Category: European

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

Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs (Fnrom) v Yvon Salmon: ECJ 12 Jun 1980

Europa In connection with the task entrusted to it by article 177 of the EEC treaty the court has no jurisdiction to review the application of the provisions of community law to a given case or to criticize the way in which a national court applies community law. However, the need to arrive at a serviceable interpretation of community law permits the court to extract from the details of the dispute in the main action the information necessary for an understanding of the question referred to it and for the formulation of an appropriate answer.
The aggregation of insurance periods and the apportionment of benefits provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 have no relevance in the case of a state in which the result sought by article 51 of the treaty is already attained by virtue of national legislation alone. They cannot therefore be effected, without being incompatible with article 51 of the treaty, if their effect is to reduce the benefits which the person concerned may claim by virtue of the laws of a single member state on the basis solely of the periods of insurance completed under those laws provided, however, that that method does not lead to an overlapping of benefits for one and the same period.
The overlapping of a benefit, acquired under national law alone on the basis of national contribution periods with a benefit acquired in another state by means of aggregation in a case where, as required by article 27, the periods of insurance ‘ ‘ do not overlap ‘ ‘, does not constitute an advantage which is contrary to community law. The advantage of aggregation is the acquisition of a right to a pension which would not otherwise arise, the pension acquired in this way being calculated in proportion only to the insurance period completed in the member state in question, to the exclusion of any period completed elsewhere.
The competent institution of a member state may not rely on the provisions of regulation no 3 or in particular in article 28 (4) in order to refuse the grant to a worker of benefits calculated pursuant to articles 27 and 28 of that regulation or to reduce them on the ground that that worker is receiving a pension provided by the institution of another member state pursuant to the legislation of that state alone.

Citations:

C-1/80, R-1/80, [1980] EUECJ R-1/80

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132989

Anne-Marie Tiberghien, Nee Peuteman, v Commission of The European Communities: ECJ 18 Dec 1980

ECJ 1. Officials – recruitment – competition – selection board – refusal to admit to a competition – inaccurate assessment of a doubtful administrative situation – duty of the selection board to investigate of its own motion – absence – unlawfulness of the decision (staff regulations, annex iii, art. 5)
2. Procedure – costs – each party to pay its own costs – exceptional circumstance (rules of procedure, art. 69 (3), first subparagraph)
1. Whilst a selection board responsible for the management of a competition for which there is a large number of candidates cannot be criticized for not taking the initiative of clarifying of its own motion the administrative situation, not yet determined when it made its decision, of a candidate whom it refused to admit, where it is established that there has been an error in its assessment the decision in question must be annulled in order to enable the administration to take a fresh decision which accords with the candidate ‘ s situation as subsequently acknowledged by it.
2. It would be inequitable to allow an official who has obtained the annulment of a decision of a selection board refusing to admit him to a competition to burden the institution in question with the costs of legal proceedings which he could have avoided by care to inform the selection board, which gave its decision on the basis of an administrative situation not then determined, of concurrent proceedings commenced by him through official channels in order to obtain rectification of that situation. The power given to the court under the first subparagraph of article 69 (3) of the rules of procedure should be exercised and the parties should be ordered to pay their own costs.

Citations:

C-797/79, C-797/79, [1980] EUECJ C-797/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Employment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132959

Adam v Commission: ECJ 4 Feb 1982

1. The consultation provided for by article 24 of the merger treaty, which in particular enables the parliament effectively to participate in the community’s legislative process, is an essential feature of the institutional balance which the treaties seek to achieve. Regular consultation with the parliament before the adoption of a regulation amending the staff regulations of officials constitutes therefore an essential procedural requirement, the disregard of which renders the regulation in question void.
That requirement may be regarded as having been met when the regulation finally adopted conforms to the proposal submitted to the parliament, so long as changes made are of method rather than of substance.
2. Since the economic and social committee and the court of auditors are not shown in the treaties as institutions of the three communities it follows that consultation with the economic and social committee and the court of auditors is not mandatory when a regulation amending the staff regulations of officials is adopted. Although, according to the second paragraph of article 1 of the staff regulations, the economic and social committee and the court of auditors are treated as community institutions for the purposes of the staff regulations that treatment, the object of which is to ensure that the staff regulations are applied to the officials and other servants of those two bodies and to identify the appointing authority for those employees, does not however extend to the application of the provisions of the treaties, such as article 24 of the merger treaty, relating to the adoption of community regulations.
3. Discrimination consists of treating in an identical manner situations which are different or treating in a different manner situations which are identical. The situation of a serving official differs considerably from that of a pensioner, so that there is no discrimination in a case where the community legislature accords to pensioners treatment which is not identical to that applied to serving officials.

