natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
π λ η ρ ο φ ό ρ η σ η ς π ε ρ ι ε λ ά μ β α ν α ν δ ι α π ισ τ ώ σ ε ι ς ή ε ξ έ φ ρ α ζ α ν ε π ι θ υ μ ί ε ς γ ε ν ικ ο ύ χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α π ο υ δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ν α χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ τ ο ύ ν ω ς σ κ ο π ο ί τ ο υ π ρ ο γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ο ς α υ τ ο ί κ α θ α υ τ ο ύ ς .
conditions of use, the medicinal product imported as a parallel import did not pose a risk as to quality, efficacy or safety fiudgment of 16 December 1999 in Case C-94198 The Queen v The Licensing Authority established by the MedicinesAct 1968 ex parte Rhöne-PoulencRorer and Another, not yet reported in the ECR).
Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε π ί μ α χ η ς δ ρ ά σ ε ι ς αποφάσεως, τοαπέβλεπανστην π ε ρ ι ε χ ό μ ε ν ο τ η ς ό τ ι ο ισ χ ε τ ικ έ ς ε ξ α φ α ν ί σ ε ω ς α π ο φ υ γ ή α γ ο ρ ά ή ε π ιχ ε ι ρ ή σ ε ω ν τ η ν π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε ε ν δ ε χ ο μ έ ν ο υ μ ε ιώ σ ε ω ς τ η ς α π ό τ ο υ τ ο υ τ η ς μ ε τ η α ν τ α γ ω ν ισ τ ικ ό τ η τ α ς τ ο υ ς λ ό γ ω σ υ ν δ ε ό μ ε ν ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο γ λ ω σ σ ικ ή π ο λ υ μ ο ρ φ ία κ ό σ τ ο υ ς ε π ικ ο ι ν ω ν ία ς . Τοτελικά, ό τ ι τ α α π ο τ ε λ έ σ μ α τ α ε π ί τ ο υ π ο λ ι τ ισ μ ο ύ ή τ α ν μ ό ν ο ν τ ω ν έ ν α ν τ ι έκρινε, έμμεσααμέσωνφύσεως κ α ι π α ρ α κ ο λ ο υ θ η μ α τ ικ ο ύ χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α ε π ι δ ι ω κ ο μ έ ν ω ν α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ ά τ ω ν , ταοποία ή τ α ν ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ή ς κ α ι δ ε ν δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ο ύ σ α ν ν α σ τ η ρ ιχ θ ε ί η α π ό φ α σ η κ α ισ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 128 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , κ α ι α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή τ ο υ Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 23η ς Φ ε β ρ ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-42/97, Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , Συλλογή1999, σ. 1-869).
Food ex parte British Agrochemicals Association [1999] ECR I-L499, the Courtheld first of all that the case-law laid down in Smith & Nephew and Primecrown, cited above, relating to parallel imports of medicinal products, could be applied,mutatis mutandis, to the placing of plant protection products on the market, given the similaritiesof the two bodies of legislation. It then held that that case-lawapplied to a plant protection product imported from a State belonging to the European Economic Area in which it was already covered by a marketingauthorisation granted in accordance with Directive 9ll4l4. As regards the importation of plant protection products from third countries, on the other hand,the conditions which had led, in the decision in Smith & Nephew and Primecrown, to the non-applicabilityof the provisions of the directive concerningthe procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation were not fulfilled and sucha product therefore could not benefit from a marketing authorisation alreadygranted in the Member State of importation for a product considered to be identical.
Αντιθέτως, ά λ λ η π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή τ ο υ Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ έ γ ι ν ε δ ε κ τ ή μ ε α π ό φ α σ η π ο υ δ η μ ο σ ι ε ύ θ η κ ε δ ύ ο η μ έ ρ ε ς α ρ γ ό τ ε ρ α (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 25η ς Φ ε β ρ ο υ α ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-164/97 και0-165/97, Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , Συλλογή 1999, σ.
Of the numerous judgments delivered in 1999 relating to the agricultural and fisheries sectors, most concerned questions which were rather technical andof relatively limited importance. One judgment to note, however, is that of 5
1-1139), σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε δ ύ ο κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ ς τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ γ ι α τ η ν π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ω ν δ α σ ώ ν σ τ η ν Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α α π ό τ η ν α τ μ ο σ φ α ι ρ ικ ή ρ ύ π α ν σ η κ α ι γ ι α τ η ν π υ ρ ο π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ω ν κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ώ ν δ α σ ώ ν , ο ι ο π ο ί ο ι ε ίχ α ν ε κ δ ο θ ε ί β ά σ ε ι τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 43 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρου 37 ΕΚ).
