larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Dansk Metalarbejderforbund and Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark v H. Nielsen & Søn, Maskinfabrik A/S, in liquidation.
Date: 1985-02-12
10 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT AFFECT THE EMPLOYER ' S FREEDOM TO EFFECT OR REFRAIN FROM EFFECTING COLLECTIVE DISMISSALS . ITS SOLE OBJECT IS TO PROVIDE FOR CONSULTATION WITH THE TRADE UNIONS AND FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE COMPETENT PUBLIC AUTHORITY PRIOR TO SUCH DISMISSALS . ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) PROVIDES THAT CONSULTATION WITH THE TRADE UNIONS MUST , AT LEAST , COVER ' WAYS AND MEANS OF AVOIDING COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES OR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF WORKERS AFFECTED , AND MITIGATING THE CONSEQUENCES . '  ARTICLE 4 PROVIDES THAT PROJECTED COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES NOTIFIED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ARE TO TAKE EFFECT ONLY AFTER A PARTICULAR PERIOD HAS ELAPSED . THE COMPETENT PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS TO USE THAT PERIOD TO SEEK SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE PROJECTED COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES . AS THE GUARANTEE FUND AND THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY OBSERVE , TO TREAT TERMINATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY THE WORKERS IN THE MANNER ADVOCATED BY SPECIALARBEJDERFORBUNDET I DANMARK WOULD GIVE THE WORKERS THE POSSIBILITY OF BRINGING ABOUT DISMISSALS AGAINST THE WILL OF THE EMPLOYER AND WITHOUT HIS BEING IN A POSITION TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE DIRECTIVE . IT WOULD LEAD TO A RESULT PRECISELY CONTRARY TO THAT SOUGHT BY THE DIRECTIVE , NAMELY TO AVOID OR REDUCE COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES .
15 AS THE GUARANTEE FUND AND THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY STATE , THERE IS NO IMPLIED OBLIGATION UNDER THE DIRECTIVE TO FORESEE COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES . IT DOES NOT STIPULATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE EMPLOYER MUST CONTEMPLATE COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES AND IN NO WAY AFFECTS HIS FREEDOM TO DECIDE WHETHER AND WHEN HE MUST FORMULATE PLANS FOR COLLECTIVE DISMISSALS .
17 FOR THOSE REASONS THE REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST BE THAT COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 75/129 OF 17 FEBRUARY 1975 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS IN FACT CONTEMPLATED COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES OR HAS DRAWN UP A PLAN FOR COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES .
Aissatou Diatta v Land Berlin.
Date: 1985-02-13
16 TO THAT END , ARTICLE 10 OF THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE MIGRANT WORKER ' S FAMILY MAY ALSO ENTER THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE IS ESTABLISHED AND INSTALL THEMSELVES WITH HIM .
17 HAVING REGARD TO ITS CONTEXT AND THE OBJECTIVES WHICH IT PURSUES , THAT PROVISION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED RESTRICTIVELY .
18 IN PROVIDING THAT A MEMBER OF A MIGRANT WORKER ' S FAMILY HAS THE RIGHT TO INSTALL HIMSELF WITH THE WORKER , ARTICLE 10 OF THE REGULATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY IN QUESTION MUST LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH THE WORKER , BUT , AS IS CLEAR FROM ARTICLE 10 ( 3 ), ONLY THAT THE ACCOMMODATION WHICH THE WORKER HAS AVAILABLE MUST BE SUCH AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NORMAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF     ACCOMMODATING HIS FAMILY . A REQUIREMENT THAT THE FAMILY MUST LIVE UNDER THE SAME ROOF PERMANENTLY CANNOT BE IMPLIED .
20 IT MUST BE ADDED THAT THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE REGARDED AS DISSOLVED SO LONG AS IT HAS NOT BEEN TERMINATED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY . IT IS NOT DISSOLVED MERELY BECAUSE THE SPOUSES LIVE SEPARATELY , EVEN WHERE THEY INTEND TO DIVORCE AT A LATER DATE .
22 CONSEQUENTLY , IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE BUNDESVERWALTUNGSGERICHT , IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE MEMBERS OF A MIGRANT WORKER ' S FAMILY , AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 , ARE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HIM IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A RIGHT OF RESIDENCE UNDER THAT PROVISION AND ARTICLE 11 OF THE SAME REGULATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OF RESIDENCE INDEPENDENT OF THAT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 10 .
