardian of the Treaty, it is for the Commission alone to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations (see Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, paragraph 22).
39 As to that, the existence of a difficult political situation in a third State which is a contracting party, as in the present case, cannot justify a continuing failure on the part of a Member State to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty (see Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 42).
43 Article 234 of the Treaty is of general scope and applies to any international agreement, irrespective of subject-matter, which is capable of affecting application of the Treaty (Case 812/79 Attorney General v Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787, paragraph 6, and Case C-158/91 Levy [1993] ECR I-4287, paragraph 11).
46 However, the contested agreement contains a clause (Article XV) which expressly enables the contracting parties to denounce it, so that denunciation by the Portuguese Republic would not encroach upon the rights which the Republic of Angola derives from that agreement.
47 Consequently, the obligations to which the Portuguese Republic is subject by virtue of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 4055/86 are not affected by the principle laid down in the first paragraph of Article 234 of the Treaty.
49 Furthermore, although, in the context of Article 234 of the Treaty, the Member States have a choice as to the appropriate steps to be taken, they are nevertheless under an obligation to eliminate any incompatibilities existing between a pre-Community convention and the EC Treaty. If a Member State encounters difficulties which make adjustment of an agreement impossible, an obligation to denounce that agreement cannot therefore be excluded.
50 As regards the argument that such denunciation would involve a disproportionate disregard of foreign-policy interests of the Portuguese Republic as compared with the Community interest, it must pointed out that the balance between the foreign-policy interests of a Member State and the Community interest is already incorporated in Article 234 of the Treaty, in that it allows a Member State not to apply a Community provision in order to respect the rights of third countries deriving from a prior agreement and to perform its obligations thereunder. That article also allows them to choose the appropriate means of rendering the agreement concerned compatible with Community law.
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2000-07-04
40 It must be borne in mind that the Court has already held that, in such circumstances, in so far as denunciation of such an agreement is possible under international law, it is incumbent on the Member State concerned to denounce it (see, to that effect, Case C-170/98 Commission v Belgium [1999] ECR I-5493, paragraph 42).
43 As to that point, according to settled case-law (Case C-96/95 Commission v Germany [1997] ECR I-1653, paragraph 22), the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity, on the one hand, to comply with its obligations under Community law and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the complaints made by the Commission.
46 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, given its role as guardian of the Treaty, it is for the Commission alone to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations (see Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, paragraph 22).
48 As to that, the existence of a difficult political situation in a third country which is a contracting party, as in the present case, cannot justify a continuing failure on the part of a Member State to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty (see Commission v Belgium, cited above, paragraph 42).
52 Article 234 of the Treaty is of general scope and applies to any international agreement, irrespective of subject-matter, which is capable of affecting application of the Treaty (Case 812/79 Attorney General v Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787, paragraph 6, and Case C-158/91 Levy [1993] ECR I-4287, paragraph 11).
53 As is clear from Burgoa, cited above, the purpose of the first paragraph of Article 234 of the Treaty is to make it clear, in accordance with the principles of international law (see, in that connection, Article 30(4)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), that application of the EC Treaty is not to affect the duty of the Member State concerned to respect the rights of third countries under a prior agreement and to perform its obligations thereunder.
58 Furthermore, although, in the context of Article 234 of the Treaty, the Member States have a choice as to the appropriate steps to be taken, they are nevertheless under an obligation to eliminate any incompatibilities existing between a pre-Community convention and the EC Treaty. If a Member State encounters difficulties which make adjustment of an agreement impossible, an obligation to denounce that agreement cannot therefore be excluded.
Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2000-07-06
24 It is settled case-law that the Commission may refuse to charge to the EAGGF all expenditure incurred if it finds that there are no adequate control procedures (see judgment of 18 May 2000 in Case C-242/97 Belgium v Commission [2000] ECR I-3421, paragraph 122).
52 It is clear from that provision that the competent authority, which is required to take into consideration the seriousness of the infringement concerned, is thus obliged to comply with the principle of proportionality.
Viktor Movrin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen.
Date: 2000-07-06
33 That provision implies that neither an initial entitlement, nor a continued entitlement, to the benefits, pensions or allowances referred to in the provision may be denied on the sole ground that the person concerned does not reside within the territory of the Member State in which the institution responsible for payment is situated (Joined Cases 379/85 to 381/85 and 93/86 Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie Rhône-Alpes and Others v Giletti and Others [1987] ECR 955, paragraph 17).
