ECJ Approximation of laws – Machines – Directive 98/37/EC – Compatibility of national law requiring the importer to verify that machinery accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity is safe.
C-40/04, [2005] EUECJ C-40/04
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229979
ECJ Failure of a Member State – Directive 2001/16/EC – Trans-European networks – Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system – Failure
C-427/04, [2005] EUECJ C-427/04
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229969
VDT Supply for a consideration – whether foreign exchange transactions always constitute such supplies by both parties – whether a counterparty’s profit from foreign exchange transactions is consideration for its supply – Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 5(2) – Sixth Directive Articles 2 and 11. Interpretation of the operative part of a preliminary ruling by the ECJ.
[2005] UKVAT V19183
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229635
(Judgment) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions – Ceiling to the liability – Part payments by the employer – Social objective of the directive
C-19/01, [2004] EUECJ C-19/01
European
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194388
Andrew Baker J
[2019] EWHC 879 (Comm), [2019] WLR(D) 248
Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.637512
[2019] EWCA Civ 830
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.637325
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had in its MIB system, failed to implement the European Directive.
Eady J
[2007] EWHC 879 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.271247
Lewison J
[2006] EWHC 534 (Ch), [2006] ETMR 55, [2006] RPC 30
England and Wales
Cited – L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had been importing copies of their perfumes. The products were not counterfeits, but ‘smell-alikes’. The defendants’ packaging and naming was used to suggest which perfume it resembled.
Held: The . .
Appeal from – O2 Holdings Ltd and Another v Hutchison 3G Ltd CA 5-Dec-2006
The court faced an allegation based on allegedly false comparative advertising, and referred to the European Court the question: ‘Where a trader, in an advertisement for his own goods or services uses a registered trade mark owned by a competitor . .
Cited – D Jacobson and Sons Ltd v Globe Gb Ltd Globe Europe Sas Chd 25-Jan-2008
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendants of its ‘Gola’ trade mark designs. The defendant said the registration was invalid because the stripes on the shoes were not distincive being seen as part of the design of the shoe rather than as an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.239283
ECJ Remission of import – Article 1, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 – Direct Billing, the importer – group of experts, within the meaning of -Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Rights of the defense – Obvious negligence, within the meaning of Article-239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Obligation to state reasons
T-135/03, [2005] EUECJ T-135/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230340
ECJ Community trade mark – Word sign CARGO PARTNER – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absence of distinctive character.
T-123/04, [2005] EUECJ T-123/04
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230338
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Place of taxable transactions – Supplies of goods effected on board cruise ships – Transport effected within the Community – Exclusion of tax where a stop is made in a third territory – Scope of the exclusion.
C-58/04
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230323
ECJ Customs Union – External Community transit operations – Meat destined for Morocco – Fraud – Application for remission of import duties – Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Fairness clause – Special situation – No deception or obvious negligence.
T-26/03, [2005] EUECJ T-26/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230341
The debtor claimed that he could not be served with an insolvency petition, being resident in Spain.
Held: The court was to look to where was the centre of his main interests to determine whether to open insolvency proceedings. On that basis, the appeal by the trustee was allowed and the bankruptcy order was restored. The court should have regard not only to what the debtor was doing, but also to what he would be perceived to be doing by an objective observer, and where such an observer would think his centre of interests lay.
By reference to article 2(h) and the commentary of the Virgos-Schmit report, that the carrying on of the activity of letting and managing a multi-let unit at a business park was an ‘establishment’ for the purposes of the Regulation.
Chadwick LJ, Longmore LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2005] EWCA Civ 974, Times 26-Sep-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3966
Council Regulation (EC) (No 1346/2000) 3.1 3.2
England and Wales
Cited – Skjevesland v Geveran Trading Company Limited ChD 2002
The registrar had decided that the debtor’s centre of main interests was situated in Switzerland.
Held: Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 did not displace the bankruptcy jurisdiction which (as the registrar found) the High Court would . .
Cited – In re Daisytek-ISA Ltd and others 2004
The court was asked where the centre of main interests of French and German subsidiaries of ISA International plc was situated for the purposes of article 3.1 of the Regulation.
Held: After referring to recital (13) to the Regulation, to the . .
Cited – In re Ci4net.com Inc and another ChD 20-May-2005
It was necessary to decide whether two companies, Ci4net.com Inc and DBP Holdings Limited, had centres of main interests in London.
