Category: European

Commission v Belgium: ECJ 28 Jan 1992

Europa Legislation of a Member State which makes the deductibility of pension and life assurance contributions conditional on those contributions being paid in that State is contrary to Articles 48 and 59 of the Treaty. However, that condition may be justified by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the applicable tax system.
That need may exist, for example, where the tax system of a Member State is such that the deductibility of the contributions is offset by the taxation of payments made by insurers pursuant to the contracts, and vice versa, and where it would be impossible to ensure that the deductions were offset by subsequent taxation of payments because payments arising from the deductible contributions were made by a foreign insurer established in another country where there would be no certainty of subjecting them to tax.

Citations:

C-300/90, [1992] EUECJ C-300/90

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Pirelli Cable Holding Nv and others v Inland Revenue HL 8-Feb-2006
Under s247 of the 1988 Act, a company paying dividends to a parent company need not withhold ACT. This option was not offered where either subsidiary or parent was not UK resident until the decision in Hoechst which found the restriction contrary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160567

Reichert and Kockler v Dresdner Bank: ECJ 26 Mar 1992

The case concerned article 16(5) of the Brussels Convention, among other articles.
Held: It is necessary to take account of the fact that the essential purpose of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the place in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is that it is only for the courts of the Member State on whose territory enforcement is sought to apply the rules concerning the action on that territory of the authorities responsible for enforcement.

Citations:

C-261/90, [1992] ECR 1-2149, [1992] EUECJ C-261/90

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Brussesl Convention 16(5)

Cited by:

Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard HL 12-Jun-2003
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the . .
Cited – Mazur Media Limited and Another v Mazur Media Gmbh in Others ChD 8-Jul-2004
Proceedings were brought in England. The respondents sought a stay, saying the company was subject to insolvency proceedings in Germany.
Held: Our domestic insolvency law was not applicable to foreign proceedings, and so could not be used to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160547

Bachmann v Belgian State: ECJ 28 Jan 1992

Europa Legislation of a Member State which makes the deductibility of sickness and invalidity insurance contributions or pension and life assurance contributions conditional on those contributions being paid in that State is contrary to Articles 48 and 59 of the Treaty. However, that condition may be justified by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the applicable tax system.
That need may exist, for example, where the tax system of a Member State is such that the deductibility of the contributions is offset by the taxation of payments made by insurers pursuant to the contracts, and vice versa, and where it would be impossible to ensure that the deductions were offset by subsequent taxation of payments because payments arising from the deductible contributions were made by a foreign insurer established in another country where there would be no certainty of subjecting them to tax.
Such legislation is not incompatible with Articles 67 and 106 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-204/90, [1992] EUECJ C-204/90, [1992] ECR I-249

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Pirelli Cable Holding Nv and others v Inland Revenue HL 8-Feb-2006
Under s247 of the 1988 Act, a company paying dividends to a parent company need not withhold ACT. This option was not offered where either subsidiary or parent was not UK resident until the decision in Hoechst which found the restriction contrary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160521

Germany v Commission: ECJ 27 Oct 1992

Europa 1. In the context of the common agricultural policy the Community has power under Article 40(3) of the Treaty to provide for penalties such as exclusions from the scheme of subsidies established by Article 6(6) of Regulation No 3007/84 and by Article 13(3)(c) of Regulation No 3813/89. In fact, exclusions which do not differ in kind from other penalties such as surcharges on amounts wrongly received and having to be repaid, provided for in the agricultural legislation, are necessary in order to combat irregularities committed in the context of agricultural aid which, because they weigh heavily on the Community budget, are likely to compromise Community action in the agricultural sector.
2. In the context of the common agricultural policy the Commission has power to provide for penalties such as exclusions from the scheme of subsidies and surcharges on amounts wrongly received and having to be repaid, provided for by Article 6(6) of Regulation No 3007/84 and Article 13(3)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 3813/89. Those penalties in fact come within the implementing powers which the Council may delegate to the Commission under Articles 145 and 155 of the Treaty.
Articles 145 and 155 establish a distinction between rules which, since they are essential to the subject-matter envisaged, must be reserved to the Council’ s power, and those which, being merely of an implementing nature, may be delegated to the Commission. In the agricultural sector only provisions intended to give concrete shape to the fundamental guidelines of Community policy may be classified as essential. That is not true of penalties, such as a surcharge on the reimbursement, with interest of a subsidy paid, or exclusion for a certain period of a trader from the subsidies scheme, which are intended to underpin the policy options chosen by ensuring the proper financial management of the Community funds designated for their attainment.
Europa
3. In order to delegate to the Commission the power to provide for penalties in the sector of the common agricultural policy a delegation of power couched in general terms is sufficient. In fact once the Council has laid down in a basic regulation the essential rules governing the matter in question, it may delegate to the Commission a general implementing power without having to specify the essential components of the delegated powers. That principle is not affected by Council Decision 87/373 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. As a measure of secondary law it cannot add to the rules of the Treaty, which do not require the Council to specify the essential components of the implementing powers delegated to the Commission.

Citations:

C-240/90, [1992] EUECJ C-240/90

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: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160532

Commission v Albani and others (Rec 1993,p I-3839) (Judgment): ECJ 6 Jul 1993

ECJ Where, in an open competition for the purpose of constituting a reserve for future recruitment, a test is annulled, the rights of an applicant who has failed that test will be adequately protected if the selection board and the appointing authority reconsider their decisions and seek a just solution in his case, without it being necessary to call in question the entire results of the competition or to annul the appointments made as a result thereof. It is necessary to reconcile the interests of the candidates put at a disadvantage by an irregularity committed in the course of the competition and the interests of the other candidates. To that end, the Court is required to take account not only of the need to restore the rights of candidates who have been adversely affected but also of the legitimate expectations of the candidates who passed the competition. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling both the irregular test and the subsequent acts in the competition procedure is vitiated by an error in law in that it does not limit the consequences of the annulment to reinstatement of the applicants’ rights.

Citations:

C-242/90, [1993] EUECJ C-242/90P

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160533

Cipeke v Commission: ECJ 4 Jun 1992

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision reducing the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to a vocational training programme (EEC Treaty, Art. 190)
Whilst in the context of the original application for assistance from the European Social Fund, a summary statement of the reasons for the Commission’ s refusal to grant assistance satisfies the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty, a decision reducing the amount of assistance originally granted must, on the other hand, since it entails more serious consequences for the applicant, clearly state the grounds justifying the reduction of the assistance in relation to the amount originally approved.
That requirement is not satisfied by a decision based on the fact that certain items of expenditure incurred were not approved on the grant of the assistance, where no detailed and specific decision of approval had been notified and no indication was given of the manner in which the amount of the reduction notified to the recipient was arrived at.

Citations:

C-189/90, [1992] EUECJ C-189/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160506

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and others: ECJ 4 Oct 1991

Europa A national court or tribunal is not empowered to bring a matter before the Court by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty unless a dispute is pending before it in the context of which it is called upon to give a decision which could take into account the preliminary ruling. Conversely, the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to hear a reference for a preliminary ruling when at the time it is made the procedure before the court making it has already been terminated.
Medical termination of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the State in which it is carried out, constitutes a service within the meaning of Article 60 of the Treaty.
The provision of information on an economic activity is not to be regarded as a provision of services within the meaning of Article 60 of the Treaty where the information is not distributed on behalf of an economic operator but constitutes merely a manifestation of freedom of expression. As a result, it is not contrary to Community law for a Member State in which medical termination of pregnancy is forbidden to prohibit students associations from distributing information about the identity and location of clinics in another Member State where voluntary termination of pregnancy is lawfully carried out and the means of communicating with those clinics, where the clinics in question have no involvement in the distribution of the said information.

Citations:

C-159/90, [1991] EUECJ C-159/90

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB Admn 17-Oct-1996
Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent.
Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160492

Doriguzzi-Zordanin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben: ECJ 19 Mar 1992

ECJ Social security for migrant workers – Family allowances – Benefits for orphans – Benefits payable by State of residence – Amount of benefits paid in State of residence less than that payable under the legislation of another Member State – Right to benefit supplement – Calculation – Benefits to be taken into account
Article 78 of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the benefit supplement payable where the amount of the benefits actually received in the Member State of residence is less than that of the benefits which the orphan would be entitled to under the legislation of another Member State, all the benefits intended for the orphan in the Member States concerned must be taken into account, in so far as those benefits fall within the definition in paragraph 1 of that article.

Judges:

F. A. Schockweiler, P

Citations:

C-188/90, [1992] EUECJ C-188/90

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No 1408/71 78(1) 78(2)(b)(i)

European, benefits

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160505

William Dowling v Ireland, Attorney General and Minister for Agriculture and Foods: ECJ 22 Oct 1992

Europa The combined provisions of Articles 3(3) and 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89 and subsequently by Regulation No 1639/91, do not provide for any possibility of granting a reference quantity to a producer whose conversion period, in performance of an undertaking given under Regulation No 1078/77, expired before 1 January 1983, even though that producer was prevented by an occupational incapacity from delivering milk between the expiry of his undertaking and the end of 1983, the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned. The rules, thus construed, do not infringe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since that principle does not require the grant of a reference quantity to be made available to a producer who did not, on the expiry of his conversion period, resume milk production as a result of an occupational incapacity and consequently did not make any milk deliveries during the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned. Nor can such a producer rely, for the purpose of obtaining a reference quantity, on the quantity of milk that he would have delivered during either of the remaining two years within the period 1981 to 1983 if, during those years, he had not been bound by his undertaking. Those rules likewise do not infringe the prohibition of discrimination, since the difference of treatment suffered by such a producer by virtue of his being unable to prove deliveries during 1981 and 1982 and therefore not being entitled to request that another reference year be taken into account, stems from the fact that the rules in question do not allow account to be taken of a reference year outside the period 1981 to 1983 or of a theoretical quantity calculated on the basis of milk deliveries made during a period prior to 1981. Such an exclusion is objectively justified by the need to limit the number of years which may be taken as reference years, in the interests of both legal certainty and the effectiveness of the additional levy system.

Citations:

C-85/90, [1992] EUECJ C-85/90

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Shanning International Ltd (in liquidation) v Lloyds Bank plc Lloyds Bank plc v Rasheed Bank HL 2-Jul-2001
Under a series of cross guarantees, equipment was supplied to Iraq. Final payment was due on delivery of the final equipment. Before it could be delivered, the prohibitions came into effect against satisfying or making any claims in connection with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160470

Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment): ECJ 14 Jul 1993

ECJ 1. A Member State which is bound to implement a directive is not entitled to draw the inference from the Commission’ s initial failure to react to a communication addressed to it regarding the manner in which the Member State intended to implement the directive that the Commission, which was obliged by neither Article 5 of the Treaty nor the provisions of the directive to express a view within a given period, had approved the criteria notified. It is for the Commission to decide when it intends to formulate objections and there is nothing to prevent it subsequently bringing proceedings against the Member State for failure to fulfil obligations.
2. The definition of ‘bathing water’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water must, in the light of the directive’ s underlying purpose as expressed in the recitals in the preamble thereto, be understood as encompassing at all events the waters of bathing resorts equipped with certain facilities, such as changing huts, toilets and markers indicating bathing areas, and supervised by lifeguards.
3. Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water, Article 4(1) of which imposes an obligation on Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure that their bathing waters conform to the physical, chemical and microbiological values laid down by the directive within a period of ten years from its notification, requires Member States to take steps to ensure that the prescribed results are attained within the period laid down; apart from the derogations expressly provided for by the directive they may not rely on particular circumstances to justify a failure to fulfil that obligation.

Citations:

C-56/90, [1993] EUECJ C-56/90, [1993] ECR I-4109

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Clientearth, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 29-Apr-2015
The applicant had challenged the failure by the governement to secure appropriate air quality standards. The question had earlier been referred to the ECJ, and the Court now considered the appropriate orders following the ECJ judgment.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160449

Commission v Italy (Rec 1991,p I-6011) (Judgment): ECJ 13 Dec 1991

Europa An obligation imposed on Member States by a directive to provide the Commission with full information on the measures which they have adopted in order to comply with the directive or, as the case may be, on existing provisions which already ensure its application, also means that, if a Member State considers that certain provisions of the directive do not necessitate the adoption by it of measures to implement it domestically, that State must, before the expiry of the period of implementation, inform the Commission of the reasons for its attitude so that the Commission can make its views known in that regard.
Under Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are required to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from Community law and to facilitate the achievement of the Community’ s tasks. To that end, they must cooperate loyally with the Commission to enable it to ensure, pursuant to Article 155 of the Treaty, that Community law is applied.

Citations:

C-69/90, [1991] EUECJ C-69/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160461

Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5159) (Judgment): ECJ 13 Oct 1992

Europa 1. The requirement of relative stability in the allocation among the Member States of the catches available to the Community, in the event of limitation of fishing activities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83, must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. The distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty.
Europa 2. Article 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal provides that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities before accession are to be binding on the new Member States and are to apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in the Act of Accession itself. With respect to fisheries and, in particular, external resources, the Act of Accession (Article 167 in the case of Spain) provides for a system of integration whereby the Community merely takes over the management of fisheries agreements previously concluded with non-member countries by the new Member States, and provisionally maintains, in their case, the rights and obligations resulting therefrom, pending the adoption by the Council of appropriate decisions concerning the continuation of fishing activities under those agreements. In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the existing Community rules must be applied, in particular the principle of relative stability as laid down by Regulation No 170/83 and interpreted by the Court.
However, although the Act of Accession did not affect the existing situation regarding the distribution of external fishery resources, the fact nevertheless remains that, since accession, Spain has been in the same position as those Member States that did not benefit from the initial allocation. It follows that that Member State is entitled to participate in the allocation of any new fishing possibilities that become available under agreements with non-member countries concluded after accession and that, if and when the system is reviewed, it may put forward its claims on the same footing as all the other Member States.
Europa 3. The exclusion by Regulation No 4053/89 of Spain from the allocation for 1990 of certain Community catch quotas in the waters of the Faroe Islands does not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 7 of the Treaty since Spain’ s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States included in that allocation if account is taken of the provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession concerning the integration of the new Member States in the common fisheries policy.
Firstly, the new Member States cannot rely on circumstances antedating accession, in particular their fishing activities during the reference period, in order to call in question the existing Community rules, since the Act of Accession did not change the existing situation regarding the distribution of external resources. Secondly, since their accession, even if accession deprived them of the power to conclude their own agreements and even if they did not receive anything in return for the external resources which they brought into the Community, they have been in the same position as the Member States excluded from the distributions under the principle of relative stability of fishing activities, which was reflected, as far as the agreements concluded before accession are concerned, in the distribution effected in 1983.

Citations:

C-70/90, [1992] EUECJ C-70/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160462

Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5175) (Judgment): ECJ 13 Oct 1992

Europa 1. The requirement of relative stability of the allocation among the Member States of the catches available to the Community, in the event of limitation of fishing activities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83, must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. The distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty.
Europa 2. Article 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal provides that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities before accession are to be binding on the new Member States and are to apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in the Act of Accession itself. With respect to fisheries and, in particular, external resources, the Act of Accession (Article 167 in the case of Spain) provides for a system of integration whereby the Community merely takes over the management of fisheries agreements previously concluded with non-member countries by the new Member States, and provisionally maintains, in their case, the rights and obligations resulting therefrom, pending the adoption by the Council of appropriate decisions concerning the continuation of fishing activities under those agreements. In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the existing Community rules must be applied, in particular the principle of relative stability as laid down by Regulation No 170/83 and interpreted by the Court.
However, although the Act of Accession did not affect the existing situation regarding the distribution of external fishery resources, the fact nevertheless remains that, since accession, Spain has been in the same position as those Member States that did not benefit from the initial allocation. It follows that that Member State is entitled to participate in the allocation of any new fishing possibilities that become available under agreements with non-member countries concluded after accession and that, if and when the system is reviewed, it may put forward its claims on the same footing as all the other Member States.
Europa 3. The exclusion by Regulation No 4049/89 of Spain from the allocation for 1990 of certain Community catch quotas in the waters of the Norwegian exclusive economic zone around Jan Mayen does not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 7 of the Treaty since Spain’ s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States included in that allocation if account is taken of the provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession concerning the integration of the new Member States in the common fisheries policy.
Firstly, the new Member States cannot rely on circumstances antedating accession, in particular their fishing activities during the reference period, in order to call in question the existing Community rules, since the Act of Accession did not change the existing situation regarding the distribution of external resources. Secondly, since their accession, even if accession deprived them of the power to conclude their own agreements and even if they did not receive anything in return for the external resources which they brought into the Community, they have been in the same position as the Member States excluded from the distributions under the principle of relative stability of fishing activities, which was reflected, as far as the agreements concluded before accession are concerned, in the distribution effected in 1983.

Citations:

C-71/90, [1992] EUECJ C-71/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160463

Asia Motor France v Commission (Rec 1990,p I-2181) (Order): ECJ 23 May 1990

Europa Action for failure to act – Natural and legal persons – Failure to act as ground of action – Failure to initiate Treaty infringement proceedings – Inadmissibility
(EEC Treaty, Art 169, second paragraph, and Art . 175, third paragraph)
Action for damages – Subject-matter – Claim for compensation for damage caused by national authorities acting in breach of Community law – Jurisdiction of the national courts
(EEC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215, second paragraph)
Procedure – Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance – Application made by a natural or legal person under the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty and concerning the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, together with an application for damages – Referral to the Court of First Instance
(Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3(1)(c) and Art. 3(2); Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 47, as amended)

Citations:

C-72/90, [1990] EUECJ C-72/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160464

Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5191) (Judgment): ECJ 13 Oct 1992

Eiropa 1. The requirement of relative stability in the allocation among the Member States of the catches available to the Community, in the event of limitation of fishing activities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83, must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. The distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty.
The principle of relative stability of fishing activities cannot be interpreted as placing the Council under an obligation to effect a fresh distribution whenever an increase of a particular stock is established, where that stock was already covered by the initial allocation.
2. Article 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal provides that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities before accession are to be binding on the new Member States and are to apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in the Act of Accession itself. With respect to fisheries and, in particular, external resources, the Act of Accession (Article 167 in the case of Spain) provides for a system of integration whereby the Community merely takes over the management of fisheries agreements previously concluded with non-member countries by the new Member States, and provisionally maintains, in their case, the rights and obligations resulting therefrom, pending the adoption by the Council of appropriate decisions concerning the continuation of fishing activities under those agreements. In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the existing Community rules must be applied, in particular the principle of relative stability as laid down by Regulation No 170/83 and interpreted by the Court.
However, although the Act of Accession did not affect the existing situation regarding the distribution of external fishery resources, the fact nevertheless remains that, since accession, Spain has been in the same position as those Member States that did not benefit from the initial allocation. It follows that that Member State is entitled to participate in the allocation of any new fishing possibilities that become available under agreements with non-member countries concluded after accession and that, if and when the system is reviewed, it may put forward its claims on the same footing as all the other Member States.
The exclusion by Regulations Nos 4051/89 and 4057/89 of Spain from the allocation for 1989 and 1990 of the Community’ s catch quotas in Swedish waters does not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 7 of the Treaty since, in view of the fact that the arrangements for the integration of the new Member States into the common fisheries policy laid down by the 1985 Act of Accession imply, in conformity with the existing Community rules, observance of the principle of relative stability in the distribution of resources, Spain’ s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States already included in the allocation decided on in 1983.
The position would be different if the contested regulations had distributed new fishing possibilities in respect of stocks which were not previously accessible and had been obtained by the Community under agreements concluded with non-member countries after accession and had not therefore been allocated at the time of accession.

Citations:

C-73/90, [1992] EUECJ C-73/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160465

Criminal proceedings against Guitard (Rec 1991,p I-4205) (Judgment): ECJ 25 Jul 1991

Europa Agriculture – Common organization of markets – Wine – Name and presentation of wines – Definition of ‘wine’ – Requirement of a minimum degree of alcoholic strength
(Council Regulations No 337/79, Annex II, point 8, No 355/79 Art. 45(1)(a) and No 822/87, Annex I, point 10).
It is clear from the definition in point 8 of Annex II to Regulation No 337/79, re-enacted in point 10 of Annex I to Regulation No 822/87 on the common organization of the market in wine, to which Article 45(1)(a) of Regulation No 355/79 laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines refers, that wine must be the product of total or partial alcoholic fermentation, that such fermentation must be the only production process, and that a product obtained from grapes by any process other than alcoholic fermentation is not wine. It follows that those provisions require that wine, when supplied, must have a minimum degree of alcoholic strength.

Citations:

C-75/90, [1991] EUECJ C-75/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160466

Manfred Sager v Dennemeyer and Co Ltd: ECJ 25 Jul 1991

Europa 1. Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against a person providing services on the grounds of his nationality, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services. In particular, a Member State may not make the provision of services in its territory subject to compliance with all the conditions required for establishment and thereby deprive of all practical effectiveness the provisions of the Treaty whose object is, precisely, to guarantee the freedom to provide services. Such a restriction is all the less permissible where, unlike the situation governed by the third paragraph of Article 60 of the Treaty, the service is supplied without its being necessary for the person providing it to visit the territory of the Member State where it is provided.
2. Having regard to the particular characteristics of the provisions of services in certain sectors of activity, specific requirements imposed on the provider, which result from the application of rules governing those types of activities, cannot be regarded as incompatible with the Treaty. However, as a fundamental principle of the Treaty, the freedom to provide services may be limited only by provisions which are justified by imperative reasons relating to the public interest and which apply to all persons or undertakings pursuing an activity in the State of destination, in so far as that interest is not protected by the rules to which the person providing the services is subject in the Member State in which he is established. In particular, those requirements must be objectively necessary in order to ensure compliance with professional rules and to guarantee the protection of the recipient of services and they must not exceed what is necessary to attain those objectives. ,br />3. Article 59 of the EEC Treaty precludes provisions of a Member State which prohibit a company established in another Member State from providing patent-owners in the territory of the first State with a service for monitoring those patents and renewing them by payment of the requisite fees, on the ground that, by virtue of those provisions, such activities are reserved to persons holding a special professional qualification, such as a qualification as patent agent.

Citations:

C-76/90, [1991] EUECJ C-76/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160467

Parliament v Council (Rec 1992,p I-4593) (Judgment): ECJ 16 Jul 1992

Europa 1. An action for annulment brought by the Parliament against an act of the Council or Commission is admissible provided that the action seeks only to safeguard the Parliament’ s prerogatives and is founded only on submissions alleging their infringement, since those prerogatives include, in particular, participation in the drafting of legislative measures.
2. Due consultation of the European Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty is one of the means enabling the Parliament to participate effectively in the Community’ s legislative procedure. That duty of consultation includes the requirement that the Parliament be reconsulted whenever the final text, viewed as a whole, departs substantially from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted, except in cases where the amendments correspond essentially to the wishes expressed by the Parliament itself.
3. A comparison between the Commission’ s original proposal for Regulation No 4059/89 and the content of that regulation as adopted by the Council shows that temporary authorization within the framework of a Community quota has been substituted for the principle of freedom of cabotage in Member States for carriers established in another Member State. Those substantive amendments, which do not reflect any wish of the Parliament and which affect the whole scheme, are sufficient to require fresh consultation of the Parliament. The fact that the latter was not consulted a second time in the legislative procedure provided for in Article 75 of the Treaty constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements, justifying the annulment of Regulation No 4059/89.

Citations:

C-65/90, [1992] EUECJ C-65/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160457

Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest v Receveur principal des douanes de La Pallice-Port: ECJ 11 Mar 1992

A parafiscal charge applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the charge borne by those products, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties prohibited by Article 12 of the EEC Treaty. If, on the other hand, those advantages only partly offset the charge borne by domestic products, the charge in question constitutes discriminatory taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the Treaty, the collection of which is prohibited as regards the proportion of it used to offset the burden of the charge borne by domestic products.
Such a parafiscal charge, being governed by Article 12 et seq. or Article 95 of the Treaty, is not governed by Article 30 thereof.
A parafiscal charge applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the charge borne by those products, may, depending on how the revenue from it is used, constitute State aid incompatible with the common market if the conditions for the application of Article 92 of the Treaty are met, it being understood that a finding that those conditions are met must be made in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 93 of the Treaty.
Article 37 of the Treaty does not prohibit the introduction of a parafiscal charge which is created independently of the rules governing the importation and marketing of petroleum in force in a Member State and is unconnected with the exercise of the exclusive rights provided for by those rules.

Citations:

C-78/90, [1992] EUECJ C-78/90, [1992] ECR I-1847

Links:

Bailii

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: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160468

Denkavit Futtermittel v Land Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 20 Jun 1991

ECJ 1. Article 5(4)(b) and (7) of Directive 79/373 on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from introducing into its legislation an obligation to indicate the ingredients used, in descending order of their proportion, in those feedingstuffs, even if no such obligation existed in national law when the directive entered into force.
2. The obligation, imposed pursuant to the legislation of a Member State, to indicate the ingredients of compound feedingstuffs in descending order of their proportion, which has the effect of rendering more difficult the importation of compound feedingstuffs originating in other Member States where such a declaration is not required and which therefore comes within the prohibition laid down in Article 30 of the Treaty, is justified by the public interest in the protection of health of humans and animals, within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty, as well as by the requirements of consumer protection and fair trading.
3. In the exercise of the powers conferred on them with respect to the harmonization of the laws of the Member States, the Community institutions must be recognized as enjoying a discretion in relation to the stages in which harmonization is to take place, having regard to the particular nature of the field subject to coordination.
Since harmonization in the compound-feedingstuffs sector is only incomplete, it is in no way established that, by permitting the Member States, through the provisions of Article 5(4) and (7) of Directive 79/373, to maintain or introduce the requirement of the semi-open declaration, the Council exceeded the limits of its discretion.

Citations:

C-39/90, [1991] EUECJ C-39/90

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160436