larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Zunis Holding SA, Finan Srl and Massinvest SA v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1996-01-11
14 It is settled case-law of the Court of Justice that a decision which merely confirms a previous decision is not an actionable measure (see, inter alia, the judgments in Case 26/76 Metro v Commission [1977] ECR 1875, paragraph 4, and in Joined Cases 166/86 and 220/86 Irish Cement v Commission [1988] ECR 6473, paragraph 16).
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 1996-01-11
15 Member States are required to communicate to the Commission any draft technical regulation in accordance with Article 8 of the directive. Such an obligation cannot be subject to the unilateral assessment by the Member State which drafted the regulation of the effects which it may have on trade between Member States.
ISAE/VP (Instituto Social de Apoio ao Emprego e à Valorização Profissional) and Interdata (Centro de Processamento de Dados Ldª) v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1996-01-16
6 It follows that revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called in question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings (see, most recently, the order of 25 February 1992 in Case C-185/90 P-REV Gill v Commission [1992] ECR I-993, paragraph 12, and the judgment in Case C-130/91 REV ISAE/VP and Interdata v Commission [1995] ECR I-407, paragraph 6).
SEIM - Sociedade de Exportação e Importação de Materiais Ldª v Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas.
Date: 1996-01-18
28 According to the case-law of this Court, Article 177 of the Treaty, which is based on a clear separation of functions between national courts and this Court, does not allow this Court to review the reasons for which a reference is made. Consequently, a request from a national court may be rejected only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law or review of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the case or to the subject-matter of the main action (see, in particular the judgment in Case 126/80 Salonia v Poidomanial Giglio [1981] ECR 1563, paragraph 6).
32 In that regard, it must be observed that the Court has ruled (see, in particular, its judgment in Case 179/84 Bozetti v Invernizzi [1985] ECR 2301, at paragraph 17) that it is for the legal system of each Member State to determine which court has jurisdiction to hear disputes involving individual rights derived from Community law, but at the same time the Member States are responsible for ensuring that those rights are effectively protected in each case. Subject to that reservation, it is not for the Court to intervene in order to resolve questions of jurisdiction to which the classification of certain legal situations based on Community law may give rise in the national judicial system.
33 However, in that same judgment the Court also stated (at paragraph 18) that it has power to explain to the national court points of Community law which may help to solve the problem of jurisdiction with which that court is faced.
41 According to the case-law of the Court, Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1430/79 constitutes a general equitable provision designed to cover situations other than those which arose most often in practice and for which special provision could be made when the regulation was adopted (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases 244/85 and 245/85 Cerealmangimi and Italgrani v Commission [1987] ECR 1303, paragraph 10).
44 As regards, in particular, the type of situation referred to in Article 4(2)(c), the Court held, in its judgment in Joined Cases 98/83 and 230/83 Van Gend & Loos v Commission [1984] ECR 3763, at paragraph 13, that verifications carried out after importation would be largely deprived of their usefulness if the use of false certificates could, of itself, justify granting a remission.
Georgios Aranitis v Land Berlin.
Date: 1996-02-01
18 Moreover, the effect of Article 1(c) and (d) is that the directive applies only to regulated professions and that where the conditions for taking up or pursuing a professional activity are directly or indirectly governed by legal provisions, whether laws, regulations or administrative provisions, that activity constitutes a regulated profession.
19 Access to, or pursuit of, a profession must be regarded as directly governed by legal provisions where the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the host Member State create a system under which that professional activity is expressly reserved to those who fulfil certain conditions and access to it is prohibited to those who do not fulfil them.
27 A decision such as that of the Arbeitsamt to class the applicant as an unskilled assistant does not constitute grounds for considering the profession in question to be indirectly regulated. Although the reasons for that decision have never been made clear, there is nothing to indicate that it forms part of any indirect legal control of access to or pursuit of that profession in Germany.
31 The Court has consistently held that, when the competent authorities of a Member State receive a request to admit a person to a profession to which access, under national law, depends on the possession of a diploma or a professional qualification, they must take into consideration the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of qualifications which the person concerned has acquired in order to exercise the same profession in another Member State by making a comparison between the specialized knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules (see, in particular, the judgments in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou v Ministerium fuer Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Wuerttemberg [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 16, and Case C-104/91 Aguirre Borrell and Others [1992] ECR I-3003, paragraph 11).