Held: The court addressed the issue of timing: ‘There were differences between counsel as to the approach which . .
Cited – Olympic Airlines Sa Pension and Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines Sa CA 6-Jun-2013
The court considered the the jurisdiction under EU law to commence a secondary winding-up in England of a company whose main liquidation is taking place in Greece. That depended upon whether the company, registered in Greece had a sufficient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229030
ECJ Appeals – ECSC Treaty – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Alloy surcharge – Reduction of the fine – Cooperation in the administrative procedure – Attributability of the infringement – Rights of the defence
C-73/02, [2005] EUECJ C-73/02
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228845
ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier national figurative mark comprising the word element – Selenium Spezial A-‘C-‘E – Application for Community word mark SELENIUM-ACE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
T-312/03, [2005] EUECJ T-312/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228846
ECJ Officials – Director Position with the office of the Europe Aid Cooperation Commission – Notice of vacancy – Rejection of application – Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Statement of reasons – Manifest error of assessment
T-370/03, [2005] EUECJ T-370/03
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228229
ECJ Tax legislation – Wealth tax – Entitlement to an allowance – Separate treatment of residents and non-residents – Double taxation convention.
C-376/03, [2005] EUECJ C-376/03
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228226
ECJ Public procurement contracts – Directive 93/38/EEC – Water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors – Concepts of ‘operation’ and ‘provision’ of networks providing a service to the public in the field of transport by railway – Railway infrastructure works.
C-462/03, [2005] EUECJ C-462/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226969
Moses J
[2004] EWHC 3188 (Admin)
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v IDT Card Services Ireland Ltd CA 27-Jan-2006
Under the Marleasing principle, or principle of conforming interpretation, the domestic court of a member state must interpret its national law so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive in question. However this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226927
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Articles 34 EU and 35 EU – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of vulnerable persons – Hearing of minors as witnesses – Effects of a framework decision.
‘When applying the national law, the national court that is called on to interpret it must do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision in order to attain the result which it pursues and thus comply with article 34.2(b) EU.’
C-105/03, [2005] EUECJ C-105/03, Times 14-Jul-2005, [2006] QB 83
Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
Human Rights
Cited – Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
Cited – Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
Cited – Caldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
Cited – Louca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
Cited – Regina v Magro CACD 8-Jul-2010
Each defendant appealed against confiscation orders made when the sentence imposed was an absolute or conditional discharge. They said that Clarke made such orders unlawful.
Held: The decision in Clarke was a difficult limitation on the . .
Cited – Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
Cited – French v Public Prosecutor of The Central Department of Investigation and Prosecution In Lisbon Portugal PC 13-Jun-2013
(Gibraltar) Mr French appealed against refusal of his request to have set aside an order for his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant. He argued that (in general) the court had failed to deal with the matter within the mandatory time limits. . .
Cited – Goluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226968
[2004] EWHC 1721 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226895
Application for interim measures. Order only.
[2002] EUECJ T-275/02
European
Order – D v EIB ECJ 8-Mar-2005
EIB agents – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Extension of the probationary period – Termination of the contract – Conditions – Action for damages . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.178759
Appeal by DEFRA against an order declaring unlawful part of the control arrangements operated by the PSD with regard to the parallel import of plant protection products.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mantell, And, Lord Justice Latham
[2001] EWCA Civ 1656, [2002] Eu LR 24, [2002] 1 CMLR 8
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.166827
Three claimants sought compensation after the termination of their commercial agency with the defendant.
Overend J
[2005] EWHC 2790 (QB), [2006] EuLR 578
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.331088
ECJ Internal market in electricity – Preferential access to the system for cross-border transmission of electricity – Undertaking previously responsible for the operation of services of general economic interest – Long-term contracts existing prior to the liberalisation of the market – Directive 96/92/EC – Principle of non-discrimination – Principles of the protection of legitimate expectation and of legal certainty.
C-17/03, [2005] EUECJ C-17/03
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226016
ECJ Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 – National scheme under which dairies withhold deductions from the price payable to dairy farmers or pay price supplements to them according to the quality of the milk supplied – Incompatibility
C-283/03, [2005] EUECJ C-283/03, [2005] ECR I-4255
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225315
ECJ Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 – Article 2(2)(b) – Additional labelling requirement for foodstuffs – Compulsory particulars concerning the presence of material derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – Genetically modified soya beans and maize – Exemption from the requirement in the case of adventitious presence not exceeding a particular level – Foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use – Infants and young children – Whether derogation applies – Precautionary principle.