Citations:

C-828/79, [1982] EUECJ C-828/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Constitutional

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132983

Adam v Commission: ECJ 1 Jul 1982

ECJ Where in a building loan agreement entered into between an official of the European Communities and the Commission the amount of the loan is expressed in belgian francs and where the monthly repayments are made in the currency of the country where the property to be financed is situated, the amounts in foreign currency transferred in order to repay loan must be converted into belgian francs on the basis of the parity ruling on the date of the transfer, it is consonant, on the one hand, with the provisions of the agreement, which does not provide for a fixed parity throughout the performance thereof but for the various parities which might apply successively and, on the other hand, with the fact that the beneficiary of the loan is an official, for the exchange rate to be the rate fixed as a reference parity in article 63 of the staff regulations and for the monthly transfers to be made in accordance with the provisions of article 17 of annex vii thereto.
in the performance of a loan agreement concluded before the entry into force of regulations nos 3085/78 and 3086/78 amending inter alia the provisions of article 63 of the staff regulations and of article 17 of annex vii thereto, the commission is therefore correct to apply to the monthly repayments falling due after the entry into force of the regulations in question the exchange rate resulting from application of the updated parities and of the new version of article 17.

Citations:

C-1205/79, [1982] EUECJ C-1205/79

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132984

AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities: ECJ 18 May 1982

The court set out the rationale for legal professional privilege: ‘Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially from the basic need of a man in a civilised society to be able to turn to his lawyer for advice and help, and if proceedings begin, for representation; it springs no less from the advantages to a society which evolves complex law reaching into all the business affairs of persons, real and legal, that they should be able to know what they can do under the law, what is forbidden, where they must tread circumspectly, where they run risks.’ and ‘Community law, which derives from not only the economic but also the legal interpretation of the member states, must take into account the principles and concepts common to the laws of those states concerning the observance of confidentiality, in particular, as regards certain communications between lawyer and client. That confidentiality serves the requirement, the importance of which is recognised in all of the member states, that any person must be able, without constraint, to consult a lawyer whose profession entails the giving of independent legal advice to all those in need of it.’

Judges:

Advocate-General Sir Gordon Slynn

Citations:

C-155/79, [1982] EUECJ C-155/79, [1983] 1 All ER 705, [1982] FSR 474, [1982] ECR 1575, [1983] 3 WLR 17, [1982] 2 CMLR 264, [1983] QB 878

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities ECJ 4-Feb-1981
Sir Gordon Slynn AG discussed legal advce priviege: ‘Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially from the basic . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Cited – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission and Others (Competition) ECJ 29-Apr-2010
ECJ (Opinion) Appeal Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Documents copied in the course of an investigation and later placed on the file – Protection of confidentiality . .
Cited – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission ECFI 17-Sep-2007
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Documents seized in the course of an investigation – Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients – Admissibility. . .
Cited – Calland v Information Commissioner and The Financial Services Authority IT 8-Aug-2008
The claimant, being in a prolonged dispute with the Authority had requested copies (internal and external) of correspondence and other communications relating to him. The request was resisted on several grounds according to the nature of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Legal Professions