Françoise Gravier v City of Liège.
Date: 1985-02-13
19 THE FIRST REMARK WHICH MUST BE MADE IN THAT REGARD IS THAT ALTHOUGH EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND POLICY ARE NOT AS SUCH INCLUDED IN THE SPHERES WHICH THE TREATY HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS , ACCESS TO AND PARTICIPATION IN COURSES OF INSTRUCTION AND APPRENTICESHIP , IN PARTICULAR VOCATIONAL TRAINING , ARE NOT UNCONNECTED WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
25 IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING THAT THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESS TO VOCATIONAL TRAINING FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TREATY .
Direct Cosmetics Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Date: 1985-02-13
24 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT NEW SPECIAL MEASURES DEROGATING FROM THE DIRECTIVE DO NOT ACCORD WITH COMMUNITY LAW UNLESS , ON THE ONE HAND , THEY REMAIN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE AIMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 27 ( 1 ) AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , THEY HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION AND HAVE BEEN IMPLIEDLY OR EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNCIL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS ( 1 ) TO ( 4 ) OF ARTICLE 27 .
37 BY VIRTUE OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY , MEMBER STATES ARE BOUND TO OBSERVE ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH DIRECTIVE IN SO FAR AS A DEROGATION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 27 . THE TAX AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT THEREFORE RELY , AS AGAINST A TAXABLE PERSON , ON A PROVISION DEROGATING FROM THE SCHEME OF THE DIRECTIVE AND ENACTED IN BREACH OF THE DUTY OF NOTIFICATION IMPOSED ON MEMBER STATES BY ARTICLE 27 ( 2 ) WITHOUT DISREGARDING THAT MEMBER STATE ' S OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 189 .
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-02-27
31 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 7 FEBRUARY 1979 ( CASE 11/76 , GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS V COMMISSION , ( 1979 ) ECR 245 ) ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION NO 729/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 21 APRIL 1970 ON THE FINANCING OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 218 )     PERMITS THE COMMISSION TO CHARGE TO THE FUND ONLY SUMS PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WHILE LEAVING THE MEMBER STATES TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF ANY OTHER SUM PAID . MOREOVER , THE COURT ADDED THAT A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EXPENDITURE IS TO BE BORNE BY THE FUND IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN CONDITIONS OF EQUALITY BETWEEN TRADERS IN THE MEMBER STATES REQUIRES THAT THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE SHOULD NOT , BY THE EXPEDIENT OF A WIDE INTERPRETATION OF A GIVEN PROVISION , FAVOUR OR TREAT UNFAVOURABLY TRADERS OF THAT STATE IN COMPARISON WITH THOSE OF OTHER MEMBER STATES .
Hannelore Spitzley v Sommer Exploitation SA.
Date: 1985-03-07
24 IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT , ACCORDING TO THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 18 , THE RULE IN THE FIRST SENTENCE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE ANOTHER COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONVENTION . THE CASE ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 17 IS NOT THEREFORE ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH ARTICLE 18 ALLOWS TO THE RULE WHICH IT LAYS DOWN .
25 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT OF 24 JUNE 1981 NEITHER THE GENERAL SCHEME NOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONVENTION PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR THE VIEW THAT THE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT CONFERRING JURISDICTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 17 ARE PREVENTED FROM VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTING THEIR DISPUTE TO A COURT OTHER THAN THAT STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT .
H.J.E. Cochet v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de gezondheid, geestelijke en maatschappelijke belangen.