C-132/03, [2005] EUECJ C-132/03
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225308
ECJ Sixth Directive – Article 25 – Common flat-rate scheme for farmers – Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking – Concept of ‘agricultural service’.
C-43/04, [2005] EUECJ C-43/04
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225317
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Measures having equivalent effect – Prior authorisation procedure for personal imports of medicinal products – Medicinal products for human consumption – Homeopathic medicinal products.
C-212/03, [2005] EUECJ C-212/03
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225309
The applicant had sought and been granted temporary leave to stay pending the checking of his documentation. He overstayed, and when he applied to stay permanently he was treated as an illegal immigrant.
Held: He had been properly so treated. A temporary admission merely allowed him not to be detained whilst the document check was made. The breach of a condition of that release made his presence illegal.
Beatson J
[2005] EWHC 1068 (Admin), Times 27-Jul-2005
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225288
ECJ Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES – National word mark TELETECH INTERNATIONAL – Right to be heard – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) and Article 52, paragraph 1 a), the Regulation (EC) No 40/94
[2005] EUECJ T-288/03
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225276
VDT Applications – opposed motion to sist part of the proceedings in the appeal pending an ECJ Decision: Application for an order for disclosure of documents – necessity of documents, relevance to issue reasonableness of request. Applications refused.
[2005] UKVAT V19055
England and Wales
At VDT (1) – RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh v Customs and Excise VDT 16-Nov-2004
VDT Application: Interlocutory Hearing – Jurisdiction – whether appeal raised in Edinburgh should be transmitted to London in respect that there was another connected appeal there – whether Appellants with . .
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh SCS 13-Jan-2006
SCS The taxpayer, a German subsidiary of a UK bank, carried on a banking and leasing business in Germany. It did not have a place of establishment in the UK. It was registered in the UK for VAT as a . .
At VDT (2) – RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh v Revenue and Customs VDT 24-Jul-2007
VDT VAT – deduction of input tax – leasing of cars within UK by German subsidiary company – cars purchased within UK, remaining there and subject to VAT in UK – leasing deemed to be supply of services in Germany . .
At VDT (2) – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings ECJ 30-Sep-2010
ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive – Transactions carried out with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage – Provision of vehicle leasing services in the United Kingdom . .
At VDT (2) – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Right to deduction – Purchase of vehicles and use for leasing transactions – Differences between the tax regimes of two Member States – Prohibition of abusive practices
‘taxable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225168
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – the Appellant operates the Nectar programme under which customers who purchase goods (called primary goods) from certain retailers receive points which they may use to acquire goods (called secondary goods) from other suppliers – the Appellant pays the supplier for the secondary goods – whether, when a customer acquires secondary goods from a supplier using his points, the supply of the secondary goods is to the customer – no – or to the Appellant – yes -whether there should be a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling – no – appeal allowed – VATA 1994 S 2; Art 234 EC
The Tribunal allowed an appeal by LMUK from a ruling made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in connection with the treatment for the purposes of VAT of payments made by LMUK in the course of operating the Nectar Loyalty Scheme. The issue was whether LMUK was entitled to recover, as input tax, the VAT element of the amount which it paid to suppliers who, under the Scheme, had agreed to accept Nectar points, or vouchers, in consideration for the supply of goods or services to members of the public. The Commissioners’ ruling was that LMUK was not entitled to do so: ‘There is no supply of redemption services between the Redeemers (Suppliers) and LMUK as regards the rewards fee. The payments made by LMUK to Redeemers represent third party consideration for supplies made by the Redeemers to their customers (the final consumers). Any amounts charged as VAT to LMUK by Redeemers cannot be recovered by LMUK as input tax’.
Dr A N Brice
[2005] UKVAT V19056
Value Added Tax Act 1994 2, Art 24 EC
England and Wales
At VDT – Revenue and Customs v Loyalty Management UK Ltd ChD 22-Jun-2006
The taxpayer operated a substantial loyalty reward scheme (Nectar) for assorted companies. The Revenue appealed against an order allowing the company to reclaim input VAT. The court was asked now: ‘what is the proper characteristic, for VAT . .