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132923

Walsh v National Insurance Officer: ECJ 22 May 1980

ECJ 1. Social security for migrant workers – worker – concept – definition vis-a-vis legislation – effect – purpose
(regulation no 1408/71 of the council, annex I, part I, paragraph 1)
2. Social security for migrant workers – worker – concept – person no longer paying contributions but entitled to benefits by virtue of contributions paid – inclusion
(regulations nos 1408/71 and 574/72 of the council)
3. Social security for migrant workers – legislation of member states within meaning of article 8 of regulation no 574/72 – concept (regulation no 574/72 of the council, art. 8) 4. Social security for migrant workers – claims, declarations or appeals submitted in another member state – admissibility – determination by institution or court of the competent member state (regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 86)
5. Social security of migrants workers – benefits – rules against overlapping – maternity benefit – article 8 of regulation no 574/72 – scope (regulation no 574/72 of the council, art. 8)
1. The provision in paragraph (1) of part I (united kingdom) of annex v to regulation no 1408/71, far from restricting the definition of the term ‘ ‘ worker ‘ ‘ as it emerges from article 1 (a) of the regulation, is solely concerned to clarify the scope of subparagraph (ii) of that paragraph vis-a-vis British legislation.
2. A person who is entitled under the legislation of a member state to benefits covered by regulation no 1408/71 by virtue of contributions previously paid compulsorily does not lose his status as a ‘ ‘ worker ‘ ‘ within the meaning of regulations nos 1408/71 and 574/72 by reason only of the fact that at the time when the contingency occurred he was no longer paying contributions and was not bound to do so.
3. The phrase ‘ ‘ legislations of two or more member states ‘ ‘, which occurs in article 8 of regulation no 574/72, must be understood as also including the provisions of community regulations.
4. Article 86 of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that where a claim, declaration or appeal is submitted to an authority, institution or court of a member state other than that under the legislation of which the benefit must be awarded, that authority, institution or court has no power to determine the admissibility of the claim, declaration or appeal in question. That power belongs exclusively to the authority, institution or court of the member state under the legislation of which the benefit must be awarded and to which the claim, declaration or appeal must in all circumstances be forwarded.
5. Article 8 of regulation no 574/72 applies only to the extent to which a claim by the person concerned may in fact be satisfied by the application of the legislation of two or more member states and only in regard to the period for which the claimant may claim benefits under the legislation specified by that article.
On the other hand that provision does not preclude a person who has exhausted the maximum entitlement awarded by the state of the confinement from benefiting for an additional period from benefits awarded by other legislation to which she has been subject and which, for reasons of the welfare of the mother and child, allows a longer period of leave from work. Indeed, such a result could not be regarded as coming within the category of ‘ ‘ unjustified overlapping ‘ ‘ which the provision in question seeks to prevent.

Citations:

C-143/79, R-143/79, [1980] EUECJ R-143/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132913

Pierre Gratreau v Commission Of The European Communities (Rec 1980,P 3943) (Gr80-Iii 0567) (Judgment): ECJ 18 Dec 1980

Europa 1. Officials – periodic reports – compilation – duty of the administration – breach – justification based on internal organization – not permissible (staff regulations of officials, art. 43)
2. Officials – promotion – consideration of comparative merits – conditions for its legality – the taking into consideration of periodic reports – documents capable of taking the place of a non-existent report – permissibility – limits (staff regulations of officials, art. 45 (1))
1. One of the bounden duties of the administration is to ensure that reports are drawn up periodically on the dates laid down by the staff regulations of officials and that they are drawn up in a proper form. Consequently, the administration may not put forward its internal administrative organization as a justification for failure to observe the obligations owed by it towards its officials in this regard.
2. Although it is true that in exceptional circumstances the absence of periodic reports may be compensated for at the time when the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion are considered, by the existence of other information on the merits of the official concerned, such is not, however, the case with a report irregularly included in a personal file after it has been challenged by the official or a proposal for promotion, even in eulogistic terms, or a list of the official ‘ s publications, drawn up by him and containing no objective assessment of their scientific value.