Date: 1985-03-07
14 THAT GENERAL RULE IS DEFINED MORE PRECISELY IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION CONCERNED WITH UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FROM WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT ' THE COMPETENT     STATE '  IN THAT CONNECTION IS THE STATE WHERE THE UNEMPLOYED PERSON WAS LAST EMPLOYED . THAT IS THE POSITION IN RELATION TO THE COMMON PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 67 AND 68 WHICH LAY DOWN THE METHOD OF CALCULATING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS , IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 69 WHICH , SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS , PRESERVES ENTITLEMENT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN THE STATE WHERE THE PERSON WAS LAST EMPLOYED WHEN HE GOES TO ONE OR MORE OTHER MEMBER STATES IN ORDER TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT THERE , AND IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( I ) AND ( B ) ( I ) ACCORDING TO WHICH A FRONTIER WORKER WHO IS PARTIALLY OR INTERMITTENTLY UNEMPLOYED OR AN EMPLOYED PERSON , OTHER THAN A FRONTIER WORKER , WHO IS PARTIALLY , INTERMITTENTLY OR WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED RECEIVES THE BENEFITS IN QUESTION IN THE STATE WHERE HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED EVEN THOUGH HE IS RESIDENT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
15 ALTHOUGH , IN DEROGATION FROM THE RULE DERIVED FROM ARTICLE 1 ( O ) AND ( Q ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 THAT THE COMPETENT STATE IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS , ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( II ) AND ( B ) ( II ) PROVIDES THAT , IN RELATION TO A FRONTIER WORKER WHO IS WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED OR AN EMPLOYED PERSON , OTHER THAN A FRONTIER WORKER , WHO IS WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED AND WHO MAKES HIMSELF AVAILABLE FOR WORK TO THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES , SUCH BENEFITS ARE TO BE PAID BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY HE IS RESIDENT , IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THOSE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 71 DO NOT AFFECT THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE COMPETENT STATE IS THE STATE WHERE THAT PERSON WAS LAST EMPLOYED . THAT FOLLOWS FROM THE WORDING ITSELF OF THE HEADING TO SECTION 3 OF CHAPTER 6 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , WHICH IS REPEATED IN ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) WHICH DEALS WITH THE CASE WHERE AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON IS RESIDENT DURING HIS LAST EMPLOYMENT IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE STATE WHERE HE IS EMPLOYED ; THE SECTION IS , IN FACT , HEADED ' UNEMPLOYED PERSONS WHO , DURING THEIR LAST EMPLOYMENT , WERE RESIDING IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE COMPETENT STATE ' .
16 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARTICLE 69 RELATING TO ' UNEMPLOYED PERSONS GOING TO A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE COMPETENT STATE '  IS NOT APPLICABLE TO AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON WHO , AFTER HE HAS RECEIVED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IN THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY HE IS RESIDENT , SETTLES IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED AND IN WHICH HE APPLIES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT .
Kingdom of the Netherlands and Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek BV v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-03-13
19 THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR A DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING AN UNDERTAKING MUST BE SUCH AS TO ALLOW THE COURT TO REVIEW ITS LEGALITY AND TO PROVIDE THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED WITH THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION IS WELL-FOUNDED . THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED BY THE STATEMENT OF REASONS DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE , IN PARTICULAR THE CONTENT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION , THE NATURE OF THE REASONS GIVEN AND THE NEED FOR INFORMATION OF THE UNDERTAKINGS TO WHOM THE MEASURE IS ADDRESSED OR OF OTHER PARTIES TO WHOM IT IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY .
21 THAT STATEMENT OF REASONS SATISIFES THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 190 OF THE EEC TREATY SINCE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A REVIEW BY THE COURT AND GIVES THOSE CONCERNED AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON THE ACCURACY AND RELEVANCE OF THE ALLEGED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES .
24 EVEN IF IN CERTAIN CASES THE VERY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE AID IS GRANTED ARE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE AID IS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND OF DISTORTING OR THREATENING TO DISTORT COMPETITION , THE COMMISSION MUST AT LEAST SET OUT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ITS DECISION . IN THIS CASE IT HAS FAILED TO DO SO SINCE THE CONTESTED DECISION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SLIGHTEST INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SITUATION OF THE RELEVANT MARKET , THE PLACE OF LEEUWARDER IN THAT MARKET , THE PATTERN OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION OR THE UNDERTAKING ' S EXPORTS .
27 THE DUTY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 214 OF THE TREATY TO PRESERVE PROFESSIONAL SECRECY , IN THIS CASE LEEUWARDER ' S BUSINESS SECRETS , CANNOT BE INVOKED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE STATEMENT OF REASONS . APART FROM THE FACT THAT CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS , IN PARTICULAR THOSE RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE MARKET , ARE MANIFESTLY NOT OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE OBLIGATION OF PROFESSIONAL SECRECY , THAT OBLIGATION CANNOT BE GIVEN SO WIDE AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF REASONS IS DEPRIVED OF ITS ESSENTIAL CONTENT , THUS MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR THE MEMBER STATES AND UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENCE .
Timex Corporation v Council and Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-03-20
24 IT SHOULD BE STATED IN THIS REGARD THAT THE AIM OF ARTICLE 7 ( 4 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 3017/79 IS TO ENSURE THAT THE TRADERS OR MANUFACTURERS CONCERNED MAY INSPECT THE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE COMMISSION DURING THE INVESTIGATION SO THAT THEY MAY EFFECTIVELY PUT FORWARD THEIR POINTS OF VIEW . HOWEVER , THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS     GUARANTEED BY THAT PROVISION MUST WHERE NECESSARY BE RECONCILED WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF CONFIDENTIALITY , WHICH IS GIVEN GENERAL RECOGNITION IN ARTICLE 214 OF THE EEC TREATY , AND WHICH , AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURE UNDER REGULATION NO 3017/79 IS CONCERNED , IS SPECIFICALLY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 8 OF THAT REGULATION .
Ilias Kypreos v Council of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-03-27
8 IT MUST IN THE FIRST PLACE BE STATED THAT THE COUNCIL IS RIGHT IN ITS CONTENTION THAT , AS A RESULT OF THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , THE SUBMISSION THAT NO REASONS WERE GIVEN FOR THE DECISION IS NOW DEVOID OF PURPOSE .
Kenneth Scrivner and Carol Cole v Centre public d'aide sociale de Chastre.
Date: 1985-03-27
18 THE COURT HAS STATED IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BENEFITS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND BENEFITS WHICH COME WITHIN IT RESTS ENTIRELY ON THE FACTORS RELATING TO EACH BENEFIT , IN PARTICULAR ITS PURPOSE AND THE CONDITIONS FOR ITS GRANT , AND NOT ON WHETHER THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION DESCRIBES THE BENEFIT AS A SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT OR NOT .
19 ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT BECAUSE OF THE CLASSES OF PERSONS TO WHICH THEY APPLY , THEIR OBJECTIVES AND THE DETAILED RULES FOR THEIR APPLICATION , CERTAIN LAWS MAY SIMULTANEOUSLY CONTAIN ELEMENTS BELONGING TO BOTH OF THE CATEGORIES MENTIONED AND THUS DEFY ANY GENERAL CLASSIFICATION , IT MUST BE STATED THAT IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY COVERED BY REGULATION NO 1408/71 THE LEGISLATION AT ISSUE MUST IN ANY EVENT SATISFY , IN PARTICULAR , THE CONDITION OF COVERING ONE OF THE RISKS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF THE REGULATION . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE LIST OF RISKS CONTAINED IN THAT PARAGRAPH IS EXHAUSTIVE AND THAT , AS A RESULT , A BRANCH OF SOCIAL SECURITY NOT MENTIONED IN THE LIST DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY EVEN IF IT CONFERS UPON INDIVIDUALS A LEGALLY DEFINED POSITION ENTITLING THEM TO BENEFITS .
20 AS IS CLEAR FROM DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THE ' MINIMEX '  IS CHARACTERIZED ON THE ONE HAND BY THE FACT THAT IT CONFERS UPON RECIPIENTS A LEGALLY DEFINED POSITION AND ON THE OTHER BY THE FACT THAT IT IS GRANTED TO ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE     ADEQUATE MEANS AND IS UNABLE TO ' OBTAIN THEM EITHER BY HIS OWN EFFORTS OR IN ANY OTHER WAY '  ( ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF THE LAW OF 7 AUGUST 1974 ); IT THUS ADOPTS NEED AS AN ESSENTIAL CRITERION FOR ITS APPLICATION AND DOES NOT MAKE ANY STIPULATIONS AS TO PERIODS OF WORK , CONTRIBUTION OR AFFILIATION TO ANY PARTICULAR SOCIAL SECURITY BODY COVERING A SPECIFIC RISK . A CLAIMANT NEED ONLY SHOW THAT ' HE IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT WORK '  UNLESS PREVENTED BY HIS STATE OF HEALTH OR COMPELLING SOCIAL REASONS ; FURTHERMORE , HE IS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS TO SOCIAL BENEFITS OR EVEN ANY RIGHTS TO MAINTENANCE IF THE PUBLIC SOCIAL WELFARE CENTRE CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY ( ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF THE 1974 LAW ).