At VDT – Loyalty Management UK Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 5-Oct-2007
The company (LMUK) managed a loyalty scheme for retailers. Their customers were awarded point sunder the schem on purchasing items, and then redeeemed those points against other purchases. LMUK sought to recover input tax on the invoices it paid to . .
At VDT – Loyalty Management UK (Taxation) ECJ 7-Oct-2010
ECJ (prelimiary ruling) Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable amount – Sales promotion scheme – Loyalty rewards scheme allowing customers to earn points from traders and to redeem them for loyalty rewards – Payments made . .
At VDT – Loyalty Management UK (Taxation) ECJ 7-Oct-2010
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable amount – Sales promotion scheme – Loyalty rewards scheme allowing customers to earn points from traders and to redeem them for loyalty rewards – Payments made by the operator of . .
At VDT – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 13-Mar-2013
The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service . .
At VDT – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 20-Jun-2013
Decisions about the application of the VAT system are highly dependent upon the factual situations involved. The case-law of the Court of Justice indicates that, when determining the relevant supply in which a taxable person engages, regard must be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225147
Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Westlife – Earlier national trade mark West – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs.
T-22/04, [2005] EUECJ T-22/04
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224810
ECJ Personnel of-EASA – Rejection of candidature for the post of Executive Director – Recruitment procedure – Statement of reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Principle of good administration’
Statement of reasons.
T-30/04, [2005] EUECJ T-30/04
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224812
Community trade mark – Proceedings in relation to invalidity – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Figurative mark comprising the representation of a sword in a pack of cards – Figurative mark comprising the representation of a knight of clubs in a pack of cards – Figurative mark comprising the representation of a king of swords in a pack of cards – Absolute grounds for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.
T-160/02, [2005] EUECJ T-160/02
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 51(1)(a)
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224832
ECJ Community trade mark – d-proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark containing the word element – monBeBe – Earlier word marks bebe – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1, b) and paragraph 5 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
MM Jaeger P
T-164/03, [2005] EUECJ T-164/03
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224393
ECJ Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Request relating to a very large number of documents – Total refusal of access – Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination – Exceptions
The claimant a consumer had requested production of documents held by the respondent. It wanted the documents to support a claim against a bank, where the Commission had itself carried out an investigation. Access was refused by the Commission saying that the burden of producing the documents was too great.
Held: If an institution wished to deny such a request, the burden of establishing good reasons lay on the institution, which should demonstrate that it had considered all conceivable options, and that each such option would impose an unreasonable burden. Here, the bundle would amount to some47,000, but the commission had not considered the particular documents, only issued a general ban, and had not discharged the onus of showing why access should be refused. The decision was set aside.
Europa Procedure – Intervention – Application for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by one of the parties – Application containing additional arguments altering the framework of the dispute – Inadmissibility of those arguments
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, fourth para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(3))
European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Obligation on the institution to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the documents – Scope – Exclusion of the obligation – Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)
European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Obligation on the institution to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the documents – Failure to perform the obligation – Breach of principle of proportionality – Examination proving particularly onerous and inappropriate – Derogation from the obligation to examine – Burden of proof on the institution – Obligation on the institution to consult with the applicant
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)
T-2/03, [2005] EUECJ T-2/03, Times 20-May-2005
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224464
ECJ Community trade mark – Word mark ATOMIC BLITZ – Opposition of the proprietor of national word marks ATOMIC – Evidence of renewal of registration of the earlier mark – Scope of the examination conducted by OHIM – Rejection of opposition – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
T-318/03, [2005] EUECJ T-318/03
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224470
ECFI Community trade mark – d-proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME SPORT – Earlier national figurative mark WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III – Likelihood of confusion – Refusal-registration – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
T-286/03, [2005] EUECJ T-286/03
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224275
ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CALPICO – Earlier national mark CALYPSO – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Right to be heard
T-273/02, [2005] EUECJ T-273/02
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224316
ECJ Community trade mark –opposition – Community word mark INTEA – Earlier national word marks INTESA – d-Refusal to register – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8 paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
T-353/02, [2005] EUECJ T-353/02
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224273
The applicant appealed a refusal to order judicial review of the grant of licences for the discharge of radio-active waste from Ministry of Defence installations. The respondent treated the de-commissioning of nuclear warheads and the maintenance of current warheads together, as required for the defence of the nation. It did not see its duty as to weigh up the rationality of a nuclear defence capacity. It was submitted that refusal was an unjustified restriction on the test of the need for the waste discharge.
