Category: European

Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce ; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce.: ECJ 25 Oct 1978

ECJ 1. Even though the statement of the reasons on which a regulation is based may be laconic, it must nevertheless be examined and assessed in the context of the whole of the rules of which the regulation in question forms an integral part.
2. The prohibition of discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of article 40(3) of the treaty is merely a specific enunciation of the general principle of equality which is one of the fundamental principles of community law. That principle requires that similar situations shall not be treated differently unless the differentiation is objectively justified.
3. Coucil regulation no 1111/77 offends against the general principle of equality and is invalid to the extent to which articles 8 and 9 thereof impose a production levy on isoglucose of 5 units of account per 100 kg of dry matter for the period corresponding to the sugar marketing year 1977/78.

Citations:

R-145/77, [1978] EUECJ R-145/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214763

Pigs Marketing Board v Raymond Redmond: ECJ 29 Nov 1978

ECJ 1. As regards the division of jurisdiction between national courts and the court of justice under article 177 of the treaty the national court, which is alone in having a direct knowledge of the facts of the case and of the arguments put forward by the parties, and which has to give judgment in the case, is in the best position to appreciate, with full knowledge of the matter before it, the relevance of the questions of law raised by the dispute before it and the necessity for a preliminary ruling so as to enable it to give judgement.
In the event of questions ‘ having been improperly formulated or going beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the court of justice by article 177, the court is free to extract from all the factors provided by the national court and in particular from the statement of grounds contained in the reference, the elements of community law which, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute, require an interpretation or, as the case may be, an assessment of validity.
2. It follows from article 38(2) of the EEC Treaty that the provisions of the Treaty relating to the common agricultural policy have precedence, in case of any discrepancy, over the rules relating to the establishment of the common market. The specific provisions creating a common organization of the market have precedence in the sector in question over the system laid down in article 37 in favour of state monopolies of a commercial character.
3. Once the community has, pursuant to article 40 of the treaty, legislated for the establishment of the common organization of the market in a given sector, member states are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it.
4. The common organizations of the agricultural markets are based on the concept of the open market to which every producer has free access and the functioning of which is regulated solely by the instruments provided for by those organizations.
Any provisions or national practices which might alter the pattern of imports or exports or influence the formation of market prices by preventing producers from buying and selling freely within the state in which they are established, or in any other member state, in conditions laid down by community rules and from taking advantage directly of intervention measures or any other measures for regulating the market laid down by the common organization are incompatible with the principles of such organization.
5. The provisions of articles 30 and 34 of the eec treaty and of regulation no 2759/75 are directly applicable and confer on individuals rights which the courts of member states must protect. As regards the new member states, the effects of those provisions applied, according to the terms of the act of accession and in particular of articles 2, 42 and 60(1) thereof, as from 1 February 1973.

Citations:

R-83/78, [1978] EUECJ R-83/78, [1978] NI 73

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214774

Gert Laumann And Anja Laumann v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz: ECJ 16 Mar 1978

ECJ The application of regulation no 1408/71 is not limited to workers or their survivors who have been employed in several member states or who are, or have been, employed in one state whilst residing in another. The regulation also applies even when the residence in another member state was not that of the worker himself but of a survivor of his.
In the system established by regulation no 1408/71 family allowances are generated by an actual occupation ( even if the worker is no longer engaged in such occupation ) and the direct and sole recipient is the worker himself.
The direct and sole recipient of the orphans ‘ pension is the orphan himself and the pension, like other survivors ‘ benefits, constitutes the projection in time of a prior occupation, pursuit of which ceased on the death of the worker.
The right to the benefits referred to in article 79(3) of regulation no 1408/71 is to be suspended, pursuant to the provisions of that paragraph, in order to prevent duplication of benefits only in so far as that right overlaps rights to benefits of the same kind acquired by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity.

Citations:

R-115/77, [1978] EUECJ R-115/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214729

Fritz Fuss Kg, Elektrotechnische Fabrik v Oberfinanzdirektion De Munich: ECJ 15 Dec 1977

ECJ Note 2 in conjunction with note 5 to section xvi of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as meaning that individual electrical appliances which are suitable for use solely or principally with an electric sound or visual signalling apparatus within the meaning of tariff heading 85.17 are ‘parts’ within the meaning of that note and are to be classified accordingly under tariff heading 85.17 even when imported without the cables linking the various parts and without the acoustic or visual alarm signalling device.

Citations:

R-60/77, [1977] EUECJ R-60/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214592

Thieffry v Conseil De L’Ordre Des Avocats A La Cour De Paris: ECJ 28 Apr 1977

ECJ 1. Freedom of establishment, subject to observance of professional rules justified by the general good, is one of the objectives of the treaty. In so far as community law makes no special provision, these objectives may be attained by measures enacted, pursuant to article 5 of the treaty, by the member states. If freedom of establishment can be ensured in a member state either under the provisions of the laws and regulations in force, or by virtue of the practices of the public service or of professional bodies, a person subject to community law cannot be denied the practical benefit of that freedom solely by virtue of the fact that, for a particular profession, the directives provided for by article 57 of the treaty have not yet been adopted. Since the practical enjoyment of freedom of establishment can thus in certain circumstances depend upon national practice or legislation, it is incumbent upon the competent public authorities – including legally recognized professional bodies – to ensure that such practices or legislation are applied in accordance with the objective defined by the provisions of the treaty relating to freedom of establishment.
2. With regard to the distinction between the academic effect and the civil effect of the recognition of equivalence of foreign diplomas, it is for the competent national authorities, taking account of the requirements of community law in relation to freedom of establishment, to make such assessments of the facts as will enable them to judge whether a recognition granted by a university authority can, in addition to its academic effect, constitute valid evidence of a professional qualification. The fact that a national legislation provides for recognition of equivalence only for university purposes does not of itself justify the refusal to recognize such equivalence as evidence of a professional qualification. This is particularly so when a diploma recognized for university purposes is supplemented by a professional qualifying certificate obtained according to the legislation of the country of establishment.
3. When a national of one member state desirous of exercising a professional activity such as the profession of advocate in another member state has obtained a diploma in his country of origin which has been recognized as an equivalent qualification by the competent authority under the legislation of the country of establishment and which has thus enabled him to sit and pass the special qualifying examination for the profession in question, the act of demanding the national diploma prescribed by the legislation of the country of establishment constitutes, even in the absence of the directives provided for in article 57, a restriction incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed by article 52 of the treaty.