Criminal proceedings against Gianfranco Perfili.
Date: 1996-02-01
9 The first point to note is that, according to established case-law, the Court has no jurisdiction in proceedings for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty to rule on the compatibility of a national measure with Community law (see the judgment in Case C-62/93 BP Supergas v Greek State [1995] ECR I-1883, paragraph 13). The Court may, however, provide the national court with interpretations of all relevant points of Community law to enable it to assess the compatibility of national provisions with Community law.
10 Article 2 of the Treaty defines the task of the Community and its aims are set out in Article 3 (see the judgments in Case 249/81 Commission v Ireland [1982] ECR 4005, paragraph 28, and Case 126/86 Giménez Zaera [1987] ECR 3697, paragraph 10).
14 The general principle of non-discrimination laid down by Article 6 can only apply, therefore, subject to the special provisions of the Treaty (see the judgment in Case 8/77 Sagulo, Brenca and Bakhouche [1977] ECR 1495, paragraph 11).
17 However, the Court has consistently held that, in prohibiting every Member State from applying its law differently on the ground of nationality, within the field of application of the Treaty, Articles 6, 52 and 59 are not concerned with any disparities in treatment which may result, between Member States, from differences existing between the laws of the various Member States, so long as they affect all persons subject to them in accordance with objective criteria and without regard to their nationality (see, to that effect, the judgments in Case 1/78 Kenny v Insurance Officer [1978] ECR 1489, paragraph 18; Joined Cases C-251/90 and C-252/90 Wood and Cowie [1992] ECR I-2873, paragraph 19; and Joined Cases 185/78 to 204/78 Van Dam en Zonen and Others [1979] ECR 2345, paragraph 10).
20 According to settled case-law, where national legislation falls within the field of application of Community law, the Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide the national court with all the elements of interpretation which are necessary in order to enable it to assess the compatibility of that legislation with the fundamental rights ° as laid down in particular in the European Convention of Human Rights ° the observance of which the Court ensures. However, the Court has no such jurisdiction with regard to national legislation lying outside the scope of Community law (see the judgment in Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland v Grogan and Others [1991] ECR I-4685, paragraph 31).
Office National de l'Emploi v Heidemarie Naruschawicus.
Date: 1996-02-01
21 It must be observed, first, that the fact that civil servants are mentioned as a separate category by Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 with a view to determining the legislation applicable to them does not deprive them of their status as employed persons ° a wider concept ° as far as the application of the remaining provisions of that regulation is concerned (see to that effect Case C-71/93 Van Poucke v Rijksinstituut voor de Sociale Verzekeringen der Zelfstandigen [1994] ECR I-1101, paragraphs 17 and 18).
27 In the light of those considerations, it must be held that a person remains available to the employment services in the territory of the competent State if he registers with those services as a person seeking employment (see to that effect Case 227/81 Aubin v UNEDIC and ASSEDIC [1982] ECR 1991, paragraph 20) and undergoes the checks by the competent services of that State.
C. B. Laperre v Bestuurscommissie beroepszaken in de provincie Zuid-Holland.
Date: 1996-02-08
14 In this connection, it should be recalled that the Court has consistently held that Article 4(1) of the directive precludes the application of a national measure which, although formulated in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of a much higher percentage of women than men, unless that measure is based on objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. That is the case where the measures chosen reflect a legitimate social policy aim of the Member State whose legislation is at issue, are appropriate to achieve that aim and are necessary in order to do so (see Case C-343/92 De Weerd, née Roks, and Others [1994] ECR I-571, paragraphs 33 and 34; see also Case C-444/93 Megner and Scheffel [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 24).
18 The Court first observes that, in the current state of Community law, social policy is a matter for the Member States (see Case C-229/89 Commission v Belgium [1991] ECR I-2205, paragraph 22). Consequently, it is for the Member States to choose the measures capable of achieving their social policy aim. In exercising that competence, the Member States have a broad margin of discretion (see Megner and Scheffel, paragraph 29).
Criminal proceedings against Didier Vergy.
Date: 1996-02-08
9 It is clear from those provisions that, as the Court held in Case 247/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3029, paragraphs 6 and 7, the Member States are under an obligation to impose a general prohibition on trade in all the species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies, subject to the exceptions permitted in certain circumstances for the species listed in Annex III, and to the option to derogate provided for by Article 9.