October 1999 in Case C-179195Spain v Council, not yet reported in the ECR,which settled a dispute between the two parties in the field of Communityfisheries policy. Spain challenged a number of Community provisions which, inthe context of the system for the exchange of fishing quotas allocated to certain Member States, allowed anchovy fishing quotas to be transferred from the zoneof allocation to an adjacentzone.
Μετηναπόφασητης 8η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1999 (0-189/97, Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ), τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ρ μ ή ν ε υ σ ε γ ι α π ρ ώ τ η φ ο ρ ά τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α «σ υ μ φ ω ν ί ε ς π ο υ
The Court hadregard to the discretion which the Council enjoys when fixing TACs anddistributing fishing quotas among Member States, and noted that when the Council fixed the initial TAC it did so by way of precautionand not on the basisof proven scientific data; the Court found that, in those circumstances, theincrease in anchovy fishing quotas at issue could not be considered to be vitiated
σ υ ν ε π ά γ ο ν τ α ισ η μ α ν τ ικ έ ς δ η μ ο σ ι ο ν ο μ ικ έ ς ε π ι π τ ώ σ ε ι ς γ ι α τ η ν Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α » τ ο υ δ ε υ τ έ ρ ο υ ε δ α φ ί ο υ τ η ς π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ 3 τουάρθρου 228 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρου300 ΕΚ).
by manifest error or misuse of power or clearly to exceed the bounds of thediscretion enjoyed by the Council unless there were sufficient grounds forbelieving that it had disturbedthe biological equilibrium of those resources, a factwhich had not been established in the case before the Court.
Κ α τ ά π α ρ έ κ κ λ ισ η α π ό τ η σ υ ν ή θ η δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία , η ο π ο ία π ρ ο β λ έ π ε ι μ ό ν ο δ ι α β ο ύ λ ε υ σ η μ ε τ ο Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο , η σ ύ ν α ψ η σ υ μ φ ω ν ιώ ν α υ τ ο ύ τ ο υ ε ί δ ο υ ς ε ί ν α ι δ υ ν α τ ή μ ό ν ο μ ε σ ύ μ φ ω ν η γ ν ώ μ η τ ο υ Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ο ύ Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ .
Spain also claimedthat the principle of relative stability had been infringed since a new anchovyquota had been allocated in the zone at issue to a country, namely Portugal, which had never had a quota there, in flagrant breach of the obligation to preserve thepercentage shares laid down for each of the two Member States between whom the stock had beendivided, namely Spain and France.
Πράγματι, ο ι π ρ ο β λ ε π ό μ ε ν ε ς γ ι α τ ι ς ε ξ ω τ ε ρ ικ έ ς δ ρ ά σ ε ι ς τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς π ισ τ ώ σ ε ι ς α ν τ ι π ρ ο σ ω π ε ύ ο υ ν ε κ π α ρ α δ ό σ ε ω ς έ ν α π ε ρ ι θ ω ρ ι α κ ό τ μ ή μ α τ ο υ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ π ρ ο ϋ π ο λ ο γ ισ μ ο ύ , ο π ό τ ε η ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή τ ο υ κ ρ ι τ η ρ ί ο υ π ο υ π ρ ο τ ε ί ν ε ι τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο υ π ά ρ χ ε ικ ί ν δ υ ν ο ς ν α σ τ έ ρ η σ ε ι ο π ο ι α σ δ ή π ο τ ε π ρ α κ τ ικ ή ς α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ό τ η τ α ς τ η ν ε π ί δ ικ η δ ι ά τ α ξ η .
As regards the conditions in which that exchange had been authorised, the Courtnoted first of all that there was no increase in fishing quotas in the two zonestaken together, secondly, that the exchange did not adverselyaffect, in the zoneto which quota could be transferred taken by itself, the fishing quota allocated to Member States not privy to the exchange and, finally, that the exchange inquestion had not been shown to jeopardise resources in the zones concerned or,therefore, to have an adverse effect on the rights of Member States to quotas there. The action was therefore dismissed.