Citations:

C-156/79 and 51/80, C-156/79, [1980] EUECJ C-156/79, [1981] EUECJ C-156/79

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132925

Macarthys Ltd v Smith: ECJ 27 Mar 1980

The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt 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. Cases where men and women receive unequal pay for equal work carried out in the same establishment or service are among the forms of discrimination which may be thus judicially identified. In such a situation the decisive test lies in establishing whether there is a difference in treatment between a man and a woman performing ‘equal work’ within the meaning of article 119. That concept is entirely qualitative in character in that it is exclusively concerned with the nature of the services in question. Its scope may not therefore be restricted by its being confined to situations in which men and women are contemporaneously doing equal work for the same employer. It cannot, however, be ruled out that a difference in pay between two workers occupying the same post but at different periods in time may be explained by the operation of factors which are unconnected with any discrimination on grounds of sex. That is a question of fact which it is for the court or tribunal to decide. In cases of actual discrimination falling within the scope of the direct application of article 119 comparisons are confined to parallels which may be drawn on the basis of concrete appraisals of the work actually performed by employees of different sex within the same establishment or service. The principle of equal pay enshrined in article 119 therefore applies to the case where it is established that, having regard to the nature of her services, a woman has received less pay than a man who was employed prior to the woman ‘ s period of employment and who did equal work for the employer.

Citations:

C-129/79, [1981] QB 180, [1980] 3 WLR 929, [1980] ICR 672, [1981] 1 All ER 111, R-129/79, [1980] EUECJ R-129/79

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 75/117/EEC

Citing:

Reference From – Macarthys Ltd v Smith CA 1980
The employee had taken on a job substantially similar to that of a previous male employee, but had been paid less. She succeeded in a claim under the 1971 Act before the industrial tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed . .
At EAT – Smith v Macarthys Ltd EAT 14-Dec-1977
Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of andpound;50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after . .

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 . .
Cited – Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
Cited – Sodexo Ltd v Gutridge and others EAT 31-Jul-2008
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
The claimants alleged that their employer had been in breach of their rights under the Equal Pay Act 1970. They . .
At ECJ – Macarthys Ltd v Smith (No.2) CA 17-Apr-1980
The parties had disputed a difference in payment between the woman applicant and men doing similar work. After a lengthy dispute the parties now disputed the costs.
Held: The company had correctly been ordered to pay the costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132902

Roumengous Carpentier v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4379) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1982

Europa In order that the rule contained in article 64 of the staff regulations to the effect that account must be taken of living conditions in the various ‘places of employment’ may be observed, that expression must be understood as meaning not only the capitals of the member states but the exact places where the duties of a sufficiently large number of officials and other employees of the communities are performed.
Therefore it is for the community institutions, in cases in which the cost of living in such a place of employment undergoes fluctuations greater than those occurring in the capital of the state in question, to determine separate weightings.
The wordings of article 65(2) precludes any interpretation to the effect that the council is not obliged to adjust the weightings within a period of two months following any substantial change in the cost of living. The council ‘ s power in this respect is to decide whether or not there has been a substantial increase in the cost of living and, if there has, to draw the appropriate conclusions. Any other interpretation would run counter to the objective of the provision in question which is to guarantee to all officials the same purchasing power whatever their place of employment.

Citations:

C-158/79, [1982] EUECJ C-158/79

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Roumengous Carpentier v Commission ECJ 15-Jan-1985
ECJ Officials – remuneration – weighting – late adjustment – compensation for pecuniary damage – payment of default interest – point at which interest starts to run – date of prior complaint through official . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132928

Gordon Craigie Bowden and others v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 16 Jul 1981

Europa Officials – applications to the court – application directed against a regulation – absence of act adversely affecting the official -inadmissibility (EEC treaty, art. 173; staff regulations of officials, arts 90 and 91; council regulations nos 3085 and 3086/78 amending the staff regulations of officials) regulations nos 3085 and 3086/78 are of general application and hence officials may not claim that they constitute decisions which are of direct and individual concern to them in order to call their validity in question in proceedings under article 173 of the treaty. The mere submission of a complaint pursuant to article 90 of the staff regulations is not sufficient to create a judicial remedy against a measure which is in the nature of a regulation. The procedure provided for in article 90 (2) applies only where the appointing authority has taken a decision or has refrained from adopting a measure prescribed by the staff regulations and where such conduct constitutes an act adversely affecting the official.