Citations:

R-71/76, [1977] EUECJ R-71/76

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214543

Opinion Given Pursuant To Article 228(1) Of The EEC Treaty.: ECJ 26 Apr 1977

ECJ 1. Whenever community law has created for the institutions of the community powers within its internal system for the purpose of attaining a specific objective, the community has authority to enter into the international commitments necessary for the attainment of that objective even in the absence of an express provision in that connexion. This is particularly so in all cases in which internal power has already been used in order to adopt measures which come within the attainment of common policies. It is, however, not limited to that eventuality. Although the internal community measures are only adopted when the international agreement is concluded and made enforceable, the power to bind the community vis-a-vis third countries nevertheless flows by implication from the provisions of the treaty creating the internal power and in so far as the participation of the community in the international agreement is necessary for the attainment of one of the objectives of the community.
2. The participation of specific member states, together with the community, in the conclusion of an agreement concerning inland navigation is justified, as regards navigation on the rhine, by the existence of certain international conventions which preceded the eec treaty and are capable of forming an obstacle to the attainment of the scheme laid down by the agreement. The participation of these states must however be considered as being for the sole purpose of carrying out the undertaking to make the amendments necessitated by the implementation of the scheme concerned. Within these limits, that participation is justified by the second paragraph of article 234 of the treaty and cannot therefore be regarded as encroaching on the external power of the community.
3. The legal effect with regard to the member states of an agreement concluded by the community within its sphere of jurisdiction results, in accordance with article 228 (2) of the treaty, exclusively from the conclusion thereof by the community.
4. In order to attain a common policy, such as the common transport policy governed by articles 74 and 75 of the treaty, the community is not only entitled to enter into contractual relations with a third country but also has the power, while observing the provisions of the treaty, to cooperate in setting up an international organism, to give the latter appropriate powers of decision and to define, in a manner appropriate to the objectives pursued, the nature, elaboration, implementation and effects of the provisions to be adopted within such a framework.
5. The conclusion of an international agreement by the community cannot have the effect of surrendering the independence of action of the community in its external relations and changing its internal constitution by the alteration of essential elements of the community structure as regards the prerogatives of the institutions, the decision-making procedure within the latter and the position of the member states vis-a-vis one another. More particularly, the substitution, in the structure of the organs of the proposed fund, of several member states in place of the community and its institutions, the alteration of the relationship between member states as laid down by the treaty, in particular by the exclusion or non-participation of certain states in the activities provided for and the grant of special prerogatives to certain other states in the decision-making procedure are incompatible with the constitution of the community and more especially with the concepts which may be deduced from the recitals of the preamble to and from articles 3 and 4 of the treaty. An international agreement the effect of which is also to contribute to the weakening of the institutions of the community and to the surrender of the bases of a common policy and to the undoing of the work of the community is incompatible with the provisions of the treaty.
6. The question whether the grant to a public international organ separate from the community of the power to adopt decisions which are directly applicable in the member states comes with the powers of the institution does not need to be solved, since the provisions of the agreement concerned define and limit the powers in question so clearly and precisely that they are only executive powers.
7. An international agreement concluded by the community is, so far as the latter is concerned, an act of one of the institutions within the meaning of subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of article 177 of the treaty and therefore the court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of such an agreement. Since it is possible that a conflict may arise between the provisions concerning jurisdiction set out in the treaty and those laid down within the context of the proposed agreement according to the interpretation which might be attached to the provisions of the latter, the fund tribunal could only be established within the terms concerned on condition that judges belonging to the court of justice, who are under an obligation to give a completely impartial ruling on the contentious questions which may be brought before the court, are not called upon to serve on it.

Citations:

OP-1/76, [1977] EUECJ OP-1/76

Links:

Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214544

Pretore Di Cento v X: ECJ 5 May 1977

ECJ In the present state of community law only the member states and their authorities are empowered to take proceedings before national courts for the purpose of claiming payment of community revenue constituting own resources.

Citations:

R-110/76, [1977] EUECJ R-110/76

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214553

Tedeschi v Denkavit Commerciale SRL: ECJ 5 Oct 1977

ECJ 1. Article 177 is based on a distinct separation of functions between national courts and tribunals on the one hand and the court of justice on the other, and it does not give the court jurisdiction to take cognizance of the facts of the case, or to criticize the reasons for the reference. Therefore, when a national court or tribunal refers a provision of community law for interpretation, it is to be supposed that the said court or tribunal considers this interpretation necessary to enable it to give judgment in the action. Thus the court cannot require the national court or tribunal to state expressly that the provision which appears to that court or tribunal to call for an interpretation is applicable. The court may however provide the national court with the factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of the provision which is the subject-matter of the questions which have been referred to it.
2. Directive no 70/524 (additives) and directive no 74/63 (undesirable substances) although both relating to the composition of feeding-stuffs make, as regards their respective fields of application, a distinction between certain substances which are inten- tionally added to those feeding-stuffs so as to produce a favourable effect on their characteristics and, on the other, undesirable substances which are inevitably present in those feed- ing-stuffs either in the natural state or as residues from processing previously undergone by those feeding-stuffs or by the constituents of those feeding-stuffs. In these circumstances a substance which, because of a previous admixture, independent of the use for animal feeding, is necessarily present in one of the constituents of the feeding-stuff as a residue from the previous manufacture of another product may not be considered as an additive. The control of the presence of such substances comes within directive no 74/63 (undesirable substances) and not within directive no 70/524 (additives).
3. Article 36 is not designed to reserve certain matters to the exclusive jurisdiction of member states but permits national laws to derogate from the principle of the free movement of goods to the extent to which such derogation is and continues to be justified for the attainment of the objectives referred to in that article. Where, in application of article 100 of the treaty, community directives provide for the harmonization of the measures necessary to ensure the protection of animal and human health and establish community procedures to check that they are observed, recourse to article 36 is no longer justified and the appropriate checks must be carried out and the measures of protection adopted within the framework outlined by the harmonizing directive.
4. (A) even after the entry into force of harmonizing directive no 74/63, the member states have, within the context of article 5 of that directive and subject to the material and procedural require- ments laid down therein, the power provisionally to consider as undesirable certain substances which, although known and recognized when that directive was adopted, do not appear in the list annexed thereto, provided that the measures adopted apply on identical terms to both national products and to products imported from other member states.
(B) subject to the obligation not to discriminate between imported products and national products, article 5 of directive no 74/63 enables a member state to fix, on a provisional basis, the maximum permitted level of a substance con- tained in imported feeding-stuffs made from powdered milk even though no maximum level has ever been fixed in the past either in the exporting member state or in the importing member state.
(C) article 5 of directive no 74/63 enables a member state to prohibit the marketing of the products which have been found to infringe the temporary national provisions which it is empowered to adopt. For products coming from other member states such prohibition on marketing may take the form of a prohibition on importation.