Held: The conduct of the defence of the nation was a matter for the Crown. The 1993 Act did not require assessment of that policy. There was nothing to support the argument that the policy was repugnant to humanitarian principles of international law
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws, And, Mr Justice Morland
[2002] EWCA Civ 3, [2002] Eu LR 225
Radioactive Substances Act 1993 13(1), Council Directive 80/836/Euratom
England and Wales
Cited – Chandler (TN) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 12-Jul-1962
The defendants appealed from conviction for offences under the 1911 Act. They were supporters of an organisation seeking to prevent nuclear war, and entered an Air Force base attempting to obtain information they would later publish. They pursued a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167527
(Rec 1997,p I-5685) (Judgment)
C-304/96, [1997] EUECJ C-304/96
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.161945
When assessing the economic and social benefits of a new radiation-producing process, the Secretary of State was not obliged to include in the costs, the capital already invested in the plant. BNFL proposed to bring on-line a mixed oxide fuel (MOX) plant. The balances was to be weighed at the time of the decision, at which point costs already incurred were no longer applicable. There is a standard economic principle of ignoring sunk costs which would never be recovered.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Waller, And, Lord Justice Dyson
Times 25-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1847, [2002] 1 CMLR 21, [2001] NPC 181, [2002] Env LR 24, [2001] 50 EGCS 91
Council Directive 96/29/Euratom Art 6.1
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.166981
[1974] EUECJ C-53/72, C-53/72
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.132234
C-43/74, [1977] EUECJ C-43/74
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.132384
(Judgment) Appeal – State aid – Export credit insurance – Reinsurance cover granted by a public undertaking to its subsidiary – Capital contributions to cover losses of the subsidiary – Concept of State aid – Imputability to the State – Private Investor Criteria
C-472/15, [2017] EUECJ C-472/15
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.601053
T-205/17, [2018] EUECJ T-205/17
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.606507
European Union Law : Free Movement
[2016] UKUT 526 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.588762
ECJ Social security – Articles 3 and 22 of Regulation No 1408/71 – Article 22 of Regulation No 574/72 – Hospital treatment in a Member State other than the competent Member State – Need for vital urgent treatment – Transfer of the insured person to a hospital institution in a non-member country – Scope of forms E 111 and E 112
C-145/03, [2005] EUECJ C-145/03
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224103
The court was asked whether it was contrary to Community law – specifically, the provisions then contained in article 52 of the EC Treaty (now renumbered as article 43) – for the domestic tax law in the United Kingdom to differentiate, in the treatment of advance corporation tax on dividends paid by a subsidiary company to its parent, between cases where both subsidiary and parent were resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes and cases where the subsidiary was resident in the United Kingdom but the parent was resident in another member state.
Chadwick, Laws, Jonathan Parker LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 389, Times 26-Apr-2005, [2005] Eu LR 773, [2005] 3 WLR 521, [2005] NPC 52, [2006] QB 37, [2005] BTC 202, [2005] STC 687, [2005] 2 CMLR 30
England and Wales
Appeal from – Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellshaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and another ChD 16-Jun-2004
The claimants were due to have substantial sums repaid after it had been found that the system of making premature reclaims of advance corporation tax had been was discriminatory under European Law.
Held: The sums payable were to carry . .
Appeal from – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224101
Magistrates had committed the applicants to prison in their absence for non-payment of local taxes and fines.
Held: The proceedings infringed the claimants’ human rights in that they had been found guilty of wilful refusal or culpable neglect without having had an appropriate opportunity to respond. Legal aid had not been available for the proceedings at which they were committed to prison.
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to 26 applicants; No violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to 26 applicants; No violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to one applicant; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient (with regard to Art. 6); Non-pecuniary damage – financial award (with regard to Art. 5); Pecuniary damage – financial award (with regard to two applicants); Costs and expenses partial award.