Θεώρησε, καταρχάς, ό τ ι ο π ο λ υ ε τ ή ς χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α ς τ ω ν δ α π α ν ώ ν π ο υ π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ο υ ν α π ό μ ι α σ υ μ φ ω ν ία έ χ ε ι ι δ ι α ί τ ε ρ η σ η μ α σ ία , κ α θ ό σ ο ν σ χ ε τ ικ ά λ ι τ έ ς ε τ ή σ ι ε ς δ α π ά ν ε ς μ π ο ρ ο ύ ν , σ υ μ π ο σ ο ύ μ ε ν ε ς ε π ί σ ε ι ρ ά ν ε τ ώ ν , ν α α π ο τ ε λ έ σ ο υ ν σ η μ α ν τ ικ ή ε π ι β ά ρ υ ν σ η τ ο υ π ρ ο ϋ π ο λ ο γ ισ μ ο ύ .
Those provisions apply in the case of "regulated" professions,that isto say whenever the conditions for taking up or pursuing a professional activity are directly or indirectly governed by legal provisions. In Fernändez de Bobadilla the Court had to consider whether a profession governed by a collectiveagreement entered into by management and labour could be considered to be"regulated" within the meaning of the directives referred to above.
Τέλος, ό τ α ν π ρ ό κ ε ι τ α ι γ ι α τ ο μ ε α κ ή σ υ μ φ ω ν ία , ηανάλυσηαυτήμπορεί, ενδεχομένως, ν α σ υ μ π λ η ρ ω θ ε ί μ ε τ η σ ύ γ κ ρ ισ η μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ω ν δ α π α ν ώ ν π ο υ σ υ ν ε π ά γ ε τ α ι η σ υ μ φ ω ν ία κ α ι τ ο υ σ υ ν ό λ ο υ τ ω ν ε γ γ ε γ ρ α μ μ έ ν ω ν γ ι α τ ο ν ε ν λ ό γ ω τ ο μ έ α π ισ τ ώ σ ε ω ν ,
The Courtgave the answer that, in order not to impair the effectiveness of those directives,such a profession could be considered to be "regulated" where a collectiveagreement governed in a general way the right to take it up or pursue it,particularly if that was the result of a single administrative policy laid down at
λ α μ β α ν ο μ έ ν ω ν υ π ό ψ η α π ό κ ο ι ν ο ύ τ η ς ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς κ α ι ε ξ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς π τ υ χ ή ς .
national level or even if the terms of an agreement entered into by a public bodyand its staff representatives were common to other collective agreements enteredinto on an individual basis by other public bodies of the same kind.
Ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ο ν τ α ς τ α κ ρ ι τ ή ρ ι α α υ τ ά σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η ε κ ε ί ν η , τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε ό τ ι η ε π ί δ ικ η σ υ μ φ ω ν ία α λ ι ε ία ς μ ε τ η Μ α υ ρ ι τ α ν ία ε ίχ ε σ υ ν α φ θ ε ί γ ι α 5 έτη, δ ι ά ρ κ ε ι α η ο π ο ία δ ε ν ε ί ν α ι ι δ ι α ί τ ε ρ α μ α κ ρ ά , καιότιτασχετικάποσά, κ α ί τ ο ι υ π ε ρ έ β α ι ν α ν σ ε ύ ψ ο ς τ ο 5 % τ ω ν δ α π α ν ώ ν σ ε θ έ μ α τ α α λ ι ε ία ς , μ ό λ ι ς α ν τ ι π ρ ο σ ώ π ε υ α ν κ ά τ ι π ε ρ ισ σ ό τ ε ρ ο α π ό τ ο 1 % τ ο υ σ υ ν ό λ ο υ τ ω ν α φ ο ρ ω σ ώ ν τ ι ς ε ξ ω τ ε ρ ικ έ ς δ ρ ά σ ε ι ς τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς π ισ τ ώ σ ε ω ν π λ η ρ ω μ ώ ν , ήτοιαναλογίαπου, χωρίςναείναιαμελητέα, δ υ σ χ ε ρ ώ ς μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ θ ε ί ω ς σ η μ α ν τ ικ ή .
In thejudgment, the Court also stated, with regard to non-regulated professions, thatwhere a Member State did not have a general procedure for official recognitionof diplomas issued in the other Member States which was consistent with Community law, it was for the public body seeking to f,lI a post itself toinvestigate whether the diploma obtained by the candidatein another Member State, together, where appropriate, with practicalexperience, was to be regardedas equivalent to the qualification required (udgment of 8 July 1999 in Case C- 234 19 7 Fernöndez de Bobadilla v Museo Nacional del Prado and Other.r, notyet reported in the ECR).