Citations:

R-5/77, [1977] EUECJ R-5/77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd SC 27-Jun-2012
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214569

Rolf H Dittmeyer v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof: ECJ 15 Feb 1977

ECJ 1. The opinions of the committee on common customs tariff nomen- clature constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the common customs tariff by the customs authorities of the member states and as such they may be considered as a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff. Nevertheless such opinions do not have legally binding force so that, where appropriate, it is necessary to consider whether their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and whether they alter the meaning of such provisions.
2. Heading 23.06 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted to mean that it may include products consisting of parts of fruit, which however are almost entirely lacking in any of those features which determine the nature of fruit, in particular products consisting of oranges which initially entered the juice in the course of pressing the oranges and which have subsequently been strained off even if they contain scarcely any constituent parts of the flesh of the fruit or fruit juice and instead constitute principally cell membrane and albedo.

Citations:

C-69/76, R-70/76, [1977] EUECJ R-70/76

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214527

Hoffmann La Roche Ag v Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse Mbh: ECJ 24 May 1977

The court considered the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of rights in the context of trade marks. The exercise of trade mark rights had to take account of and might be restricted by the prohibitions contained in the Treaty of Rome intended to promote the free movement of goods. The court dealt specifically with the question whether, where a product marketed under a trade mark had been re-packaged by a third party, the third party could be prevented from applying the trade mark to the re-packaged product. As to that, the court concluded that the answer would depend upon the nature of the product and the circumstances and method of the re-packaging and that the application of the mark to the re-packaged product should be allowed where it could be shown that the re-packaging could not adversely affect the condition of the product (pp 1164 and 1165). The court said also that the re-packager should give the proprietor of the mark prior notice and state on the new packaging that the product had been re-packaged.

Citations:

C-107/76, R-107/76, [1977] EUECJ R-107/76, [1978] 2 ECR 1139

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
Cited – Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd SC 27-Jun-2012
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214548

Firma Ludwig Poppe v Oberfinanzdirektion De Cologne.: ECJ 15 Dec 1977

ECJ Tariff heading 48.15 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as meaning that it does not include goods consisting of two sheets of din a 4 format stuck together, one of which is carbon paper and the other flimsy paper, as such goods must be classified under tariff heading 48.18 as ‘other stationery of paper’.

Citations:

R-63/77, [1977] EUECJ R-63/77

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214591

Steinike and Weinlig v Federal Republic Of Germany: ECJ 22 Mar 1977

A customs charge may be regarded as levied solely or exclusively by reason of its crossing a frontier, although it is applied at a later stage, such as marketing or processing of the product: ‘the prohibition [of a CEE] is aimed at any tax demanded at the time of or by reason of importation and which, being imposed specifically on an imported product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, results in the same restrictive consequences on the free movement of goods as a customs duty by altering the cost price of that product. The essential characteristic of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty, which distinguishes it from internal taxation, is that the first is imposed exclusively on the imported product whilst the second is imposed on both imported and domestic products. A charge affecting both imported products and similar products could however constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty if such a duty, which is limited to particular products, had the sole purpose of financing activities for the specific advantage of the taxed domestic products, so as to make good, wholly or in part, the fiscal charge imposed upon them’.’

Citations:

C-78/76, R-78/76, [1977] EUECJ R-78/76, [1977] ECR 595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Carmine Capolongo v Azienda Agricole Maya. (Aids Granted By A Member State ) ECJ 19-Jun-1973
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214541

Auditeur Du Travail v Bernard Dufour, Sa Creyfs Interim And Sa Creyfs Industrial: ECJ 15 Dec 1977

It is for the transport undertaking to judge whether an individual control book must be issued to crew members and it is accordingly the duty of that undertaking to ensure that the provisions of article 14(7) and (8) of regulation (eec) no 543/69 are observed. The position would be different only if national legislation adopted in pursuance of article 14(9) of the regulation in the special case of the hiring of labour were to impose that duty on the undertaking providing the tem- porary labour.

Citations:

R-76/77, [1977] EUECJ R-76/77

Links:

Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214588

Watson v Belmann: ECJ 7 Jul 1976

ECJ 1. Articles 48 to 66 of the treaty and the measures adopted by the community in application thereof implement a fundamental principle of the treaty, confer on persons whom they concern individual rights which the national courts must protect and take precedence over any national rule which might conflict with them.
2. National regulations which require nationals of other member states who benefit from the provisions of articles 48 to 66 of the eec treaty to report to the authorities of that state and prescribe that residents who provide accommodation for foreign nationals must inform the said authorites of the identity of such foreign nationals are in principle compatible with the provisions in question provided, first, that the period fixed for the discharge of the said obligations is reasonable and, secondly, that the penalties attaching to a failure to discharge them are not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and do not include deportation.
In so far as such rules do not entail restrictions on freedom of movement for persons they do not constitute discrimination prohibited under article 7 of the treaty.

Citations:

C-118/75, R-118/75, [1976] EUECJ R-118/75

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214493

EMI Records Limited v CBS Schallplatten Gmbh: ECJ 15 Jun 1976

ECJ 1. Neither the rules of the treaty on the free movement of goods nor those on the putting into free circulation of products coming from third countries nor, finally, the principles governing the common commercial policy, prohibit the proprietor of a mark in all the member states of the community from exercising his right in order to prevent the importation of similar products bearing the same mark and coming from a third country.

2. A trade-mark right, as a legal entity, does not possess those elements of contract or concerted practice referred to in article 85(1).

Nevertheless the exercise of that right might fall within the ambit of the treaty if it were to manifest itself as the subject, the means, or the consequence of a restrictive practice.

3. A restrictive agreement between traders within the common market and competitors in third countries that would bring about an isolation of the common market as a whole which, in the territory of the community, would reduce the supply of products originating in third countries and similar to those protected by a mark within the community, might be of such a nature as to affect adversely the conditions of competition within the common market. In particular if the proprietor of the mark in dispute in the third country has within the community various subsidiaries established in differend member states which are in a position to market the products at issue within the common market such isolation may affect trade between member states.

4. For article 85 to apply to cases of agreements which are no longer in force it is sufficient that such agreements continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force.
Europa

An agreement is only regarded as continuing to produce its effects if from the behaviour of the persons concerned there may be inferred the existence of elements of concerted practice and of coordination peculiar to the agreement and producing the same result as that envisaged by the agreement.

This is not so when the said effects do not exceed those flowing from the mere exercise of the national trade-mark rights. And in particular when a foreign trader can obtain access to the common market without availing himself of the mark in dispute.

5. Although the trade-mark right confers upon its proprietor a special position within the protected territory this, however, does not imply the existence of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 in particular where several undertakings whose economic strength is comparable to that of a proprietor of the mark operate in the market for the products in question and are in a position to compete with the said proprietor.