Times 10-Mar-2005, 47676/99, 29798/96, [2005] ECHR 144, [2005] ECHR 147, [2006] RA 329
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Cited – Regina v Alfreton Justices, Ex Parte Gratton QBD 25-Nov-1993
The appellant community charge payer (under 21) appealed after being committed to prison for non payment of the tax. The magistrates had come to the conclusion that they could not consider attaching the applicant’s liability to pay the charge to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223799
(Social Policy) Failure of a Member State to fulfill its obligations – Directive 2000/43 / EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period
ECLI:EU:C:2005:115, [2005] EUECJ C-320/04
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222950
(Social Policy) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 2000/43 / EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period
C-327/04, [2005] EUECJ C-327/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:116
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222946
C-13/03, [2005] EUECJ C-13/03
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222749
T-169/02, [2005] EUECJ T-169/02
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222747
The Regulations provided that income support was not payable for a dependent child for any period of four weeks or more where the child was outside Great Britain. The claimant, a Portuguese national had come to Great Britain but had been incapable of work for incapacity. His child returned to Portugal to stay with his grandmother from time to time. He said that the regulatins discriminated indirectly against migrant workers.
Held: The Regulations were indirectly discriminatory Where it was otherwise clear that such a regulation affected a significant number of people in this way statistical evidence might not be necessary to support a claim. The test was through a comparison between the children of resident and migrant workers.
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Slynn Of Hadley
[2005] EWCA Civ 111, Times 14-Mar-2005
Income Support (General) regulations 1987 (1987 No 1967)
England and Wales
Applied – O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer ECJ 23-May-1996
A condition on the making of a funeral grant that the deceased be buried in that country was unlawful. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community precludes a rule of a Member State which makes grant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222713
ECJ (Hooligan) (Intellectual Property) – Community mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark HOOLIGAN – Earlier word marks OLLY GAN – Matters of fact or of law outside OHIM’s jurisdiction – Admissibility – Likelihood of confusio
T-57/03, [2005] EUECJ T-57/03, [2005] ECR II-287
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222625
ECJ Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Action for compensation – Regulation No 2362/98 – Agreement establishing the WTO and annexed agreements – Recommendations and rulings of the dispute settlement body of the WTO
T-19/01, [2005] EUECJ T-19/01, ECLI:EU:T:2005:31
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222622
Officials – Refusal of promotion – Failure to state reasons – Consideration of comparative merits – Action for annulment
T-172/03, [2005] EUECJ T-172/03
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222623
EJ Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 2, 5(6) and 6(2) – Provision of meals in a company canteen for a price lower than the cost price – Taxable amount
C-412/03, [2005] EUECJ C-412/03, [2005] STC 1311, [2005] CEC 335, [2005] 1 CMLR 38, [2005] STI 138, [2007] BVC 391, [2007] BTC 5372, [2005] ECR I-743
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221550
ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Old-‘age benefits – Holiday pay- given to persons entitled to a retirement pension – Unemployed frontier worker receiving benefit of a pension scheme
N Colneric (Rapporteur) AP
C-101/04, [2005] EUECJ C-101/04
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221553
ECJ (Approximation of Laws) – Directive 89/105/EEC – Medicinal products for human use – Application for entry on a positive list – Nature of the time-limit for responding – Mandatory nature – Consequences of exceeding the time-limit
C-245/03, [2005] EUECJ C-245/03, [2005] ECR I-637
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221551
ECJ Community transit – Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities – Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred
C-300/03, [2005] EUECJ C-300/03
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221549
Community trade mark – EUROPREMIUM – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive nature – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
T-334/03, [2005] EUECJ T-334/03
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 7(1)(c)
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221475
Cereals – Import regime – Community tariff quota for barley for malting – Discrimination
C-126/04, [2005] EUECJ C-126/04
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221477
It was necessary to decide whether two companies, Ci4net.com Inc and DBP Holdings Limited, had centres of main interests in London.
Held: The court addressed the issue of timing: ‘There were differences between counsel as to the approach which the court should adopt to a company which . . . had its CoMI in England whilst it was active in the market place, but which has ceased to trade. Mr Clarke [counsel for the companies] would agree with Ms Stonefrost [counsel for the creditor bank] to the extent that the EC Regulation should be applied in a manner which will discountenance attempts by a company to ‘forum shop’. It is, both would accept, important that trade creditors should know in what jurisdiction they will be able to pursue the assets of the company if it leaves their debts unpaid. It would, Ms Stonefrost said in her oral submissions, ‘be contrary to the policy of the EC Regulation for a company to be able to remove itself from the jurisdiction by ceasing to trade’. This, Mr Clarke said, goes too far. The question of timing is, he said, of importance. Mr Clarke accepts that a more or less cynical removal of the seat of a company’s operations from the EU to a non-EU territory a few weeks or months before the business goes to the wall would not be regarded as working an alteration in the CoMI of the company. There is, however a great difference between that and a restructuring of the business which is carried out for sound commercial reasons long before the question of insolvency proceedings becomes live. In the latter situation the policy against forum shopping does not raise a bar to a change in the company’s CoMI being effected upon the company’s ceasing to trade in the EU.’ and ‘The differences between counsel is, I think, one of emphasis rather than of principle. . . . To the limited extent to which I think there is a material controversy here, I prefer Mr Clarke’s approach. In my judgment Ms Stonefrost comes too close to saying (although she did not in fact say it) that, once a company has a CoMI within the EU, it is stuck with that CoMI on ceasing to trade, notwithstanding the time at which, or the circumstances in which, that cessation occurs.’