Κ α τ ά τ η ν Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή , τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο έ π ρ ε π ε ν α σ τ η ρ ίξ ε ι τ ο ν π ρ ο σ β α λ λ ό μ ε ν ο κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό , εκτόςαπότοάρθρο 43, καιστοάρθρο 100 Α τ ή ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρο 95 ΕΚ).
In the resulting criminal proceedings, Mr Wijsenbeek relied,in his defence, on the second paragraph of Article 7a and Article 8a of the ECTreaty (now, after amendment, Articles 14 EC and 18 EC).
Ωςγνωστόν, η τ ε λ ε υ τ α ία α υ τ ή δ ι ά τ α ξ η έ χ ε ι ω ς α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο τ η ν π ρ ο σ έ γ γ ισ η τ ω ν ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ιώ ν τ ω ν κ ρ α τ ώ ν μ ε λ ώ ν μ ε σ τ ό χ ο τ η ν ε ξ α σ φ ά λ ισ η τ η ς ε γ κ α θ ι δ ρ ύ σ ε ω ς κ α ι τ η ς λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ία ς τ η ς ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς α γ ο ρ ά ς .
In answer to thenational court's questions, the Court ruled that, as Community law stood at thetime of the events in question, neither Article 7a nor Article 8a of the Treatyprecluded a Member State from requiring a person, whether or not a citizen ofthe European Union, under threat of criminal penalties, to establish his nationalityupon his entry into the territory of that Member State by an internal frontier ofthe Community, provided that the penalties applicable were comparable to thosewhich applied to similar national infringements and were not disproportionate.
ΗΕπιτροπήυποστήριζε, αφενός, ό τ ι ο κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό ς α υ τ ό ς σ κ ο π ο ύ σ ε σ τ η ν ε ύ ρ υ θ μ η λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ία τ η ς τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ς ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς κ α ι , συνεπώς, τ η ς ε σ ω τ ε ρ ικ ή ς α γ ο ρ ά ς κ α ι , αφετέρου, ό τ ι η π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ω ν ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ώ ν σ υ μ φ ε ρ ό ν τ ω ν τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς , υπότηνέννοιατουάρθρου 209 Α τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς Ε Κ (νυν, κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρου280 ΕΚ), κ α ισ υ ν ε π ώ ς η κ α τ α π ο λ έ μ η σ η τ η ς α π ά τ η ς , δ ε ν α π ο τ ε λ ε ία υ τ ο τ ε λ ή σ τ ό χ ο , αλλ' α π ο ρ ρ έ ε ι α π ό τ η ν υ λ ο π ο ί η σ η τ η ς τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ς ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς .
The Court considered that, in order for an obligation to abolish controls ofpersons at the internal frontiers of the Community to exist, there had to beharmonisation of the laws of the Member States governing the crossing of theexternal borders of the Community, immigration, the grant of visas, asylum andthe exchange of information on those questions (udgment of 2l September 1999in Case C-378197 Wijsenbeek, not yet reported in the ECR).
Π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ω ν ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ώ ν σ υ μ φ ε ρ ό ν τ ω ν τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς δ ε ν α π ο ρ ρ έ ε ι α π ό τ η ν υ λ ο π ο ί η σ η τ η ς τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ς ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς , αλλ' α π ο τ ε λ ε ία υ τ ο τ ε λ ή σ τ ό χ ο ο ο π ο ί ο ς , σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ ο υ σ υ σ τ ή μ α τ ο ς τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς ,
With regard to tax and social security, whether in relation tocontributions or benefits, the Court sought to remove unjustified obstacles tofreedom of movement for persons (Terhoeve with regard to social securitycontributions), while acceptingthat obstacles resulting directly from the absenceof harmonisation of national laws cannot be avoided (Gscltwind with regard to income tax and Nijhuis relating to a social securitybenefit). benefit).