Furthermore, in so far as the exercise of a trade-mark right is intended to prevent the importation into the protected territory of products bearing an identical mark, it does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty.

6. In so far as the proprietor of a mark in the member states of the community may prevent the sale by a third party within the community of products bearing the same mark held in a third country, the requirement that such third party must, for the purposes of his exports to the community, obliterate the mark on the products concerned and perhaps apply a different mark forms part of the permissible consequences of the protection which the national laws of each member state afford to the proprietor of the mark against the importation of products from third countries bearing a similar or identical mark.

Citations:

C-96/75, R-96/75, [1976] EUECJ R-96/75

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214484

Impresa Costruzioni Comm. Quirino Mazzalai v Ferrovia Del Renon: ECJ 20 May 1976

1. Under article 177, the court of justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of acts of the ins- titutions of the community, regardless of whether they are directly applicable.
It is not for the court to appraise the relevance of questions referred under article 177, which is based on a clear separation of jurisdictions and leaves to the national courts the task of deciding whether the procedure of a reference for a preliminary ruling is helpful for the purposes of the decision in the proceedings pending before them.
2. Article 6 (4) of the second council directive of 11 april 1967 cannot be interpreted as permitting the moment when the service is provided to be identified with that when the invoice is issued or a payment on account is made if these transactions take place after the service has been carried out.

Citations:

R-111/75, [1976] EUECJ R-111/75

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214480

Royer v Belgium: ECJ 8 Apr 1976

ECJ The right of nationals of a member state to enter the territory of another member state and reside there is a right conferred directly, on any person falling within the scope of community law, by the Treaty, especially articles 48, 52 and 59 or where appropriate, by the provisions adopted.
For its implementation, independently of any residence permit issued by the host state. The exception concerning the safeguard of public policy, public security and public health contained in articles 48(3) and 56(1) of the treaty must be regarded not as a condition precedent to the acquisition of the right of entry and residence but as providing the possibility, in individual cases where there is sufficient justification, of imposing restrictions on the exercise of a right derived directly from the treaty.
Article 4 of directive no 78/360 entails an obligation for member states to issue a residence permit to any person who provides proof, by means of the appropriate documents, that he belongs to one of the categories set out in article 1 of the directive.
The mere failure by a national of a member state to comply with the formalities concerning the entry, movement and residence of aliens is not of such a nature as to constitute in itself conduct threatening public policy, and public security and cannot therefore, by itself, justify a measure ordering expulsion or temporary imprisonment for that purpose.
A decision ordering expulsion cannot be executed, save in cases of urgency which have been properly justified, against a person protected by community law until the party concerned has been able to exhaust the remedies guaranteed by articles 8 and 9 of directive no 64/221.
Articles 53 and 62 of the treaty prohibit the introduction by a member state of new restrictions on the establishment of nationals of other member states and the freedom to provide services which has in fact been attained and prevent the member states from reverting to less liberal provisions or practices in so far as the liberalization measures already adopted constitute the implementation of obligations arising from the provisions and objectives of the treaty.
The freedom left to the member states by article 189 as to the choice of forms and methods of implemen- tation of directives does not affect their obligation to choose the most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the effectiveness of the directives.

Citations:

R-48/75, [1976] EUECJ R-48/75, [1976] ECR 497, [1977] ICR 314, [1976] 2 CMLR 619

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Zalewska v Department for Social Development HL 12-Nov-2008
(Northern Ireland) The claimant challenged the rules restricting payment of benefits to nationals from the 8 latest European Accession states to those with an unbroken 12 month working record. The applicant came from Poland and worked at two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214477

Adriaan De Peijper, Managing Director of Centrafarm Bv: ECJ 20 May 1976

ECJ 1. National rules or practices which result in imports being channelled in such a way that only certain traders can effect these imports, whereas others are prevented from doing so, constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative re- striction within the meaning of article 30 of the treaty.
2. National rules or practices which do restrict imports of pharmaceutical products or are capable of doing so are only compatible with the treaty to the extent to which they are necessary for the effective protection of health and life of humans.
National rules or practices do not fall within the exception specified in article 36 if the health and life of humans can be as effectively protected by measures which do not restrict intra-community trade so much.
In particular article 36 cannot be relied on to justify rules or practices which, even though they are beneficial, contain restrictions which are explained primarily by a concern to lighten the administration’s burden or reduce public expenditure, unless, in the absence of the said rules or practices, this burden or expenditure clearly would exceed the limits of what can reasonably be required.
Where
– a pharmaceutical product prepared in accordance with a uniform method of preparation and quali- tative and quantitative compo- sition is lawfully in circulation in several member states, in the sense that, in pursuance of the national systems of legislation of these states, the requisite authorizations have been granted in relation to that product to the manufacturer or the person responsible for putting the product on the market in the member state in question ;
– the fact that such authorizations have been granted in each of the member states is made known by general notice being given by official publication or in some other way ;
– this product is in every respect similar to a product in respect of which the public health1 – language of the case : dutch.
Authorities of the member state into which the first product has been imported altready possess the documents relating to the method of preparation and also to the quantitative and qualitative com- position, since these documents were produced to them previously by the manufacturer or his duly appointed importer in support of an application for authorization to place them on the market;
national rules or practices which make it possible for a manufacturer of the pharmaceutical product in question and his duly appointed representative, simply by refusing to produce the documents relating to the medicinal preparation in general or to a specific batch of that preparation, to enjoy a monopoly of the importing and marketing of the product, must be regarded as being unnecessarily restrictive and cannot therefore come within the exception specified in article 36 of the treaty, unless it is clearly proved that any other rules or practices would obviously be beyond the means which can be reasonably expected of an administration operating in a normal manner.
It is only if the information or documents to be produced by the manufacturer or his duly appointed importer show that there are several variants of the medicinal preparation and that the differences between these variants have a therapeutic effect that there would be any justification for trating the variants as different medicinal preparations, for the purpose of authorizing them to be placed on the market and as regards producing the relevant documents, it being understood that the answer to the first question remains valid as regards each of the authorization procedures which have become necessary.

Citations:

R-104/75, [1976] EUECJ R-104/75

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214479

Directeur Regional De La Securite Sociale De Nancy v Auguste Hirardin And Caisse Regionale D’Assurance Maladie Du Nord-Est.: ECJ 8 Apr 1976

ECJ 1. References for a preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court – limits
(EEC Treaty, article 177)
2. Social security – migrant workers – old age (pensions) insurance – algeria – insurance periods completed before 19 january 1965 – taking into consideration by french institutions – national of a member state other than france – recipient
(EEC treaty, articles 48 to 51. Regulation no 109/65 of the Council, article 16 (2))
1. Although the court, when giving a ruling under Article 177, has no jurisdiction to apply community rules to a specific case or, consequently, to pronounce upon a provision of national law, it may however provide the national court with the factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of such provision.
2. The principle of the equal treatment of workers laid down by articles 48 to 51 of the eec treaty implies that provisions of national law cannot be applied as against a worker who, whilst residing in france, is a national of another member state, where their effect is to deprive such a worker of a benefit awarded to french workers as regards the taking into account, in calculating the old-age pension, of insurance periods completed in algeria.

