Category: European

Bosmans v Commission: ECJ 8 Jul 1982

Europa A decision of the appointing authority assigning to a post in a personal capacity an official who has already been assigned in a personal capacity to another post of the same grade does not alter the position of the person concerned under the staff regulations and therefore does not adversely affect him.

Citations:

C-189/81, [1982] EUECJ C-189/81

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133276

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: ECJ 6 Jul 1982

The general scheme and content of Directive 75/117, whose essential purpose is to implement the principle of equal pay for men and women, indicate that it is the responsibility of the member states to guarantee the right to receive equal pay for work of equal value even in the absence of a system of job classification. To that end they must make use of appropriate laws, regulations and administrative provisions in such a way that all employees in the community may be protected in these matters. It follows that where there is disagreement as to the application of the concept of ‘work to which equal value is attributed’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 1 of the directive, the worker must be entitled to claim before an appropriate authority that his work has the same value as other work and, if that is found to be the case, to have his rights under the treaty and the directive acknowledged by a binding decision. Each member state must therefore endow an authority with the requisite jurisdiction to decide whether work has the same value as other work.

Citations:

C-61/81, [1982] ICR 578, [1982] EUECJ C-61/81

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133210

Williams v Court of Auditors: ECJ 6 Oct 1982

1. The implementation of a general decision based on new criteria for the classification of new staff recruited to the department, which entails inequalities of treatment for officials oppointed at an earlier stage, entitles those officials to call for a review of their administrative status with a view to their obtaining an appropriate alteration of their classification on the ground that the emergence of that new development is such as to affect them adversely.
2. Article 5(3) of the staff regulations, expressing as it does the principle of equality of treatment as between officials of the same category or in the same department, is of central importance to the legal provisions governing employees of the european communities. That principle underlies the staff regulations, and in particular article 46, which applies to the award of a higher step upon promotion in cases where careers are organized in a consistent manner from the outset. In a case where a community institution has prescribed for the new officials recruited from outside the communities independent rules for classification which do not exist in that form in other community institutions, with the result that the careers of the new officials, on the one hand, and of those transferred from other institutions, on the other, are not organized in a consistent manner, it is not entitled, to rely, in the case of officials transferred from other institutions, upon article 46 of the staff regulations in order to justify the alleged difference between their status and that of the newly-recruited officials from outside the communities.

Citations:

C-9/81, [1982] EUECJ C-9/81

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133169

Staatsecretaris Van Financien v Cooperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats: ECJ 5 Feb 1981

(The Dutch Potato case) A farmers’ cooperative owned a refrigerated potato store. During 1975 and 1976 it came to be unnecessary, because it was planning to sell the store, to levy the usual storage charges on its members. Dutch tax officials claimed that there was nevertheless consideration for their use of the store in the form of a reduction in the value of their shares in the co-operative.
Held: The tax official’s case failed. Three principles applied. There must be a direct link between the service provided and the consideration received; the consideration must be capable of being expressed in money; and thirdly, ‘that such consideration is a subjective value since the basis of assessment for the provision of services is the consideration actually received and not a value assessed according to objective criteria’.

Judges:

Advocate General Warner

Citations:

[1981] ECR 445, C-154/80, R-154/80, [1981] EUECJ R-154/80

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Lex Services plc v Her Majestys Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 4-Dec-2003
When taking a car in part exchange, the company would initially offer the correct market value. If the customer wanted, the company would agree a higher price. When cars were returned, the company at first reclaimed the VAT on the re-purchase price, . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133088