38 As the Court has consistently held, the reply to a question as to whether a benefit falls within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 essentially depends on the fundamental characteristics of the benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant (see, in particular, Case C-45/90 Paletta and Others v Brennet [1992] ECR I-3423, paragraph 16).
41 Contrary to the claims of the LVA, the disputed subsidy cannot be characterised as a sickness benefit within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71. As Mr Movrin and the Commission have rightly pointed out, the subsidy is not provided in the case of illness, that is to say, after the risk insured against has materialised, but payment of the subsidy is a precondition for the very existence of the sickness benefit. A payment which represents a share in the contribution to sickness insurance cannot constitute a benefit from that insurance (see Aulich, paragraph 7).
44 Consequently, a subsidy such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it takes the form of an increase in the value of the pension (see, in particular, Giletti, paragraph 14), constitutes an old-age cash benefit for the purposes of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1408/71. This ensures its exportability in the absence of any special procedures for the purposes of Annex VI to Regulation No 1408/71 which might prevent Article 10(1) from applying.
51 Even on the hypothesis that, as the German Government contends, the party concerned is placed at an advantage in comparison with a pensioner who has always been resident in Germany, that consequence would result not from the interpretation of Community law but from the system at present in force, which, in the absence of a common social security scheme, is based on a simple coordination of national legislative systems which have not been harmonised (see, in particular, Case 27/71 Keller v Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés de Strasbourg [1971] ECR 885, paragraph 13, and Case 22/77 Fonds National de Retraite des Ouvriers Mineurs v Mura [1977] ECR 1699, paragraph 10).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 2000-07-06
23 Furthermore, according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead situations in its internal legal order, including those resulting from its federal organisation, in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in that regard, Case C-326/97 Commission v Belgium [1998] ECR I-6107, paragraph 7, and Case C-274/98 Commission v Spain [2000] ECR I-2823, paragraphs 19 and 20).
27 Since no such amendment was made, and having regard to the fact that the Belgian Government relies in its defence on an alleged case of force majeure, that argument raised by the Belgian Government cannot justify its failure to comply with the obligations laid down and the time-limits prescribed in the directive.
28 Second, it should be pointed out that under the system established by Article 226 EC the Commission enjoys a discretionary power as to whether it will bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations and it is not for the Court to judge whether that discretion was wisely exercised (see, in particular, Case C-209/88 Commission v Italy [1990] ECR I-4313, paragraph 16).
Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB.
Date: 2000-07-11
25 It should be observed at the outset that, whilst Article 36 of the Treaty allows the maintenance of national restrictions on the free movement of goods, justified on grounds which constitute fundamental requirements recognised by Community law, recourse to Article 36 is not possible where Community directives provide for harmonisation of the measures necessary to achieve the specific objective which would be furthered by reliance upon that provision (see, to that effect, Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553, paragraph 18).
37 On the other hand, although individual exemptions may be granted by the competent national authority, the concept of a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction also applies to the obligation imposed upon economic operators to apply for exemption or a dispensation from a national measure which itself amounts to a quantitative restriction or measure having equivalent effect (see, inter alia, Case 82/77 Van Tiggele [1978] ECR 25, paragraph 19, and Case 251/78 Denkavit Futtermittel [1979] ECR 3369, paragraph 11). Moreover, it is clear from the written obervations and from the submissions made at the hearing that any exemptions granted are merely temporary and that the long-term objective of the Swedish legislature is still to remove trichloroethylene from industrial use entirely.
38 Second, it should be borne in mind that the health and life of humans rank foremost among the property or interests protected by Article 36 of the Treaty (Case C-320/93 Ortscheit [1994] ECR I-5243, paragraph 16).
40 However, national rules or practices having, or likely to have, a restrictive effect on the importation of products are compatible with the Treaty only to the extent that they are necessary for the effective protection of the health and life of humans. A national rule or practice cannot therefore benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the Treaty if the health and life of humans may be protected just as effectively by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade (see, in relation to pharmaceuticals, Case 215/87 Schumacher [1989] ECR 617, paragraph 18, Case C-369/88 Delattre [1991] ECR I-1487, paragraph 53, Case C-347/89 Eurim-Pharm [1991] ECR I-1747, paragraph 27, and Ortscheit, cited above, paragraph 17).