ε ν τ ά χ θ η κ ε σ τ ο ν τ ί τ λ ο II (δ η μ ο σ ι ο ν ο μ ικ έ ς δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι ς ) τ ο υ π έ μ π τ ο υ μ έ ρ ο υ ς π ο υ α φ ο ρ ά τ α ό ρ γ α ν α τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς κ α ι ό χ ισ τ ο τ ρ ί τ ο μ έ ρ ο ς π ο υ α φ ο ρ ά τ ι ς π ο λ ι τ ικ έ ς τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς , ό π ο υ ε μ π ί π τ ο υ ν η τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή έ ν ω σ η κ α ι η γ ε ω ρ γ ία .
Under the detailed Netherlands rules at issue in Terhoeve governing thecalculation of social security contributions, a worker who had transferred hisresidence in the course of a year from one Member State to another in order totake up employment there was liable to be subject to greater contributions thanthose which would have been payable, in similar circumstances, by a worker whohad continued to reside throughout the year in the Member State in question,without the first worker also being entitled to additional social benefits.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο ν ε π ί δ ικ ο κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ό , α υ τ ό ς σ υ γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ ε ν ο π ο ι ε ί τ ο ν σ τ ό χ ο τ η ς ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ή ς π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία ς τ η ς Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α ς , θεσπίζοντας, σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς τ ε λ ω ν ε ι α κ ή ς ε ν ώ σ ε ω ς κ α ι τ η ς κ ο ι ν ή ς γ ε ω ρ γ ικ ή ς π ο λ ι τ ικ ή ς , ε ι δ ικ ο ύ ς κ α ν ό ν ε ς ε π ι π λ έ ο ν τ η ς γ ε ν ικ ώ ς ε φ α ρ μ ο σ τ έ α ς κ α ν ο ν ισ τ ικ ή ς ρ υ θ μ ί σ ε ω ς .
The Court held that to be an obstacle to freedom of movement which could not bejustified either by the fact that it stemmedfrom legislation whose objective wasto simplify and coordinate the levying of income tax and social securitycontributions, or by difficulties of a technical nature preventing other methods ofcollection, or else by the fact that, in certain circumstances, other advantagesrelating to income tax could offset, or indeed outweigh, the disadvantage as tosocial contributions.
Δ ε δ ο μ έ ν ο υ ό τ ι τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 209 Α τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , ό π ω ς ί σ χ υ ε κ α τ ά τ η θ έ σ π ισ η τ ο υ π ρ ο σ β α λ λ ό μ ε ν ο υ κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ , κ α θ ό ρ ι ζ ε τ ο ν ε π ι δ ι ω κ ό μ ε ν ο σ κ ο π ό , χ ω ρ ί ς ω σ τ ό σ ο ν α α π ο ν έ μ ε ισ τ η ν Κ ο ι ν ό τ η τ α τ η ν α ρ μ ο δ ι ό τ η τ α ν α δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ή σ ε ι έ ν α σ ύ σ τ η μ α ό π ω ς τ ο ε π ί μ α χ ο , ηχρήσητουάρθρου 235 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς ή τ α ν δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ η μ έ ν η (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 18η ς Ν ο ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, Ο-209/97, Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
With regard to the consequences which the national courthad to draw where national legislation was incompatible with Community law inthat way, the Court stated that the worker concerned was entitled to have hissocial security contributions set at the same level as that of the contributionswhich would be payable by a worker who continued to reside in the same Member State, since those arrangements,for want of the correct application of Community law, remained the only valid point of reference (Case C-18/95Terhoeve v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen
Ό π ω ς σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , π ο υ α ν α φ έ ρ θ η κ ε π ρ ο η γ ο υ μ έ ν ω ς , η υ π ό θ ε σ η Κ ο Π α χ (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 1η ς Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ 1999, 0-319/97, η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ) έ θ ε τ ε ζ η τ ή μ α τ α ε ρ μ η ν ε ία ς τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 100 Α τ ή ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς κ α ι , ειδικότερα, τηςπαραγράφου4 τουάρθρουαυτού, τ ο ο π ο ί ο π ρ ο έ β λ ε π ε κ α τ ά π α ρ έ κ κ λ ισ η δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία γ ι α τ α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η τ α ο π ο ία , μ ε τ ά τ η θ έ σ π ισ η ε ν ό ς μ έ τ ρ ο υ ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ί σ ε ω ς α π ό τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο , θ ε ω ρ ο ύ σ α ν α π α ρ α ί τ η τ η τ η ν ε φ α ρ μ ο γ ή ε θ ν ικ ώ ν δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ω ν δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ο υ μ έ ν ω ν α π ό ε π ι τ α κ τ ικ έ ς α ν ά γ κ ε ς π ρ ο β λ ε π ό μ ε ν ε ς σ τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 36 τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς (ν υ ν , κατόπιντροποποιήσεως, άρθρο30 ΕΚ) ή σ χ ε τ ικ ώ ν μ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ ο υ ε ρ γ α σ ι α κ ο ύ χ ώ ρ ο υ ή τ ο υ π ε ρ ι β ά λ λ ο ν τ ο ς .