‘The notion of the location of a business shifting as its director moves from one country to another does not sit easily with the policy which underlies the EC Regulation. A business must under the EC Regulation have a CoMI and, in my judgment, a CoMI must have some element of permanence.’ and ‘The CoMI of [Ci4net.com Inc] was until at least April 2001 in London, and what has occurred since is not sufficient (even if supported by the presumption in favour of the place of the registered office) to justify a finding that the CoMI is now elsewhere.’
[2004] EWHC 1941 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Shierson v Vlieland-Boddy CA 27-Jul-2005
The debtor claimed that he could not be served with an insolvency petition, being resident in Spain.
Held: The court was to look to where was the centre of his main interests to determine whether to open insolvency proceedings. On that basis, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.249854
Fulfill obligations – Directive 2000/76 / EC – Incineration of waste – Failure to transpose
ECLI:EU:C:2004:772, [2004] EUECJ C-48/04
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220004
Fisheries Policy – Failure to fulfill obligations – Fishing – Conservation and management of resources – fishing activities – Control measure
[2004] EUECJ C-42/03
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220005
Directive 90/642/EEC – Maximum levels for pesticide residues – Vine leaves
[2004] EUECJ C-398/03
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220006
The parties entered into exclusive cross marketing agreements. The defendant resisted enforcement of the contract saying it was void under European law, being contrary to Article 81. The parties were alleged to have agreed to make cross purchases. It was argued that the issue was res judicata.
Held: The defendant could raise the issue before the award of damages was made. The article was intended to protect the public. The court had to see first whether there was an action estoppel, which could only be negated by fraud or collusion. If that did not apply, the court could look to see if there was a Henderson estoppel.
Lord Justice May Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Longmore
[2004] EWCA Civ 1490, Times 22-Nov-2004
England and Wales
Appeal from – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Limited ComC 6-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Thoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
See Also – Bim Kemi v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 3-Apr-2001
The question was the degree of connection which must be shown between (1) a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a contract and (2) a cross-claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a different contract between the same parties, in order . .
See Also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd ComC 30-Jan-2002
. .
See Also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 13-Feb-2003
. .
See Also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd SCCO 24-Jun-2003
. .
See Also – Bim Kemi Ab v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd CA 24-Jun-2003
It had been argued by the claimant in written submissions (although not maintained orally) that an order for payment of pre-judgment interest on costs should never be made. As to an award of interest on costs:- ‘In any event in principle there seems . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219337
ECFI Community trade mark – Figurative mark representing the form of a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) – Subject-matter of the application – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Distinctive character in consequence of use – Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Right to be heard – Article 73(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion – Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
T-402/02, [2004] EUECJ T-402/02
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219378
(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ARCOL – Earlier Community word mark CAPOL – Scope of the assessment conducted by the Board of Appeal – Assessment of evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal
T-164/02, [2004] EUECJ T-164/02
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219372
The applicant was a 15 year old paper boy. He sought holiday pay under the regulations. The employer resisted, saying he was not a worker under the regulation, being still in compulsory full time education.
Held: No formal system of holidays operated. Children were not explicitly excluded from the Working Time Directive, but were rather dealt with under the Young Persons’ Directive. The Working Time Regulations defined two kinds of workers by age, implicitly excluding children in compulsory full time education. The arrangements for such were rather provided by regulations derived from the Young Person’s Directive, and which did not include a right to holiday pay.