13 Those arguments must be upheld. As the Advocate General has pointed out in paragraph 31 of his Opinion, to extend the protective regime in that way would serve neither the need for the conservation of the natural environment, as described in the second recital in the preamble to the Directive, nor the objective of long-term protection and management of natural resources as an integral part of the heritage of the peoples of Europe, referred to in the eighth recital.
15 It should therefore be stated in reply to the first part of the second question referred by the national court that the Directive is not applicable to specimens of birds born and reared in captivity.
The second part of the question
17 In this respect, it should be pointed out that, as the Court stated in its judgment in Case 252/85 Commission v France [1988] ECR 2243, paragraph 15, the importance of complete and effective protection of wild birds throughout the Community, irrespective of the areas they stay in or pass through, causes any national legislation which delimits the protection of wild birds by reference to the concept of national heritage to be incompatible with the Directive.
18 Consequently, it should be stated in reply to the second part of the second question that the Directive requires each Member State to ensure the protection of a species of bird naturally occurring in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies, even if the natural habitat of the species in question does not occur in the territory of the Member State concerned.
Gebroeders van Es Douane Agenten BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen.
Date: 1996-02-13
27 However, that still leaves the question of legal certainty to be addressed. In that regard, it should be noted that the principle of legal certainty is a fundamental principle of Community law (see, to that effect, the judgment in Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor and Others v Germany [1983] ECR 2633) which requires in particular that rules imposing charges on a taxpayer be clear and precise so that he may be able to ascertain unequivocally what his rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly (see the judgments in Case 169/80 Gondrand Frères [1981] ECR 1931 and in Joined Cases 92/87 and 93/87 Commission v France and United Kingdom [1989] ECR 405).
Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA v Council of the European Union.
Date: 1996-02-15
21 As regards that part of the appeal which concerns the decision of the Court of First Instance to dismiss the action in non-contractual liability as inadmissible, it suffices to note that the question whether the amount of compensation claimed by each of the appellants has been sufficiently proven in the application and the reply requires an assessment of the facts which lies beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, which is merely to review the compliance of the contested order with rules of law.
24 It is settled case-law that the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure, such as the contested provision of Regulation No 259/93, applies does not in any way imply that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (see, for example, the judgment in Case C-264/91 Abertal and Others v Council [1993] ECR I-3265, paragraph 16, and the order in Case C-131/92 Arnaud and Others v Council [1993] ECR I-2573, paragraph 13).
25 For such persons to be capable of being regarded as individually concerned, their legal position must be affected because of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom a measure is addressed (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 26/86 Deutz und Geldermann v Council [1987] ECR 941, paragraph 9).
32 First, unlike the situation in the present case, that judgment concerned a decision by the Commission authorizing a single Member State, pursuant to Article 130(3) of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Hellenic Republic and the Adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1979 L 291, p. 17), to adopt a temporary protective measure concerning the importation into that State of certain products from a single other Member State.
Grand Garage Albigeois SA, Etablissements Marlaud SA, Rossi Automobiles SA, Albi Automobiles SA, Garage Maurel & Fils SA, Sud Auto SA, Grands garages de Castres, Garage Pirola SA, Grand Garage de la Gare, Mazametaine automobile SA, Etablissements Capmartin SA and Graulhet Automobiles SA v Garage Massol SARL.
Date: 1996-02-15
15 As the Court has held, Regulation No 123/85, as a regulation applying Article 85(3) of the Treaty, does not lay down any mandatory provisions directly affecting the validity or the content of contractual provisions or oblige the contracting parties to adapt the content of their agreement but merely is limited to providing economic agents in the motor vehicle industry with certain possibilities enabling them to remove their distribution and servicing agreements from the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 85(1) despite the inclusion in those agreements of certain types of exclusivity and no-competition clauses (Case 10/86 VAG France [1986] ECR 4071, paragraphs 12 and 16).
20 It follows that Regulation No 123/85 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting a trader who is outside the official distribution network for a given make of motor vehicle and is not an authorized intermediary within the meaning of that regulation from independently carrying on the business of marketing new vehicles of that make.
Nissan France SA, Serda SA, Lyon Vaise Auto SARL, Garage Gambetta SA and Lyon Automobiles SA v Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto, Star'Terre SARL and Aqueducs Automobiles SARL.