Citations:

R-112/75, [1976] EUECJ R-112/75

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214475

Amsterdam Bulb Bv v Produktschap Voor Siergewassen.: ECJ 2 Feb 1977

ECJ 1. The direct application of a community regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law. 2. The member states may neither adopt nor allow national organizations having legislative power to adopt any measure which would conceal the community nature and effects of any legal provision from the persons to whom it applies. They may not, either directly or through the intermediary of organizations created or recognized by them, allow or tolerate an exemption from community law or in any way affect it adversely. 3. The lowest minimum export price fixed for the product in question by regulation no 369/75 is also applicable to products which are larger than the minimum size but smaller than the sizes expressly listed in the annex to that regulation. 4. A national provision which fixes minimum prices for exports to third countries of certain varieties of bulbs other than those for which the commission has fixed minimum prices in regulation no 369/75, which does not create exemptions from the community system, does not limit its scope and seeks to achieve the same aim, that is, the stabilization of prices in trade with third countries , cannot be regarded as incompatible with community law. 5. In the absence of any provision in the community rules providing for specific sanctions to be imposed on individuals for a failure to observe those rules, the member states are competent to adopt such sanctions as appear to them to be appropriate.

Citations:

C-50/76, R-50/76, [1977] EUECJ R-50/76

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Commission v Council (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 13-Sep-2005
The Commission sought anullment of Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The framework decision laid down a number of environmental offences, in respect of which the Member States are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214521

B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo: ECJ 12 Dec 1974

ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in the sphere of economic activities which have the character of gainful employment or remunerated service covers all work or services without regard to the exact nature of the legal relationship under which such activities are performed. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality does not affect the composition of sport teams, in particular national teams, the formation of which is a question of purely sporting interest and as such has nothing to do with economic activity. Prohibition of discrimination does not only apply to the action of public authorities but extends likewise to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating in a collective manner gainful employment and the provision of services. The rule on non-discrimination applies to all legal relationships which can be located within the territory of the community by reason either of the place where they are entered into or of the place where they take effect. The first paragraph of article 59, in any event in so far as it refers to the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality, creates individual rights which national courts must protect.

Citations:

C-36/74, R-36/74, [1974] EUECJ R-36/74, [1974] ECR 1405

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Adidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214400

Carmine Capolongo v Azienda Agricole Maya. (Aids Granted By A Member State ): ECJ 19 Jun 1973

Citations:

C-77/72, R-77/72, [1973] EUECJ R-77/72

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Steinike and Weinlig v Federal Republic Of Germany ECJ 22-Mar-1977
A customs charge may be regarded as levied solely or exclusively by reason of its crossing a frontier, although it is applied at a later stage, such as marketing or processing of the product: ‘the prohibition [of a CEE] is aimed at any tax demanded . .
Mentioned – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214319

Belgische Radio En Televisie v Sv Sabam And Nv Fonior: ECJ 30 Jan 1974

Preliminary Questions – The Brussels Tribunal de premiere instance referred a questions in proceedings relating to the enforceability of contracts between an authors’ royalties collecting society and its members who had assigned their copyrights to the society. It was said that the contracts imposed unfair trading conditions contrary to Article 86. A preliminary point arose because the Commission began a procedure against SABAM under Regulation 17 arguing that Article 9(3) of Regulation 17 (which provides that ‘the authorities of the Member States’ lose their competence to apply Articles 85(1) and 86 in accordance with Article 88 once the Commission initiates proceedings under Regulation 17) meant that the national court was no longer competent to consider the application of Article 86.
Held: The ECJ rejected the argument.
‘It must thus be examined whether the national courts, before which the prohibitions contained in Articles 85 and 86 are invoked in a dispute governed by private law, must be considered as ‘authorities of the Member States’.
The competence of those courts to apply the provisions of Community law, particularly in the case of such disputes, derives from the direct effect of those provisions.
As the prohibitions of Articles 85(1) and 86 tend by their very nature to produce direct effects in relations between individuals, these Articles create direct rights in respect of the individuals concerned which the national courts must safeguard.
To deny, by virtue of the aforementioned Article 9, the national courts’ jurisdiction to afford this safeguard, would mean depriving individuals of rights which they hold under the Treaty itself.
The fact that Article 9(3) refers to ‘the authorities of the Member States’ competent to apply the provisions of Articles 85(1) and 86 ‘in accordance with Article 88’ indicates that it refers solely to those national authorities whose competence derives from Article 88.
Under that Article the authorities of the Member States – including in certain Member States courts especially entrusted with the task of applying domestic legislation on competition or that of ensuring the legality of that application by the administrative authorities – are also rendered competent to apply the provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
The fact that the expression ‘authorities of the Member States’ appearing in Article 9(3) of Regulation No 17 covers such courts cannot exempt a court before which the direct effect of Article 86 is pleaded from giving judgment.’

Citations:

R-127/73, [1974] EUECJ R-127/73

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214361

Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson Gmbh: ECJ 12 Jul 1973

ECJ 1. The authority for regulation no 803/68/EEC of the council of 27 june 1968, on the value of goods for customs purposes is to be found in article 235 of the treaty and reveals no factor calculated to affect its validity.
2. Article 11(2)(b) (second branch of the alternative) of regulation no 803/68 of the council of 27 june 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that it is inadequate, as proof of the existence of a price different from the price for forward payment, to show that the price for forward payment payable includes credit charges. What must be proved is the existence of another price of a definite amount which the buyer or other buyers in similar circumstances are entitled to settle in the event of payment before the agreed date. It is for the national court to judge in every case of this kind whether or not proof has been furnished of the existence of a different price.