Klomps v Michel: ECJ 16 Jun 1981

The words ‘the document which instituted the proceedings’ contained in article 27, point 2, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cover any document, such as the order for payment (zahlungsbefehl) in german law, service of which enables the plaintiff, under the law of the state of the court in which the judgment was given, to obtain in default of appropriate action taken by the defendant, a decision capable of being recognized and enforced under the provisions of the convention.
A decision such as the enforcement order (vollstreckungsbefehl) in German law, which is issued after service of the order for payment has been effected and which is enforceable under the convention, is not covered by the words ‘the document which instituted the proceedings’.
In order to determine whether the defendant has been enabled to arrange for his defence as required by article 27, point 2, the court in which enforcement is sought must take account only of the time, such as that allowed under german law for submitting an objection (widerspruch) to the order for payment, available to the defendant for the purposes of preventing the issue of a judgment in default which is enforceable under the convention.
Article 27, point 2, of the convention, which is addressed exclusively to the court before which proceedings are brought for recognition or enforcement in another contracting state, remains applicable where the defendant has lodged an objection against the decision given in default and a court in the state in which the judgment was given has declared the objection inadmissible on the ground that the time for making such objection has expired.
Even if the court in which the judgment was given has held, in separate adversary proceedings, that service was duly effected, article 27, point 2, of the convention still requires the court in which enforcement is sought to examine whether service was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence.
Article 27, point 2, of the convention does not require proof that the document which instituted the proceedings was actually brought to the knowledge of the defendant. As a general rule the court in which enforcement is sought may accordingly confine its examination to ascertaining whether the period reckoned from the date on which service was duly effected allowed the defendant sufficient time to arrange for his defence. Nevertheless the court must consider whether, in a particular case, there are exceptional circumstances which warrant the conclusion that, although service was duly effected, it was, however, inadequate for the purpose of causing time to begin to run.

Citations:

[1981] ECR 1593, C-166/80, R-166/80, [1981] EUECJ R-166/80

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Jurgens CA 25-Jan-2002
The claimant sought to register and enforce here, a judgment obtained by default in Germany. It was argued that he had not had, under section 27(2) sufficient opportunity to make a proper reply to the proceedings, and that the Brussels Convention . .
Cited – Olafsson v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages after the defendant had negligently failed to arrange for the service of the claimant’s defamation proceedings on a defendant in Iceland leaving the action time barred.
Held: The Claimant had not acted unreasonably . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133100

Curtis v Commission and Parliament: ECJ 4 Jun 1981

Europa Officials – application to the court – act adversely affecting an official – act emanating from the appointing authority (staff regulations of officials, art. 91). The appeal referred to in article 91 of the staff regulations of officials may be directed only against an act adversely affecting an official and emanating from the appointing authority.

Citations:

C-167/80, [1981] EUECJ C-167/80, [1982] EUECJ C-167/80

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133101

Susan Jane Worringham and Margaret Humphreys v Lloyds Bank Limited: ECJ 11 Mar 1981

Europa A contribution to a retirement benefits scheme which is paid by an employer on behalf of employees by means of an addition to the gross salary and which therefore helps to determine the amount of that salary constitutes ‘pay’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 119 of the EEC treaty. Directive 75/117/EEC is based on the concept of ‘pay’ as defined in the second paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty. Although article 1 of the directive explains that the concept of ‘same work’ contained in the first paragraph of article 119 of the treaty includes cases of ‘work to which equal value is attributed’, it in no way affects the concept of ‘pay’ contained in the second paragraph of article 119 but refers by implication to that concept. Article 119 of the EEC treaty applies directly to all forms of discrimination which may be identified solely with the aid of the criteria of equal work and equal pay referred to by the article in question, without national or community measures being required to define them with greater precision in order to permit of their application. The forms of discrimination which may be thus judicially identified include cases where men and women receive unequal pay for equal work carried out in the same establishment or service, public or private. This is the case where the requirement to pay contributions to a retirement benefits scheme applies only to men and not to women and the contributions payable by men are paid by the employer on their behalf by means of an addition to the gross salary the effect of which is to give men higher pay within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 119 than that received by women engaged in the same work or work of equal value.

Citations:

C-69/80, [1981] 1 WLR 950, [1981] ICR 558, [1981] 2 All ER 434, R-69/80, [1981] EUECJ R-69/80

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133026