45 Taking account of the latest medical research on the subject, and also the difficulty of establishing the threshold above which exposure to trichloroethylene poses a serious health risk to humans, given the present state of the research, there is no evidence in this case to justify a conclusion by the Court that national legislation such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective in view (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 266/87 and 267/87 Association of Pharmaceutical Importers [1989] ECR 1295, paragraph 22).
Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2000-07-13
14 The pleas in law and arguments put forward by the Greek Government to justify the regularity of the expenditure correspond essentially to those put forward in Greece v Commission (Case C-46/97) in respect of the clearance of the accounts for 1992. As the Court has rejected those pleas and arguments in paragraphs 4 to 26 of the judgment delivered today in Case C-46/97, they must also be rejected, for the same reasons, in the present case.
53 Furthermore, it is settled case-law of the Court of Justice that a Member State against which the Commission has justified its decision finding the absence of or shortcomings in the controls carried out in connection with the application of the EAGGF Guarantee Section cannot rebut the Commission's findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational supervisory system. If it is not able to show that they are inaccurate, the Commission's findings can give rise to serious doubts as to the existence of an adequate and effective series of supervisory measures and inspection procedures (see Case C-253/97 Italy v Commission [1999] ECR I-7529, paragraph 7).
Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
Date: 2000-07-13
25 It must first of all be pointed out that 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 the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see in particular Case C-289/94 Commission v Italy [1996] ECR I-4405, paragraph 20, and Case C-60/96 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-3827, paragraph 15).
Alfredo Albore.
Date: 2000-07-13
14 The Italian Government's submission as to the admissibility of the question is unfounded. Whatever the reasons for it, the purchase of immovable property in a Member State by a non-resident constitutes an investment in real estate which falls within the category of capital movements between Member States. Freedom for such movements is guaranteed by Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) (see Case C-302/97 Konle v Austria [1999] ECR I-3099, paragraph 22).
16 In so far as it exempts only Italian nationals from the requirement of obtaining an authorisation to buy a property in certain parts of the national territory, Article 18 of Law No 898/76 imposes on nationals of the other Member States a discriminatory restriction on capital movements between Member States (to that effect, see Konle, paragraph 23).
18 Although no justification is mentioned in the order for reference and the Italian Government likewise has not mentioned any in its written observations, it is clear from the object of the legislation at issue that the contested measure may be regarded as having been adopted in relation to public security, a concept which, within the meaning of the Treaty, includes the external security of a Member State (see Case C-367/89 Richardt and Les Accessoires Scientifiques [1991] ECR I-4621, paragraph 22).
19 However, the requirements of public security cannot justify derogations from the Treaty rules such as the freedom of capital movements unless the principle of proportionality is observed, which means that any derogation must remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary for achieving the aim in view (see Case 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, paragraph 38).
Union nationale interprofessionnelle des légumes transformés (Unilet) and Gilles Le Bars v Association Comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel).
Date: 2000-07-13
23 Second, it is necessary to examine whether a scheme such as that established by the national rules at issue in the main proceedings is compatible with the principle set out in Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34(2) EC) prohibiting all discrimination between Community producers. According to settled case-law of the Court, that principle requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see Case C-354/95 The Queen v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte NFU and Others [1997] ECR I-4559, paragraph 61).
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2000-07-13
22 According to settled case-law, if a provision of national law that is incompatible with a provision of Community law, even one directly applicable in the legal order of the Member States, is retained unchanged, this creates an ambiguous state of affairs by keeping the persons concerned in a state of uncertainty as to the possibility of relying on Community law; maintaining such a provision in force therefore amounts to a failure by the State in question to comply with its obligations under the Treaty (see, in particular, Case 74/86 Commission v Germany [1988] ECR 2139, paragraph 10).
23 In addition, as the Court has held on numerous occasions, the incompatibility of national legislation with Community provisions can be remedied for good only by means of binding national provisions having the same legal force as those which must be amended (see, in particular, Case 168/85 Commission v Italy [1986] ECR 2945, paragraph 13). Neither the circular nor the mere reference to the Regulation in the footnote can be regarded as constituting such provisions.
Marthe Defreyn v Sabena SA.
Date: 2000-07-13
35 A benefit which, as in this case, constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty cannot also be covered by Directive 76/207 (Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475, paragraph 24).