Citations:

C-8/73, R-8/73, [1973] EUECJ R-8/73

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214323

Sa Brasserie De Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen: ECJ 6 Feb 1973

ECJ Agreements Prior And Subsequent To Regulation No 17 – 1. When an agreement prior to the implementation of article 85 by regulation no 17 has been notified in accordance with the provisions of that regulation, the general principle of contractual certainty requires that a court can only declare the agreement to be void after the commission has given its decision under that regulation.
Notifications in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of regulation no 17 in respect of agreements entered into after the application of article 85 by this regulation do not have suspensive effect.
The court, which, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, must take into account, in applying the prohibitions of article 85, any delay by the commission in exercising its powers, has however an obligation to decide on the claims of interested parties who invoke the automatic nullity.
These considerations apply equally to agreements exempted from notification, such exemption being merely an inconclusive indication that the agreements concerned are generally less harmful to the smooth functioning of the common market.
2. The initiation of a procedure within the meaning of article 9 of regulation no 17 implies an authoritative act of the commission, evidencing its intention of taking a decision under articles 2, 3 or 6. It follows therefore that the simple acknowledgment of a request for a negative clearance or of notification for the purposes of obtaining exemption under article 85(3) of the treaty cannot be considered as initiating a procedure under articles 2, 3 or 6 of regulation no 17.
3. Due notification of a standard contract is to be considered as due notification of all contracts in the same terms, even prior ones, entered into by the same undertaking.
4. A declaration of nullity under article 85 ( 2 ) is of retroactive effect.

Citations:

C-48/72, R-48/72, [1973] EUECJ R-48/72

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – S A Brasserie de Haecht v Consorts Wilkin-Janssen ECJ 12-Dec-1967
ECJ 1. Policy of the EEC- competition – agreements between undertakings – prohibition in article 85(1) – consideration of the economic and legal context 2. Policy of the EEC – competition – agreements which may . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214309

Kurt A Becher v Hauptzollamt Emden: ECJ 15 Jan 1974

1. No new element has been adduced capable of casting doubt on the court’s decision in its judgments of 24 october 1973 in cases 5, 9 and 10/73, according to which examination of questions referred had not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of regulation no 974/71.
2. Article 2 of regulation no 974/71, by using the concept of ‘prices’ as its starting point in calculating the compensatory amounts, leaves the commission a certain discretion to adopt a reference price which differs from the c.I.F. Price, even if it differs from the contract prices actually fixed for commercial transactions.
3. It is within the commission’s legal powers, when enacting detailed rules for the implementation of a system, such as that laid down by regulation no 974/71 for compensatory amounts, to have regard to certain imperative requirements of an administrative nature.
This is even more so as these detailed rules are established in accordance with the so-called ‘management committee’ procedure.

Citations:

R-154/73, [1974] EUECJ R-154/73

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214364

Codrico Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten: ECJ 28 Nov 1973

ECJ Article 1 of regulation no 2410/70, read in conjunction with article 11 of regulation no 1052/68, involves that in the absence of community rules on the subject the national court is competent to assess the probative value of tests performed with a view to ascertaining the fat content of the products listed at the annex to regulation no 2410/70 under tariff headings 11.02-a-v-(a ) and 11.02-a-v-(b ).

Citations:

R-138/73, [1973] EUECJ R-138/73

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214338

Procureur Du Roi v Benoit and Gustave Dassonville: ECJ 11 Jul 1974

1. All trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.
2. In the absence of a community system guaranteeing for consumers the authenticity of a product’s designation or origin, member states may take measures to prevent unfair practices in this connexion, on condition that such measures are reasonable and do not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between member states.
Consequently, the requirement by a member state of a certificate of authenticity which is less easily obtainable by importers of an authentic product which has been put into free circulation in a regular manner in another member state than by importers of the same product coming directly from the country of origin constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction as prohibited by the treaty.
3. An exclusive dealing agreement falls within the prohibition of article 85 when it impedes, in law or in fact, the importation of the products in question from other member states into the protected territory by persons other than the exclusive importer.
4. An exclusive dealing agreement may adversely affect trade between member states and can have the effect of hindering competition if the concessionaire is able to prevent parallel imports from other member states into the territory covered by the concession by means of the combined effects of the agreement and a national law requiring the exclusive use of a certain means of proof of authenticity.
For the purpose of judging whether this is the case, account must be taken not only of the rights and obligations flowing from the provisions of the agreement, but also of the legal and economic context in which it is situated and, in particular, the possible existence of similar agreements concluded between the same producer and concessionaires established in other member states.
Price differences found to exist between member states are an indication to be taken into account

Citations:

R-8/74, [1974] EUECJ R-8/74, [1974] ECR 837

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214383

Nv Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Minister Van Verkeer En Waterstaat: ECJ 27 Nov 1973

ECJ 1. A legal obligation in general terms requiring transport rates to be approved by public authority cannot in itself be deemed to constitute a ‘tariff obligation’ within the meaning of article 2 (5) of regulation no 1191/69. Under this provision, the distinguishing features of a tariff obligation are not only that rates are fixed or approved by public authority but also that it satisfies the double condition that ‘ special ‘ tariff obligations for certain specified categories of passenger or goods, or on certain routes, should be involved, and that, in addition, they should be contrary to the commercial interests of the undertaking.
2. Articles 4 and 5 of regulation no 1191/69 do not exclude the possibility that economic disadvantages, within the meaning of the regulation, can subsist over a period of only one year and, accordingly, give rise to a claim for compensation. Neither do they exclude the right of member states, in assessing these disadvantages, to take into account the whole of the transport undertaking’ s economic situation, and to withhold compensation for disadvantages which appear to be temporary or accidental and, on a longer-term assessment, capable of being off-set in due course, or neutralized by a change of operating methods.
3. In calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to a transport undertaking, in a case where public service obligations have been partially terminated, there must be an apportionment, having regard to the characteristics and volume of the activities involved, of the total costs between the transport activities in respect of which the public service obligations have been maintained and those in which they are terminated.
The mere prospect for a transport undertaking of discontinuing certain activities following termination of public service obligations is insufficient to justify allocating the whole of the total costs to the activities it has been compelled to maintain, as this could take place only where those activities are in fact discontinued.

Citations:

R-36/73, [1973] EUECJ R-36/73

Links:

Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214342

Guenter Henck v Hauptzollamt Emden. (Common Customs Tariff ): ECJ 23 Mar 1972

ECJ 1. In the interest of legal certainty and of administration the characteristics and objective properties of products generally supply the decisive criterion for their classification in the common customs tariff.
2. Products processed from maize and sorghum may be classified under tariff headings 11.01 and 11.02 if after processing they still contain the essential constituents of the basic product in proportions approximating to those of the product in its natural state.
3. Heading 23.07 refers to products which have been finally processed or are the result of a mixture of different substances and which are only suitable for feeding animals and not to agglomerated products the basic materials or materials of which come, as such, under a specific heading, even if they contain a binder not generally exceeding 3 per cent by weight.

Citations:

R-36/71, [1972] EUECJ R-36/71

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214161

Alfons Luetticke Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Passau: ECJ 6 Feb 1973

In view of the purposes and flat-rate nature of the system established by Regulation no 160/66 of the Council, the validity of the provisions of regulation no 83/67 of the Council, adopted in implementation of it, is not affected by the fact that the method of analysis provided for by that regulation for the calculation of the milkfat content yields approximate values of such content.