Burke QC, Dawson and MacArthur
Times 24-Jan-2003, [2003] UKEAT 0851 – 01 – 1701, [2003] All ER (D) 98, [2003] ICR 667, [2003] IRLR 211
Working Times Regulations 1998 (1998 No 1833) 2, Working Time Directive (93/104/EEC), Young Persons Directive (94/33/EC)5 11, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 18 30(1), Children (Protection at Work) Regulations 1998 (1998 No 276)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.178773
The market in milk quotas
Kennedy, May LJJ, Jackson J
[2002] EWCA Civ 864
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217209
ECJ Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Invalidity of Community trade mark – Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 – Term -BSS
C-192/03, [2004] EUECJ C-192/03
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216600
Appeal from strike out of claims of breached of EU Competition law.
[2019] EWCA Civ 674
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.635956
[2001] EWHC Admin 1174
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.241514
The applicant, a Kuwaiti citizen of previous good character had been ordered to be deported after serving a sentence for drugs and dishonesty. He sought review of the IAT’s refusal of his appeal, arguing that Rule 162 of the 1983 rules required the Home Secretary to apply the same rules to both EC and non-EC nationals, and that contrary to EC law, a deportation could not be based solely on a conviction.
Held: The appeal failed. The rules expressly allowed for different treatment of non-EC citizens. The decision could be made in the light of the severity of the offence itself. The cases involving deportation by criminal courts had no direct application. Taylor LJ said: ‘Those cases [sc. Nazari and later authorities of the CACD] were all concerned with the correct approach by a trial judge to recommending deportation. They did not purport to define or limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s discretion under s.(3)(5)(b) [now s.3(5)(a)] of the Act… In Hukam Saib, Stocker LJ said at page 378: ‘ . . it is to be noted that the case [of Nazari] was an appeal to the Criminal Division of this court, and related to guidelines which the court was laying down (so far as it was possible to lay down general guidelines) for the guidance of courts in making recommendations for deportation. It did not, and did not purport to lay down any guidelines for the exercise of his discretion by the Secretary of State’.’
Taylor LJ
[1992] IAR 223, [1992] Imm AR 223
Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b) 19, Immigration Rules 1983 34 69 162
England and Wales
Cited – B v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-May-2000
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.191191
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of – road transport – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions
C-400/01, [2004] EUECJ C-400/01
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215894
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of – road transport – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions
C-397/01, [2004] EUECJ C-397/01
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215891
ECJ Freedom to provide services – Temporary deployment of workers for the purposes of performing a contract – Restrictions.
C-376/96, [1999] EUECJ C-376/96, [1999] ECR I-8453
Cited – International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another CA 3-Nov-2005
An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215850
R-4/88, [1989] EUECJ R-4/88
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215720
ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Applicable legislation – Pensioners – Applicability of the legislation of the State of residence notwithstanding payment of the pension by another Member State – Whether permissible – Charging by the State of residence of contributions to cover benefits payable by the Member State paying the pension – Not permissible – Previous pursuit of a professional or trade activity in the State of residence – No effect
R-140/88, [1991] EUECJ R-140/88
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215799
1 Free movement of goods – Industrial and commercial property – Copyright – Protection – Limits – Sound-recordings marketed in a Member State with the consent of the author – Importation into another Member State – Objection or restriction relating to the charging of a copyright royalty – Not permissibility
(EEC Treaty, Art 30)
2 Free movement of goods – Industrial and commercial property – Copyright – Freedom to provide services – National legislation permitting the charging, on the public performance of musical works by means of sound-recordings imported from another Member State, of copyright royalties – Permissible
(EEC Treaty, Arts 30 and 59)
3 Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Restriction of competition – Reciprocal representation agreements between national copyright management societies – Lawfulness – Exclusive rights clause – Not lawful (EEC Treaty, Art 85(1))
4 Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Concerted practice – Parallel behaviour – Resumption of concerted action – Limits – Refusal by national copyright management societies to grant a user established in another Member State direct access to their repertoire – Assessment by the national court
( EEC Treaty, Arts 85(1 ) and 177 )
5 . Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Restriction of competition – Refusal by a national copyright management society to allow a user access to only one part of the protected repertoire – Lawfulness – Conditions
(EEC Treaty, Art 85)
6 . Competition – Dominant position – Abuse – Unfair trading conditions – Royalties applied by one copyright management society appreciably higher than those charged in other Member States – Possible justification
(EEC Treaty, Art 86)
R-395/87, [1989] EUECJ R-395/87
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215721