It will be rememberedthat, in Case C-279193 Schumncker U9951ECR l-225 and Case C-80194 Wielocla [1995] ECR I-2493, the Court had interpreted Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) as meaning that a Community national who gained his main income and almost all of his familyincome in a Member State other than his State of residence was discriminatedagainst if his personal and family circumstances were not taken into account forincome tax purposes in the first State.
Α π ό τ η ν α π ό φ α σ η π ρ ο κ ύ π τ ε ι , καταρχάς, ό τ ι μ ι α ο δ η γ ία μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α έ χ ε ι ά μ ε σ ο α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α μ ο λ ο ν ό τ ι έ χ ε ι γ ι α ν ο μ ικ ή β ά σ η τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο 100 Α τ η ς Σ υ ν θ ή κ η ς , κ α ι τ ο ύ τ ο π α ρ ά τ η ν ύ π α ρ ξ η τ η ς π ρ ο μ ν η σ θ ε ί σ α ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς κ α τ ά π α ρ έ κ κ λ ισ η .
Following those judgments, the Germanlegislature provided that, where a Community national had neither permanentresidence nor usual abode in Germany, he and his spousecould neverthelessunder certain conditions be treated as being subject to tax in Germany on their total income and, on that basis, be entitled to the tax concessions accorded toresidents to take account of their personal and family circumstances.
Πράγματι, κ α τ ά τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , τ ο γ ε ν ικ ό χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ τ ικ ό μ ι α ς ο δ η γ ία ς έ χ ο υ σ α ς ά μ ε σ ο α π ο τ έ λ ε σ μ α δ ε ν ε ξ α ρ τ ά τ α ικ α θ ό λ ο υ α π ό τ η ν ο μ ικ ή τ η ς
In Gschwind , the Court held that the conditions laid down for that purpose by the German legislature are compatible with the Treaty, namely that at least 90% of
βάση, α λ λ ά μ ό ν ο ν α π ό τ α ε ν δ ο γ ε ν ή χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ τ ικ ά τ η ς , ή τ ο ι τ ο κ α τ ά π ό σ ο ν ο ι δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι ς τ η ς ε ί ν α ι α π α λ λ α γ μ έ ν ε ς α ι ρ έ σ ε ω ν κ α ι ε π α ρ κ ώ ς α κ ρ ι β ε ί ς .
the total income of the non-residentmarried couple must be subject to tax in Germany or, if that percentage is not reached,that their income from foreignsources not subject to German tax must not be above a certainceiling.
Συναφώς, τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η δ ι ά τ α ξ η α υ τ ή , ό π ω ς ί σ χ υ ε π ρ ι ν α π ό τ η Σ υ ν θ ή κ η τ ο υ Ά μ σ τ ε ρ ν τ α μ , δ ε ν ό ρ ι ζ ε κ α μ ία π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία σ τ η ν Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή γ ι α ν α α π ο φ α ί ν ε τ α ι ε π ί τ ω ν ε θ ν ικ ώ ν δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ω ν π ο υ τ η ς έ χ ο υ ν κ ο ι ν ο π ο ι η θ ε ί .
The Courtconsidered that, where those conditions are not satisfied,the State of residenceis in a position to take into account the taxpayers' personal and familycircumstances, since the tax base is sufficient there to enable that to be donefiudgment of 14 September 1999 in Case C-39I197 Gschwind v Finanzamt
Ο τ η ν ο δ η γ ία ο δ η γ ία
Aachen-AuJJenstadt, not yet reported in the ECR).
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά 83/189/Ε Ο Κ ο Ι ι π ι , ηοποίατροποποιήθηκε α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ ε μ ε τ η ν
If they were not applied by analogy, Mr Nijhuis would be in a less favourable position than if he had not exercised hisright as a worker to move freely but had worked only in the Netherlands.