Citations:

R-42/72, [1973] EUECJ R-42/72

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214306

Fratelli Grassi Fu Davide v Italian Finance Administration. (Questions Referred To The Court For A Preliminary Ruling): ECJ 15 Jun 1972

ECJ According to article 177 of the Treaty it is for the national court and not the parties to the main action to bring a matter before the court of justice.
Since the power to formulate the questions to be referred is vested in the national court alone the parties cannot alter the wording of those questions.
Under the system instituted by regulation no 19 of the council, that is, up to and including 30 june 1967, the member states were free to decide whether or not to grant refunds on exports of cereals to third countries. Where a member state exercised this power, the question of determining the period within which the refunds were to be paid was a matter for national law alone.
In so far as the system instituted by regulation no 120/67/eec of the council concerning cereals differs from that resulting from regulation no 19, the new rules relate solely to commercial transactions effected after 30 June 1967.

Citations:

R-5/72, [1972] EUECJ R-5/72, (1973) 12 CMLR 335

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214167

Commission v Italy C-385/02: ECJ 14 Sep 2004

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 93/37/EEC – Public works contracts – Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice

Citations:

[2005] 1 CMLR 52, [2004] ECR I-8121, [2004] EUECJ C-385/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd and Another v HM Treasury and Others SC 1-Jul-2015
Challenge to the decision by HM Treasury to use National Savings and Investments to deliver the Government policy of Tax-free Childcare. The claimants said that the 2006 Regulations imposed an obligation to put such contracts out to tender.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214244

Fonderie Officine Riunite ‘FOR’ v Vereinigte Kammgarn-Spinnereien ‘VKS’: ECJ 20 Feb 1973

ECJ (Preliminary Questions) 1. The court does not have jurisdiction under article 177 to settle a dispute relating to the interpretation of a national law.
2. The prohibition of discrimination as laid down by Article 95 relates not only to the rate but also to the basis of taxation. Article 95 of the Treaty must therefore be interpreted as prohibiting as fiscal system under which imported goods are charged twice with turnover tax, thus being treated as the object of two distinct transactions during the course of one operation which, for the same national product at the same marketing stage, would constitute only one chargeable operation.

Citations:

R-54/72, [1973] EUECJ R-54/72

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214307

Hohn v Caisse Regionale D’Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg: ECJ 10 Nov 1971

1. Where the legislation of a member state provides for old-age benefits of different kinds, depending on the length of time for which the worker concerned has been affiliated, insurance periods completed successively or alternatively in two or more member states must be aggregated wherever the worker has not completed the number of periods necessary under the legislation of the first state to entitle him to benefit of the more advantageous kind.
2. Where aggregation is necessary, for the purpose of calculating the fraction of the benefit to be borne by the relevant institution, account must be taken of the periods in fact completed by the worker concerned, and not merely those representing the total required in the state in question for entitlement to full benefit.

Citations:

R-28/71, [1971] EUECJ R-28/71

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214148

Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft Mbh v Metro-Sb-Grossmarkte Gmbh and Co Kg: ECJ 8 Jun 1971

ECJ Under article 177 of the court, when giving a preliminary ruling, is entitled only to pronounce on the interpretation of the treaty and of acts of the institutions of the community or on their validity but may not, on the basis of that article, give judgment on the interpretation of a provision of national law. It may however extract from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court those matters only which pertain to the interpretation of the treaty, taking into account the facts communicated by the said court.
The second paragraph of article 5 of the eec treaty lays down a general duty for the member states, the actual tenor of which depends in each individual case on the provisions of the treaty or on the rules derived from its general scheme.
The exercise of an industrial property right falls under the prohibition set out in article 85 (1) of the treaty each time it manifests itself as the subject, the means or the result of an agreement which, by preventing imports from other member states of products lawfully distributed there, has as its effect the partitioning of the market.
The provisions of article 36 of the treaty may be relevant to a right related to copyright, in the same way as to an industrial or commercial property right.
It is clear from article 36 that, although the treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the legislation of a member state with regard to industrial and commercial property, the exercise of such rights may nevertheless fall within the prohibitions laid down by the treaty.
Article 36 only admits derogations from the free movement of products in order to protect industrial and commercial property to the extent to which such derogations are justified for the purpose of safeguarding rights which constitute the specific matter of such property.
It is in conflict with the rules providing for the free movement of products within the common market for the holder of a legally recognized exclusive right of distribution to prohibit the sale on the national territory of products placed by him or with his consent on the market of another member state on the ground that such distribution did not occur within the national territory. Such a prohibition, which could legitimize the isolation of national markets, would be repugnant to the essential purpose of the treaty, which is to unite national markets into a single market.
The holder of a legally recognized exclusive right of distribution does not occupy a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty merely by exercising that right. It is necessary that the holder, alone or jointly with other undertakings in the same group, should have the power to impede the maintenance of effective competition over a considerable part of the relevant market, having regard in particular to the existence of any producers marketing similar products and to their position on the market.
The difference between the controlled price and the price of the product reimported from another member state does not necessarily suffice to disclose an abuse of a dominant position; it may, however, if unjustified by any objective criteria and if it is particularly marked, be a determining factor in such abuse.

Citations:

C-78/70, R-78/70, [1971] EUECJ R-78/70, [1971] ECR 487

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Cited – Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters and Frankau Ltd CA 8-Mar-2007
An allegation was made that Cuban cigars imported by the claimant infringed the trade marks of the respondents being either counterfeit or parallel imports, and were impounded. The claimant sought a declaration of non-infringement and their release, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214135

Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft (Common Customs Tariff ): ECJ 18 Jun 1970

ECJ 1. The interpretation of one tariff heading in relation to another must, in a case of doubt, take into account both the function of the customs tariff in regard to the necessities of the systems of organization of the markets and its purely customs function.
2. The expression ‘manioc flours’ within the meaning of article 1(d) of regulation no 19, read in conjunction with heading no 11.06 of the common customs tariff, mentioned in the annex to that regulation, refers to all farinaceous substances obtained from manioc roots, irrespective of the treatment which those roots may have undergone, where the product has a starch content in excess of 40 per cent.

Citations:

R-72/69, [1970] EUECJ R-72/69

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214100

Hessische Knappschaft v Maison Singer And Sons: ECJ 9 Dec 1965

Procedure – 1. Since the right to determine the questions to be brought before the court devolves upon the court or tribunal of the member state alone, the parties may not change their tenor or have them declared to be without purpose.
2. The concept of ‘ worker ‘ under Regulation no 3 is not limited solely to migrant workers stricto sensu or solely to workers required to move for the purpose of their employment. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary in case 75/63, (1964) ECR 351.
3. Article 52 of regulation no 3 empowers the social security institutions of a member state to bring an action, on conditions laid down therein, for the reimbursement of benefits granted in consequence of an accident even if it occurred before 1 January 1959.