21 IT FOLLOWS THAT AN ALLOWANCE LIKE THE ONE AT ISSUE , BEING A GENERAL SOCIAL BENEFIT , CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED UNDER ONE OF THE BRANCHES OF SOCIAL SECURITY LISTED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND THEREFORE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC MEANING OF THAT REGULATION .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1985-03-28
26 WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE REGIONAL LAWS , OR SOME OF THEM , REPEAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS , IT IS TRUE , AS THE COMMISSION HAS POINTED OUT , THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT IN CASE 39/72 COMMISSION V ITALY ( 1973 ) ECR 101 , THE COURT STATED THAT COMMUNITY REGULATIONS ARE , AS SUCH , DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES AND ENTER INTO FORCE SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THEIR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE COMMUNITIES . CONSEQUENTLY , A MEMBER STATE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO CREATE A SITUATION IN WHICH THE DIRECT EFFECT OF COMMUNITY REGULATIONS IS COMPROMISED .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1985-03-28
15 SINCE THE DRAFT LAW WAS ADOPTED ON 8 OCTOBER 1984 THE COMMISSION HAS WITHDRAWN ITS COMPLAINT IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL PROCEDURE .

( C ) SECRET TENDER EQUAL TO OR CLOSEST TO THE AVERAGE TENDER
19 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PURPOSE ASSIGNED TO THE PRELIMINARY STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 169 THAT THE INITIAL LETTER 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 .
20 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 11 JULY 1984 ( CASE 51/83 COMMISSION V ITALY ( 1984 ) ECR 2793 ) 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 PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 169 .
21 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 , THE COURT CANNOT IMPOSE SUCH STRICT REQUIREMENTS AS REGARDS THE INITIAL LETTER , WHICH OF NECESSITY WILL CONTAIN ONLY AN INITIAL BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINTS . AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 31 JANUARY 1984 ( CASE 74/82 COMMISSION V IRELAND ( 1984 ) ECR 317 ) THERE IS NOTHING THEREFORE TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM SETTING OUT IN DETAIL IN THE REASONED OPINION THE COMPLAINTS WHICH IT HAS ALREADY MADE MORE GENERALLY IN ITS INITIAL LETTER .
25 THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ' S CONTENTION THAT THE CRITERION FOR THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO THE PERSON WHO SUBMITS ' THE TENDER WHICH EQUALS THE AVERAGE TENDER OR IS THE CLOSEST TO IT '  SERVES TO DETERMINE ' THE MOST ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TENDER '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 29 OF THE DIRECTIVE IS INCORRECT . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE MOST ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TENDER , THE AUTHORITY MAKING THE DECISION MUST BE ABLE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN TAKING A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE CRITERIA THAT VARY ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION AND CANNOT THEREFORE RELY SOLELY ON THE QUANTITATIVE CRITERION OF THE AVERAGE PRICE .
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1985-03-28
3 IT APPEARS FROM THAT PROVISION THAT SUCH DEDUCTIONS FROM PENSIONS MAY BE MADE BY THE INSTITUTION OF A MEMBER STATE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE INSURED PERSONS WHO IN RETURN RECEIVE SICKNESS AND MATERNITY BENEFITS FROM THE INSTITUTION OF THAT MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH BENEFITS . BUT SUCH DEDUCTIONS MAY NOT BE MADE WHERE THE BENEFITS IN QUESTION ARE NOT BORNE BY AN INSTITUTION OF THAT MEMBER STATE . THAT IS THE CASE IN RELATION TO INSURED PERSONS WHO RESIDE IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND WHO ARE IN RECEIPT , BY VIRTUE OF THAT RESIDENCE , OF BENEFITS FROM THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF THAT MEMBER STATE UNDER ARTICLES 27 TO 32 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
10 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT A MEMBER STATE CANNOT PLEAD THE PROVISIONS , PRACTICES OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING IN ITS INTERNAL LEGAL ORDER TO JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OBLIGATIONS RESULTING FROM COMMUNITY REGULATIONS .
Comité des industries cinématographiques des Communautés européennes (CICCE) v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1985-03-28
18 AS TO WHETHER THAT ARGUMENT IS WELL-FOUNDED IT SHOULD BE STATED FIRST AND FOREMOST THAT , AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED , THE COURT MUST REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEDURE IN THE CICCE ' S CASE . THAT REVIEW MUST BE EFFECTED INTER ALIA IN THE LIGHT OF THE ELEMENTS OF LAW AND FACT THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION ' S NOTICE BY THE CICCE , AND WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE JUDGMENT OF 11 OCTOBER 1983 IN CASE 210/81 ( DEMO-STUDIO SCHMIDT V COMMISSION ( 1983 ) ECR 3045 ), THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER A DUTY TO EXAMINE IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COMPETITION RULES OF THE TREATY WERE INFRINGED IN THIS CASE .
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1985-03-28
16 IN VIEW OF THESE ARGUMENTS , IT MUST FIRST BE STATED THAT THE DIRECTIVE COVERS COMBINED RAIL/ROAD CARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO MEMBER STATES EVEN WHEN THE TERRITORY OF ONE OR MORE NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES IS CROSSED . SINCE THE CARRIAGE IS THUS REGARDED AS A SINGLE OPERATION FROM THE POINT OF DEPARTURE TO THE POINT OF ARRIVAL , THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTIVE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY EXCEPTION FOR THE CASE IN WHICH ONE OF THE STATIONS USED IS SITUATED IN A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY IN FACT MILITATES IN FAVOUR OF THE COMMISSION ' S INTERPRETATION .
Director of Public Prosecutions v Sidney Hackett Limited and Roy Thomas Weston ; Raymond C. Tetlow v Perman George Dovey.
Date: 1985-03-28
16 ARTICLE 14A ALLOWS THE MEMBER STATES TO EXEMPT CERTAIN TYPES OF TRANSPORT FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO USE THE TACHOGRAPH . THOSE TYPES OF TRANSPORT ARE CHARACTERIZED EITHER BY THE LIMITED AREA IN WHICH SERVICES ARE PROVIDED OR THEIR DISCONTINUOUS NATURE OR BY THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE TRANSPORT OPERATIONS OR OF THE VEHICLES USED . FOR THE MOST PART THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC OPERATIONS IN WHICH CERTAIN ACTIVITIES , WHETHER OF A COMMERCIAL OR NON-COMMERCIAL NATURE , ARE CARRIED OUT TO WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION ITSELF IS INCIDENTAL . SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS ARE PRECISELY CIRCUMSCRIBED WHEREAS OTHERS , SUCH AS THE EXEMPTION AT ISSUE IN THE CASES REFERRED TO THE DIVISIONAL COURT , NEED TO BE SPECIFICALLY DELIMITED BY THE COURTS .
19 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 14A , THAT PROVISION CAN ONLY REFER TO TRANSPORT OPERATIONS INVOLVING SHORT DISTANCES , CARRIED OUT IN THE     INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL FARMS AND CORRESPONDING TO THE NORMAL NEEDS OF SUCH FARMS AS REGARDS THE SUPPLY OF LIVESTOCK OR THE SALE OF THEIR PRODUCE . IT MUST BE MADE CLEAR THAT IN THIS CONTEXT FARMS CAN ONLY BE UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING NORMAL , AVERAGE-SIZED FARMS , SUCH AS ARE TYPICAL OF THE AREA IN QUESTION . CONSEQUENTLY , A LOCAL MARKET , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION , MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING THE NEAREST MARKET , HAVING REGARD TO GEOGRAPHICAL CIRCUMSTANCES , AT WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUY OR SELL , AS THE CASE MAY BE , ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE PRODUCTION UNITS HAVING THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CHARACTERISTICS .
21 AS REGARDS THE DISTANCES COVERED , THE POWER OF THE VEHICLES USED AND THE INTENSITY OF THEIR USE , THE TRANSPORT OPERATIONS REQUIRED BY OPERATIONS OF THAT SCALE HAVE PRECISELY THOSE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH JUSTIFIED THE GENERALIZATION OF THE USE OF THE TACHOGRAPH , NAMELY THE RISK THAT VEHICLES MIGHT BE OVERUSED AND DRIVERS OVERWORKED , WITH ALL THE UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SOCIAL PROTECTION OF TRANSPORT WORKERS , ROAD SAFETY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF PROPER CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE SECTOR IN QUESTION .