Date: 1996-02-15
15 As the Court has held, Regulation No 123/85, as a regulation applying Article 85(3) of the Treaty, does not lay down any mandatory provisions directly affecting the validity or the content of contractual provisions or oblige the contracting parties to adapt the content of their agreement but is limited to providing economic agents in the motor vehicle industry with certain possibilities enabling them to remove their distribution and servicing agreements from the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 85(1) despite the inclusion in those agreements of certain types of exclusivity and no-competition clauses (Case 10/86 VAG France v Magne [1986] ECR 4071, paragraphs 12 and 16).
16 Regulation No 123/85, in accordance with the function thus assigned to it in relation to the application of Article 85 of the Treaty, concerns only contractual relations between suppliers and their approved distributors and specifies the conditions under which certain agreements between them are lawful having regard to the competition rules of the Treaty.
17 It is thus concerned only with the content of agreements which parties tied to a distribution network for a specified product may lawfully conclude having regard to the rules of the Treaty prohibiting restrictions affecting normal competition within the common market.
18 Since, therefore, it confines itself to stating what the parties to such agreements may or may not undertake to do in relations with third parties, that regulation does not, in contrast, serve to regulate the activities of such third parties, who may operate in the market outside the framework of distribution agreements.
19 Thus, the provisions of that exempting regulation cannot affect the rights and obligations of third parties in relation to contracts concluded between vehicle manufacturers and their concessionaires, in particular those of independent dealers.
20 It follows that Regulation No 123/85 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting a trader who is outside the official distribution network for a given make of motor vehicle and is not an authorized intermediary within the meaning of that regulation from acquiring new vehicles of that make by way of parallel imports and independently carrying on the business of marketing such vehicles.
Inasti (Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants) v Hans Kemmler.
Date: 1996-02-15
7 According to Article 2 of Regulation No 1390/81, no rights are acquired thereunder in respect of a period prior to the date of its entry into force. It appears from Article 4 that the regulation entered into force only on 1 July 1982, that is to say after both the periods relevant to the main proceedings. The regulation is therefore not applicable to the dispute and the question put by the national court is correct in referring only to the relevant Treaty provisions (see Case 143/87 Stanton v Inasti [1988] ECR 3877, paragraph 7).
9 That article requires the abolition of restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State. It is settled case-law that that is a directly applicable rule of Community law. Member States were therefore under the obligation to observe that rule even though, in the absence of Community legislation on social security for self-employed persons, they retained competence to legislate in this field (Stanton, paragraph 10).
10 As the Court has held (see in particular Case 107/83 Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Paris v Klopp [1984] ECR 2971, paragraph 19), freedom of establishment is not confined to the right to create a single establishment within the Community but includes freedom to set up and maintain, subject to observance of the professional rules of conduct, more than one place of work within the territory of the Member States.
11 The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are thus intended to facilitate the pursuit of occupational activities throughout the Community, and preclude national legislation which might inhibit the extension of such activities beyond the territory of a single Member State (Stanton, paragraph 13).
12 Legislation of a Member State which requires contributions to be made to the scheme for self-employed persons by persons already working as self-employed persons in another Member State where they have their habitual residence and are affiliated to a social security scheme inhibits the pursuit of occupational activities outside the territory of that Member State. Article 52 of the Treaty therefore precludes legislation of that kind unless is it duly justified.
13 Legislation of the kind at issue in the main proceedings affords no additional social protection to the persons concerned. Therefore, the impediment to the pursuit of occupational activities in more than one Member State may not in any event be justified on that basis (Stanton, paragraph 15).
Jürgen Mohr v Finanzamt Bad Segeberg.
Date: 1996-02-29
19 It should be recalled that, according to Article 2(1) of the First Council Directive (67/227/EEC) of 11 April 1967 on the harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967 (I), p. 14), VAT is a general tax on the consumption of goods and services.
20 In a case such as the present one, there is no consumption as envisaged in the Community VAT system.
21 As the Advocate General notes at point 27 of his Opinion, by compensating farmers who undertake to cease their milk production, the Community does not acquire goods or services for its own use but acts in the common interest of promoting the proper functioning of the Community milk market.
22 In those circumstances, the undertaking given by a farmer that he will discontinue his milk production does not entail either for the Community or for the competent national authorities any benefit which would enable them to be considered consumers of a service. The undertaking in question does not therefore constitute a supply of services within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive.