Category: European

Adams v Commission: ECJ 7 Nov 1985

Europa The decision whether or not to refer to the joint committee set up under the free trade agreement between the EEC and the Swiss Confederation in connection with articles 23(1) and 27 of the agreement, which are intended to provide fair conditions of competition for trade between the contracting parties and concern the means of putting an end to the abuse of a dominant position by one or more undertakings where such abuse is likely to affect that trade, may not be taken except for purposes which have to do exclusively with general interests of the community, following an assessment which is essentially political and which cannot be challenged before the court by an individual.

Citations:

C-53/84, [1985] EUECJ C-53/84

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133835

Commission v Germany: ECJ 23 May 1985

The question was asked as to whether Germany had given effect in domestic law to a directive which required the mutual recognition of nursing diplomas. German law conferred no right of recognition upon holders of diplomas from other member states but allowed their holders, if thought suitably qualified, to be given authority to practice on a case by case basis. But the German Government said that they had adopted an administrative policy which would result in recognition being accorded to all nurses from other member states. There was, however, nothing to stop them from changing the policy. The European Court said that this did not amount to an adequate implementation of the directive. Sir Gordon Slynn, Advocate General said that the German administrative policy, which was not to be found in any public document, lacked transparency: ‘There are two reasons for this requirement: (1) to enable the Community citizen to know his rights and have at his disposal a text on which he can rely simply and cheaply; (2) to ensure sufficient transparency to enable the Commission to check effectively whether a directive has been implemented.’

Citations:

C-29/84, [1985] EUECJ C-29/84, [1985] ECR 1661

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutio Di Parma v Asda Stores Ltd and Another CA 4-Dec-1998
A rule regarding the designation of origin of goods, disallowing the use of an origin name, must be readily ascertainable in the detail of the regulation, in order to be directly applicable. Designations for Parma Ham, were not readily discoverable, . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133812

Gaarm – Groupement Des Associations Agricoles Pour L’organisation De La Production Et De La Commercialisation Des Pommes De Terre Et Legumes De La Region Malouine And Others v Commission of The European Communities: ECJ 13 Dec 1984

Europa 1. Non-contractual liability – importation at low prices of new potatoes from Greece – failure to act on the part of the commission (EEC treaty, art. 46 and art. 215, second para. Act of accession of the Hellenic Republic, arts 130 (2) and 131; council regulation no 17, art. 3, and council regulation no 26, art. 4) 2. Accession of new member states to the communities – Hellenic Republic -agriculture – safeguard clause – conditions governing its application -appraisal by the commission (act of accession of the Hellenic Republic, art. 130 (2))

Citations:

C-289/83, [1984] EUECJ C-289/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133781

Ainsworth v Commission and Council: ECJ 15 Jan 1987

1. Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty, which gives the court of justice jurisdiction ‘in any dispute between the community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the staff regulations or the conditions of employment’, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only to persons who have the status of officials or of servants other than local staff but also to persons claiming that status.
Consequently, only the court of justice has jurisdiction, to the exclusion of national courts, to adjudicate on an application challenging the commission’s refusal to engage a person employed in an eaec joint undertaking as a temporary servant.
2. A difference in treatment at the level of the staff regulations and the conditions of employment applied to persons employed in an eaec joint undertaking depending on the institution which made them available is permissible only if objectively justified. In order to determine whether that is the case, the specific characteristics which the joint undertaking in question may have, both in its nature and organization, must be taken into consideration.

Citations:

C-271/83, [1987] EUECJ C-271/83

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133766

Windsurfing International v Commission: ECJ 25 Feb 1986

Although the Commission is not competent to determine the scope of a patent, it is still the case that it may not refrain from all action when the scope of the patent is relevant for the purposes of determining whether there has been an infringement of article 85 or 86 of the treaty. Even in cases where the protection afforded by a patent is the subject of proceedings before the national courts, the Commission must be able to exercise its powers in accordance with the provisions of regulation no 17. The findings of the commission relating to the scope of a patent do not in any way pre-empt the determinations made later by national courts within their spheres of jurisdiction and are subject to review by the court of justice. That review must be limited to determining whether, in the light of the legal position existing in the state in which the patent was granted, the commission has made a reasonable assessment of the scope of the patent. The following clauses in patent licensing agreements do not fall within the specific subject-matter of the patent and are incompatible with article 85(1) of the treaty in so far as they restrict competition: quality controls to be exercised by the licensor either in respect of a product not covered by the patent or without being based on objective criteria laid down in advance, an obligation arbitrarily placed on the licensee only to sell the patented product in conjunction with a product outside the scope of the patent, a method of calculating royalties inducing the licensee to refuse to sell separately a product not covered by the patent, an obligation on the licensee to affix a notice of the patent to a product not covered by the patent, a no-challenge clause with regard to the licensor’ s trade-marks and patents, and a clause prohibiting the licensee from manufacturing the patented product in a country where it has no patent protection. In order for an agreement between undertakings to be regarded as affecting intra-community trade within the meaning of article 85(1) of the treaty, it is not necessary for each individual clause to be capable of affecting such trade. Only if the agreement as a whole is capable of affecting trade is it necessary to examine which are the clauses of the agreement which have as their object or effect a restriction or distortion of competition.

Citations:

C-193/83, [1986] EUECJ C-193/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133714