Category: European

Commission v Germany: ECJ 11 Aug 1995

Europa In exercising its powers under Articles 155 and 169 of the Treaty, the Commission, when bringing an action for failure to comply with obligations under the Treaty, does not have to show that there is a specific interest in bringing the action. Article 169 is not intended to protect the Commission’ s own rights. The Commission’s function, in the general interest of the Community, is to ensure that the Member States give effect to the Treaty and the provisions adopted by the institutions thereunder and to obtain a declaration of any failure to fulfil the obligations deriving therefrom with a view to bringing it to an end. Given its role as guardian of the Treaty, the Commission alone is therefore competent to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations and to determine the conduct or omission attributable to the Member State concerned on the basis of which those proceedings should be brought.
Europa
It follows that a Member State which has not transposed, within the prescribed time-limit, a Community directive and against which an action for failure to comply with obligations has been brought in respect, not of the failure to transpose, but of the failure to fulfil in a specific case an obligation flowing from the directive may not plead the fact that it has not taken the necessary measures to implement a directive in order to object to the admissibility of the action and hence to prevent the Court from dealing with an application for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil that obligation.
Nor can it be argued that an action based on the fact that a Member State has not in a specific case fulfilled its obligations under the directive, the merits of which must therefore be assessed by construing the obligations which the directive imposes on the Member States, is inadmissible on the ground that the relevant provisions of the directive do not create specific rights for individuals, since the question whether individuals may rely on the directive has no connection with such an action.
Directive 85/377 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, and in particular Article 12(1), must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which has transposed it into its national legal order after 3 July 1988, the time-limit for transposition, from waiving the obligations imposed by the directive in respect of a project consent procedure initiated after that time-limit. The sole criterion which may be used, since it accords with the principle of legal certainty and is designed to safeguard the effectiveness of the directive, to determine the date on which the procedure was initiated is the date when the application for consent was formally lodged, disregarding informal contacts and meetings between the competent authority and the developer.
Furthermore, paragraph 2 of Annex I to the directive, under which projects for thermal power stations with a heat output of 300 megawatts or more must undergo an assessment, must be interpreted as requiring such projects to be assessed irrespective of whether they are separate constructions, are added to a pre-existing construction or even have close functional links with a pre-existing construction. A project of such a type which has links with an existing construction cannot therefore be within the category of ‘Modifications to development projects included in Annex I’, mentioned in paragraph 12 of Annex II, for which only optional assessment is provided.
Finally, Article 2, which lays down an obligation, incumbent on the competent authority in each Member State for the approval of projects, to make certain projects subject to an assessment of their effects on the environment, Article 3, which prescribes the content of the assessment, listing the factors which must be taken into account in it while leaving the competent authority a certain discretion as to the appropriate way of carrying out the assessment in the light of each individual case, and Article 8, which requires the competent national authorities to take into consideration in the development consent procedure the information gathered in the course of the assessment, must be interpreted as unequivocally imposing, regardless of their details, on the national authorities responsible for granting consent an obligation to carry out an assessment of the effects of the projects concerned on the environment.

Citations:

C-431/92, [1995] EUECJ C-431/92, [1996] 1 CMLR 196, [1995] ECR I-2189

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161038

Halliburton Services v Staatssecretaris van Financien: ECJ 12 Apr 1994

Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty preclude the law of a Member State from restricting exemption from the tax on transactions relating to immovable property, which is normally payable in connection with a reorganization within a group of companies only to cases where the company liable for tax acquires immovable property from a company constituted under national law, and refusing to grant such relief where the transferor is a company constituted under the law of another Member State.
The fact that the sale of immovable property gives rise to the payment of tax increases the cost of the transaction to the purchaser, and is passed on in the price likely to be obtained by the vendor. Where the latter is a company established in another Member State which transfers property forming part of the capital used in connection with its permanent establishment in the territory of the Member State where such legislation applies, it will be in a less favourable position than if it had operated in the latter State by creating a subsidiary there which would have fulfilled the conditions giving right to exemption.
Although the difference in treatment has only an indirect effect on the position of companies constituted under the law of other Member States, it constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality which is prohibited by Article 52 of the Treaty because a company exercising the right given to it by Article 58 of the Treaty to carry on business in another Member State through the intermediary of a branch or agency is at a disadvantage compared with companies constituted in accordance with the law of that Member State.
Such discrimination cannot be justified by the difficulties encountered by the national authorities in checking equivalence between the forms in which national companies may be constituted and those of other Member States, since the information necessary for that purpose can be obtained with a view to imposing the tax in question by means of the system provided for by Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation.

Citations:

C-1/93, [1994] EUECJ C-1/93

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 52 58

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161043

Ladbroke Racing v Commission: ECJ 3 May 1993

ECJ An action brought by a natural or legal person pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty and concerning the implementation of Article 90 of the Treaty falls, pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) of Council Decision 88/591 establishing the Court of First Instance, within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Although Article 90(1) and the general rules which the Commission may lay down pursuant to Article 90(3) specify the obligations of the Member States, those provisions concern the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings inasmuch as they prohibit the enactment or maintenance in force of State legislation which could affect the application of those rules to undertakings enjoying a particular status.
Where such an action is brought before it, the Court of Justice must, by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 47 of its Statute, refer that action to the Court of First Instance.

Judges:

O. Due, P

Citations:

[1993] ECR I-2213, [1993] EUECJ C-424/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161033

Elsie Rita Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer: ECJ 6 Dec 1994

Europa Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Article 4(1) – Direct effect – National legislation limiting the period prior to the bringing of a claim for benefit for incapacity for work in respect of which arrears are payable – Whether permissible – Directive not properly transposed prior to the bringing of the claim – Not relevant (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 4(1))
The right conferred on women by the direct effect of Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security to claim benefits for incapacity for work under the same conditions as men must be exercised under the conditions determined by national law, provided that those conditions are no less favourable than those relating to similar domestic actions and that they are not framed so as to render virtually impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law. It follows that, in so far as those conditions are satisfied, Community law does not preclude the application, to a claim based on the direct effect of Directive 79/7, of a rule of national law which merely limits the period prior to the bringing of the claim in respect of which arrears of benefit are payable, even where that directive has not been properly transposed within the prescribed period in the Member State concerned.

Citations:

C-410/92, [1994] EUECJ C-410/92, [1995] ICR 375

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Walker-Fox v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant pensioner had moved to France. He sought to claim a retrospective winter fuel allowance claim. The government had eventually agreed to make payments to UK residents abroad.
Held: The claimant was deemed to have had knowledge of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161023

Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Rec 1993,p I-7055) (Judgment): ECJ 22 Dec 1993

Europa Failure to fulfil obligations – Directives concerning breeding animals of the porcine species, sheep and goats – Failure to transpose. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given the appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting proper fulfilment of the obligations incumbent on the Member States to which a directive is addressed under Article 189 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-384/92, [1993] EUECJ C-384/92

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 189

European, Agriculture

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161002

Mund and Fester v Hatrex Internationaal Transport: ECJ 10 Feb 1994

(Judgment) A presumption against the successful enforcement of a judgment was not valid against an EU member.

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1994, C-398/92, [1994] EUECJ C-398/92

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Applied – Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161014

Banco Exterior de Espana v Ayuntamiento de Valencia (Judgment): ECJ 15 Mar 1994

Europa A measure by which the public authorities grant to certain undertakings a tax exemption which, although not involving a transfer of State resources, places the persons to whom the tax exemption applies in a more favourable financial situation than other taxpayers constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty.
The distinction which Article 93 of the Treaty draws between existing aid and new aid is equally applicable to State aid granted to public undertakings responsible for the management of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly, which are covered by Article 90(2). It follows that such aid, where it has the character of existing aid may, as long as the Commission has not found it to be incompatible with the common market, continue to be implemented, whether or not it is capable of falling outside the scope of the prohibition of Article 92 by virtue of Article 90(2) of the Treaty. The rules on existing aid must be applied in the case of aid implemented in Spain by a law prior to the accession of that Member State to the European Communities.