Μ κ α θ ι έ ρ ω σ η π ρ ο τ ύ π ω ν μ ι α ς κ α ι αρτίου 1983, γ ι α τ η ν τ ο μ έ α τ ω ν τ ε χ ν ικ ώ ν
council Regulationof14 June 1971(oJ, English special Edition lg71(ID, p.416).
Ο δ η γ ία τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ τ η ς 28η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς π λ η ρ ο φ ό ρ η σ η ς σ τ ο ν π ρ ο δ ι α γ ρ α φ ώ ν (Ε Ε ί 109, σ. 8).
council Regulation of 21 March l97z (oI, English special Edition rgTz (r), p. 159).
Σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς δ ι α φ ο ρ ά ς τ η ς κ ύ ρ ι α ς δ ί κ η ς , τ ο ε θ ν ικ ό δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο ε ρ ώ τ η σ ε , μεταξύάλλων, α ν π ρ έ π ε ι ν α κ ο ι ν ο π ο ι ε ί τ α ι ω ς τ ε χ ν ικ ό ς κ α ν ό ν α ς μ ι α ε θ ν ικ ή ρ ύ θ μ ισ η η ο π ο ία ε π ι β ά λ λ ε ι , γιατηνεπισήμανση, τ ι ς ο δ η γ ί ε ς χ ρ ή σ ε ω ς κ α ι τ ο π ισ τ ο π ο ι η τ ικ ό ε γ γ υ ή σ ε ω ς , τ η χ ρ ή σ η τ η ς γ λ ώ σ σ α ς ή τ ω ν γ λ ω σ σ ώ ν τ η ς π ε ρ ι φ έ ρ ε ι α ς ε ν τ ό ς τ η ς ο π ο ία ς δ ι α τ ί θ ε ν τ α ισ τ ο ε μ π ό ρ ι ο τ α π ρ ο ϊό ν τ α .
12.I. Mrs Calfa, an Italian national who had been charged with possession forpersonal use, and with use, of prohibited drugs while staying as a tourist in Crete,appealed on a point of law against the decision of the criminal court ordering herto be expelled for life from Greece.
Κ α τ ά τ ο Δ ικ α σ τ ή ρ ι ο , η τ ε λ ε υ τ α ία α υ τ ή υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η δ ε ν α π ο τ ε λ ε ί τ ε χ ν ικ ό κ α ν ό ν α , α λ λ ά π α ρ α κ ο λ ο υ θ η μ α τ ικ ο ύ χ α ρ α κ τ ή ρ α κ α ν ό ν α ο ο π ο ί ο ς ε ί ν α ι α π α ρ α ί τ η τ ο ς γ ι α ν α μ π ο ρ ο ύ ν ο ι ε ν δ ι α φ ε ρ ό μ ε ν ο ι ν α α ν τ ι λ α μ β ά ν ο ν τ α ι α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ά τ ι ς σ χ ε τ ικ έ ς π λ η ρ ο φ ο ρ ί ε ς .
In its judgment, the Court concluded that there was clearlyan obstacle to that freedom, and that the obstacle could not be justified by thepublic policy exception relied on by Greece.
Ηίδιααπόφασηπεριέχει, εξάλλου, ο ρ ισ μ έ ν ε ς δ ι ε υ κ ρ ι ν ί σ ε ι ς σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ α ό ρ ι α τ η ς δ υ ν α τ ό τ η τ α ς π ο υ δ ι α θ έ τ ο υ ν τ α κ ρ ά τ η μ έ λ η , ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ι π λ ή ρ ο υ ς ε ν α ρ μ ο ν ί σ ε ω ς τ ω ν γ λ ω σ σ ικ ώ ν κ α ν ό ν ω ν π ο υ ισ χ ύ ο υ ν σ χ ε τ ικ ά μ ε τ ι ς ε ν δ ε ίξ ε ι ς τ ι ς ο π ο ι ε . ς φ έ ρ ο υ ν τ α ε ισ α γ ό μ ε ν α π ρ ο ϊό ν τ α , ν α ε π ι β ά λ λ ο υ ν τ η ν α ν α γ ρ α φ ή τ ω ν ε ν δ ε ίξ ε ω ν α υ τ ώ ν σ ε σ υ γ κ ε κ ρ ι μ έ ν ε ς γ λ ώ σ σ ε ς .
The national legislation provided forautomatic expulsion following a criminal conviction, without any account beingtaken of the personal conduct of the offender or of the danger which that personrepresented for the requirements of public policy, contrary to Directive