Citations:

(1966) 5 CMLR 82, R-44/65, [1965] EUECJ R-44/65

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214039

Firma Milchwerke H. Wohrmann and Sohn Kg v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall: ECJ 4 Apr 1968

ECJ A tax imposed on the importation of products from third countries does not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 12(2) of Regulation no 13/64 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in milk and milk products when it is imposed as a charge under the national system of turnover tax.

Citations:

R-7/67, [1968] EUECJ R-7/67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation no 13/64 12(2)

European, Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214071

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Mbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Measures Adopted By Institutions ): ECJ 17 Dec 1970

1. The validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the community can only be judged in the light of community law. The law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national law, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called in question. Therefore the validity of a community measure or its effct within a member state cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the principles of its constitutional structure.
2. Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the court of justice. The protection of such rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the member states, must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the community. 3. The requirement by the agricultural regulations of the community of import and export licences involving for the licensees an undertaking to effect the proposed transactions under the guarantee of a deposit constitutes a method which is both necessary and appropriate, for the purposes of articles 40 (3) and 43 of the EEC Treaty, to enable the competent authorities to determine in the most effective manner their interventions on the market in cereals. The system of deposits violates no fundamental right.
4. The concept of force majeure adopted by the agricultural regulations is not limited to absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of unusual circumstances, outside the control of the importer or exporter, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice.
5. By limiting the cancellation of the undertaking to export and the release of the deposit to cases of force majeure the community legislature adopted a provision which, without imposing an undue burden on importers or exporters, is appropriate for ensuring the normal functioning of the organization of the market in cereals, in the general interest as defined in article 39 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-11/70, R-11/70, [1970] EUECJ R-11/70, [1970] EUECJ C-11/70

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Constitutional

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214118

Acciaierie San Michele Spa (In Liquidation) v High Authority Of The ECSC: ECJ 22 Feb 1968

Citations:

[1968] EUECJ C-58/65

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Acciaierie San Michele SpA (in liquidation) v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) ECJ 2-Mar-1967
ECJ 1. Liability of the ECSC – financial arrangements – equalization – normal disadvantages – absence of harm 2. Common financial arrangements – equalization of ferrous scrap – calculation of contributions – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Costs

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214048

Martinez And De Gaulle v Parliament: ECJ 2 Oct 2001

Law Governing The Institutions – Actions for annulment – Act of the European Parliament concerning a provision of its Rules of Procedure – Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament – Admissibility – Objection of illegality – Equal treatment – Observance of fundamental rights – Principles of democracy and proportionality – Freedom of association – Protection of legitimate expectations – Parliamentary traditions of the Member States – Breach of essential procedural requirements – Misuse of procedure

Citations:

T-329/99, [2001] EUECJ T-329/99, [2001] ECR II-2823, [2002] 1 CMLR 32

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214010

Kaufring v Commission T-279/97 (Customs Union): ECJ 10 May 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Importation of television sets from Turkey – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol – Compensatory levy – Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 – Remission of import duty not justified – Rights of the defence

Citations:

T-279/97, [2001] EUECJ T-279/97

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213978

Kaufring v Commission T-211/97 (Customs Union): ECJ 10 May 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Importation of television sets from Turkey – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol – Compensatory levy – Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 – Remission of import duty not justified – Rights of the defence

Citations:

T-211/97, [2001] EUECJ T-211/97

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213974

Nv Internationale Crediet En Handelsvereniging ‘Rotterdam’ And De Cooperatieve Suikerfabriek En Raffinaderij GA ‘Puttershoek’ v Netherlands Minister Of Agriculture and Fisheries: ECJ 18 Feb 1964

1. Article 226 constitutes an exceptional provision only as regards the nature and the extent of derogation from the treaty and not as regards the detailed rules laid down by the commission in order to achieve the protection sought. In this respect, the commission, which is bound to give priority to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of the common market, must use the means which are least likely to have an adverse effect on the state, a sector of whose economic activity is affected by the measures authorized.
With this in view, the authorization granted to the state applying to take the protective measures may be made subject to the condition, express or implied, that the state, a sector of whose economic activity is affected by these measures, does not itself prefer to apply them.
Cf. Judgment in case 13/63, paragraph 4 of summary, (1964) ECR 165.
2. Article 226 employs the term ‘ difficulties ‘ without making any distinction on the basis of whether the difficulties are caused by the application of the treaty or otherwise.
3. Article 226 constitutes a clearly stipulated exception to the prohibition against the introduction of new customs duties.
Cf. Judgment in joined cases 2 and 3/63, paragraph 3 of summary, (1962) ECR 817.

Citations:

R-74/63, [1964] EUECJ R-74/63

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214021

Flemmer: ECJ 9 Oct 2001

ECJ Non-contractual liability – Milk producers – Non-marketing undertaking – Exclusion from milk quota scheme – Compensation – Substitution – Flat-rate compensation by contract – Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 – Relevant jurisdiction – Applicable law

Citations:

C-82/99, [2001] EUECJ C-82/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214004

Osterreichischer Rundfunk and Others: ECJ 20 May 2003

ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-138/01, [2003] EUECJ C-138/01

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Google Spain Sl v Agencia Espanola De Proteccion De Datos (AEPD), Gonzalez ECJ 13-May-2014
Internet Search Engine – Name Removal
ECJ Grand Chamber – Personal data – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data – Directive 95/46/EC – Articles 2, 4, 12 and 14 – Material and territorial scope – Internet search engines . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213860

Chronopost v Ufex and Others C-93/01: ECJ 3 Jul 2003

ECJ State Aid – Appeal – State aid – Postal sector – Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest – Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector – Concept of State aid – Criterion of private operator acting under normal market conditions

Citations:

C-93/01, [2003] EUECJ C-93/01P

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Chronopost v Ufex and Others C-94/01 ECJ 3-Jul-2003
ECJ State Aid – Appeal – State aid – Postal sector – Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest – Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213863

Rechnungshof v Osterreichischer Rundfunk and Others (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 20 May 2003

ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof

Judges:

Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-139/01, [2003] EUECJ C-139/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 95/46/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Rechnungshof v Osterreichischer Rundfunk and others ECJ 20-May-2003
ECJ Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Protection of private life – Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213861

Karageorgou (Taxation) C-79/02: ECJ 6 Nov 2003

Sixth VAT Directive – Article 21(1)(c) – Persons liable to tax – Person mentioning the tax on an invoice – Tax paid in error by a non-taxable person and included in the invoice established by that person

Judges:

JP Puissochet, P

Citations:

C-79/02, [2003] EUECJ C-79/02

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213881