Citations:

C-387/92, [1994] EUECJ C-387/92

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161005

Etablissements Armand Mondiet SA v Armement Islais SARL: ECJ 24 Nov 1993

Europa Where the high seas are concerned, the Community has the same rule-making authority in matters within its jurisdiction as that conferred under international law on the State whose flag the vessel is flying or in which it is registered. It has, in particular, competence to adopt, for vessels flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a Member State, measures for the conservation of the fishery resources of the high seas.
The limitation on the use of driftnets, imposed by Regulation No 345/92 amending for the 11th time Regulation No 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, was adopted primarily in order to ensure the conservation and rational exploitation of fishery resources and to limit the fishing effort. Those rules are therefore an integral part of the common agricultural policy, whose objectives under Article 39 of the Treaty include ensuring the rational development of production and assuring the availability of supplies, and could therefore be validly adopted by the Council solely on the basis of the provisions governing the common fisheries policy. Even if considerations of environmental protection were a contributory factor in the decision to adopt that regulation, that does not of itself mean that it must be covered by Article 130s of the Treaty.
It follows from the wording of Article 2 of Regulation No 170/83 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources that the measures for the conservation of fishery resources need not be completely consistent with the scientific advice and the absence of such advice or the fact that it is inconclusive cannot prevent the Council from adopting such measures as deems necessary for achieving the objectives of the common fisheries policy.
Thus, the Council could prohibit the use of large-scale driftnets under Regulation No 345/92 without exceeding the limits of the discretionary power conferred on it in the implementation of the common agricultural policy. The available scientific advice did not address the problem of the balanced exploitation of all the biological resources of the sea on a lasting basis and in appropriate economic and social conditions and in formulating the prohibition at issue in the light of the Community’ s international duty to cooperate in the conservation and management of the living resources of the high seas the Council was merely conforming with widely-held international opinion.
In exercising its discretion by limiting, in Article 1(8) of Regulation No 345/92, the derogation from the prohibition on driftnets more than 2.5 kilometres long to five kilometres, and until 31 December 1993 only, the Council’ s intention was to proceed gradually towards the ultimate objective of prohibiting all such nets exceeding 2.5 kilometres in length and its action was not contrary to the principle of relative stability or prejudicial to the other objectives of the common fisheries policy. The principle of relative stability of fishing activities defined in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83 relates only to the distribution between the Member States of the volume of catches available to the Community, for each of the stocks of fish considered, and does not apply where fishermen from the Member States may continue to fish even if they are obliged to desist from using certain fishing methods. In pursuing the various objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty, the Community institutions must constantly reconcile any conflicts between these objectives taken individually and, where necessary, allow any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made.

Citations:

C-405/92, [1993] EUECJ C-405/92, [1993] ECR I-6133

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Horvath, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 21-Jul-2006
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Regulations whereby the payment under the Single Payment Scheme was reduced because of the existence of a public right of way across the land.
Held: ‘there are cogent arguments for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161020

Schmidt v Spar und Leihkasse der fruheren Amter Bordesholm, Kiel und Cronshagen: ECJ 14 Apr 1994

Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of the transfer of an undertaking.

Citations:

C-392/92, [1994] EUECJ C-392/92, [1994] IRLR 302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Birch v Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council EAT 1995
‘The decision in the Commission’s case was on the basis of a concession made by the United Kingdom that non-profit-making organisations are excluded by the Regulations. That concession is not binding on the parties, or on the industrial tribunal or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161009

Roks and others v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Gezondheid, Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen: ECJ 24 Feb 1994

The court considered a complaint of sex discrimination in the allocation of social security benefits, and said: ‘although budgetary considerations may influence a Member State’s choice of social policy and affect the nature or scope of the social protection measures it wishes to adopt, they cannot in themselves constitute the aim pursued by that policy and cannot, therefore, justify discrimination against one of the sexes.
Moreover, to concede that budgetary considerations may justify a difference in treatment as between men and women which would otherwise constitute indirect discrimination on grounds of sex . . would be to accept that the application and scope of as fundamental a rule of Community law as that of equal treatment between men and women might vary in time and place according to the state of the public finances of the Member States.’

Citations:

C-343/92, [1996] EUECJ C-343/92D, [1994] 2 CMLR 325

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Benefits, Discrimination

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160979

Franz Eppe v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 22 Dec 1993

ECJ 1. It follows from Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that an appeal which merely reiterates the pleas in law and arguments put forward at first instance in fact constitutes a request for re-examination of the application bought before the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, thus rendering those pleas and arguments inadmissible. 2. An appeal may not be based on pleas in law which the appellant expressly withdrew in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance or pleas declared inadmissible by that Court, where the finding that they are inadmissible is not itself contested. 3. Under Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on pleas as to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. A fresh assessment of the facts thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. A plea which merely challenges the assessment of the facts made by the Court of First Instance is therefore inadmissible.

Citations:

C-354/92, [1993] EUECJ C-354/92P

Links:

Bailii

European, Litigation Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160985

Commission v Germany (Rec 1994,p I-2039) (Judgment): ECJ 1 Jun 1994

ECJ 1. In proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, it is for the Commission to judge at what time it will bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations; the considerations which determine its choice of time cannot affect the admissibility of the action.
That being so, the fact that no action was taken by the Commission further to the reasoned opinion, either immediately or shortly afterwards, and that the subject of the failure to fulfil obligations was not formally raised at a bilateral meeting held during the interval between the reasoned opinion and the initiation of proceedings, cannot confer on the Member State concerned a legitimate expectation that the procedure was at an end.
Furthermore, the right to choose the time for bringing an action is not affected by the fact that negotiations are in progress within the Council to harmonize national rules in the field in question; in any event such negotiations do not exempt the Member States from compliance with the applicable Community provisions so long as the provisions under discussion have not entered into force.
2. A Member State which restricts to two a year (30 June and 31 December) the expiry dates which may be shown on the packaging of medicinal products and non-reusable sterile medical instruments has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty.
Without prejudice to the question of the costs which may be involved in altering the packaging of products exported to that State, such a measure relating to the conditions to be satisfied by products is likely to affect intra-Community trade in so far as it may reduce the period of marketing of imported products. For that reason, it constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, notwithstanding the fact that it may correspond to a national practice, since it constitutes, per se, the expression of an obligation which requires importers to alter expiry dates.
Such a barrier cannot be justified on grounds of protecting public health, since, on the one hand, the mere advancing of an expiry date thus imposed does not constitute, per se, a measure capable of achieving that objective, and on the other, although the standardization of expiry dates makes it easier to sort products, the resulting economic advantages for traders do not constitute a ground of justification recognized in Community law.
3. A Member State fails to fulfil its obligations, under Articles 1(5) and 8(1) of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, to communicate to the Commission forthwith any draft technical specifications, the observance of which is compulsory in the case of the marketing or use of a product in a major part of its territory, where it fails to notify to the Commission a draft regulation extending to non-reusable sterile medical instruments the requirements relating to labelling of medicinal products, so that such instruments may henceforth be marketed or used in that Member State only if certain obligations are fulfilled the application of which was formerly confined to medicinal products.
The Court stated at: ‘The German regulation in question constitutes a new technical specification within the meaning of Article 1, cited above, since non-reusable sterile medical instruments may henceforth be marketed or used in Germany only if certain obligations are fulfilled the application of which was formerly confined to the labelling of medicinal products. The application, to given products, of a rule which previously only affected other products, constitutes, with regard to the former, a new regulation and must therefore be notified in accordance with the directive.’

Citations:

C-317/92, [1994] EUECJ C-317/92, [1994] ECR-1-2039

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Admn 20-Apr-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of legislative provisions requiring Internet Service Providers to become involved in regulation of copyright infringements by its subscribers. They asserted that the Act and proposed Order were contrary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160968

Lloyd-Textil v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen: ECJ 22 Dec 1993

ECJ The suspension of customs duties pursuant to Regulation No 3563/84 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1985 to textile products originating in developing countries is dependent upon the Nimexe code corresponding to the imported product being referred to in one of the two annexes to the regulation. Men’ s linen windcheaters imported from China and South Korea do not qualify for suspension of duties, since they cannot fall within Annex I to the regulation, which is restricted to products manufactured from wool, cotton or man-made fibres, and their code is not referred to in Annex II. This conclusion cannot be disputed on the ground that the failure to refer to their code is an omission due to an oversight on the part of the Council which the Court should rectify. Under Article 28 of the Treaty any autonomous alteration or suspension of duties in the Common Customs Tariff is to be decided by the Council. It therefore falls to the Council and not to the Court to identify, on the basis of criteria determined by it, the products qualifying for suspension of duties. The fact that their code was referred to in subsequent years cannot be invoked either, since the amendment of a provision in a regulation does not mean that earlier versions of that provision must be construed in accordance with that amendment.

Citations:

C-304/92, [1993] EUECJ C-304/92

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160963

Maitland Toosey v Chief Adjudication Officer: ECJ 27 Jan 1994

ECJ 1. The factor which determines whether Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 applies at all is the residence of the person concerned in a Member State other than that to whose legislation he was subject during his last employment. The first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 for that reason does not apply to a worker who moved with his family to a Member State where he resided and worked and where he suffered incapacity for work followed by invalidity, and who subsequently moved to another Member State without working there, before finally taking up residence in a third Member State, where, owing to his invalidity, he does not work or register for employment.
Such a worker is consequently not covered by Article 39(5) of that regulation and must come within the general rule under Article 39(1), which provides that, with regard to invalidity benefit, the competent Member State is the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred, in this case the State of last employment.
2. It follows from Article 86 of Regulation No 1408/71 and from Article 35 of Regulation No 574/72 that when a claimant submits a claim for invalidity benefit to the institution of the State of residence, that institution is required to forward it to the institution of the competent Member State, that is to say, the State whose legislation was applicable at the time when incapacity for work followed by invalidity occurred.
On the other hand, and in contrast to the system laid down with respect to other benefits, there is no provision in Regulation No 1408/71 which requires the institutions of the State of residence to pay invalidity benefit to a claimant, even if the competent State is required to make reimbursement, subject to the application of Article 114 of Regulation No 574/72 in the case of a dispute between the relevant institutions. Community law, however, does not in any way prohibit the institution of the State of residence from assisting a claimant in the submission of a claim to the institution of the competent State.

Citations:

C-287/92, [1994] EUECJ C-287/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Benefits

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160953

Mulox IBC v Hendrick Geels: ECJ 13 Jul 1993

ECJ The terms used in the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted autonomously. Only such an interpretation is capable of ensuring uniform application of the Convention, the objectives of which include unification of the rules on jurisdiction of the Contracting States, so as to avoid as far as possible the multiplication of the bases of jurisdiction in relation to one and the same legal relationship and to reinforce the legal protection available to persons established in the Community by, at the same time, allowing the plaintiff easily to identify the court before which he may bring an action and the defendant reasonably to foresee the court before which he may be sued.
In view of the specific nature of contracts of employment, the place of performance of the obligation in question, for the purposes of applying Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, must, in the case of such contracts, be determined by reference not to the applicable national law in accordance with the conflict rules of the court seised but, rather, to uniform criteria laid down by the Court of Justice on the basis of the scheme and the objectives of the Convention. The place of performance is the place where the employee actually carries out the work covered by the contract with his employer.
Where the employee performs his work in more than one Contracting State, the place of performance of the contractual obligation, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined as the place where or from which the employee discharges principally his obligations towards his employer.

Citations:

C-125/92, [1993] EUECJ C-125/92, [1993] ECR 1-4075

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160918

Bogana v Union nationale des mutualites socialistes (Rec 1993,p I-755) (Judgment): ECJ 18 Feb 1993

Europa An invalidity benefit paid by a Member State to a migrant worker is to be regarded as determined in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 even if its amount, calculated in accordance with the rules of national law, including the national provisions against overlapping, is equal to the amount calculated in accordance with the rules of Article 46 of that regulation, including the rule against overlapping set out in Article 46(3).
It follows that the adjustment of such a benefit is subject to the rules laid down by Article 51 of that regulation, under which a recalculation may be made only in the event of an alteration in the method of determining benefits or in the rules for calculating the benefits, and not to provisions of national law which provide for the recalculation of the national benefit in order to take account of variations in a benefit accorded by another Member State which are attributable in particular to fluctuations in average exchange rates or the general evolution of the economic and social situation in that State.

Citations:

C-193/92, [1993] EUECJ C-193/92

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160934