Citations:

C-153/79, [1981] EUECJ C-153/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Employment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132921

Commission v France (Rec 1981,P 283) (Judgment): ECJ 3 Feb 1981

ECJ 1. The prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties covers any charge exacted at the time of or on account of importation which, being borne specifically by an imported product to the exclusion of the similar domestic product, has the result of altering the cost price of the imported product thereby producing the same restrictive effect on the free movement of goods as a customs duty. The essential feature of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty which distinguishes it from an internal tax therefore resides in the fact that the former is borne solely by an imported product as such whilst the latter is borne both by imported and domestic products.
2. A charge which is borne by a product imported from another member state, when there is no identical or similar domestic product, does not constitute a charge having equivalent effect but internal taxation within the meaing of article 95 of the treaty if it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products.

Citations:

C-90/79, [1981] EUECJ C-90/79, [1981] ECR 283

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

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132874

Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri: ECJ 17 Jan 1980

The provisions of article 5(1) of the Convention, to the effect that in matters relating to a contract a defendant domiciled in a contracting state may be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, introduce a criterion for jurisdiction, the selection of which is at the option of the plaintiff and which is justified by the existence of a direct link between the dispute and the court called upon to take cognizance of it. By contrast, article 17 of the convention, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court designated by the parties in accordance with the prescribed form, puts aside both the rule of general jurisdiction – provided for in article 2 – and the rules of special jurisdiction – provided for in article 5 – and dispenses with any objective connexion between the legal relationship in dispute and the court designated. It thus appears that the jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance and that of the selected court are two distinct concepts and only agreements selecting a court are subject to the requirements of form prescribed by article 17 of the convention.
if the place of performance of a contractual obligation has been specified by the parties in a clause which is valid according to the national law applicable to the contract, the court for that place has jurisdiction to take cognizance of disputes relating to that obligation under article 5(1) of the convention , irrespective of whether the formal conditions provided for under article 17 have been observed.

Citations:

C-56/79, R-56/79, [1980] EUECJ R-56/79

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ 7-Jun-1984
Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132852

Pirzio-Biroli v Commission: ECJ 13 Jul 1989

ECJ Judgment – Officials – Status of official – Conditions for acquiring not fulfilled – Calculation of length of service of an official in regard to the Community pensions scheme – Taking into account of period of employment prior to taking up duties – Excluded

Citations:

C-80/79, [1989] EUECJ C-80/79

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132868

Herber v Commission: ECJ 16 Oct 1980

ECJ 1. Officials – recovery of sum wrongly paid – recovery of a sum wrongly paid by a third party – non-applicability of article 85 of the staff regulations (staff regulations of officials, Art. 85)
2. Officials – pensions – recalculation – possibility – recovery of a sum paid by a third party by way of indemnity – exclusion (staff regulations of officials, annex viii, art. 41)
1. Article 85 of the staff regulations does not cover the recovery of a sum overpaid received from a third party; it covers only a sum overpaid by the communities.
2. The recalculation of a pension properly granted and determined as to its amount in accordance with the provisions of the staff regulations and annex viii thereto in order to recover a sum received from a third party, even if to the possible detriment of the communities, does not come within article 41 of that annex.

Citations:

C-63/79, [1980] EUECJ C-63/79

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132857

Commission v Italy C-73/79: ECJ 21 May 1980

ECJ (Judgment) A measure carried out by means of discriminatory taxation, which may be considered at the same time as forming part of an aid within the meaning of article 92 of the EEC treaty, is governed both by the provisions of the first paragraph of article 95 and by those applicable to aids granted by states. It follows that discriminatory tax practices are not exempted from the application of article 95 by reason of the fact that they may at the same time be described as a means of financing a state aid.
2. If the Commission charges a member state with practices which constitute an infringement of article 95 of the EEC treaty and if on that basis it has initiated the procedure under article 169 that procedure does not lose its purpose because the commission takes the view that the same practices form part of a system of aids incompatible with the common market and initiates the procedure provided for in article 93.
3. Authorization under article 38 of regulation ( EEC ) no 3330/74 to grant the aids provided for therein cannot be taken to mean that any method of financing such aids, whatever its character or conditions, is compatible with community law. On the contrary, the financing of the aid granted, the national authorities remain in particular subject to the obligations arising under the EEC treaty.
4. In an interpretation of the concept ‘internal taxation’ for the purposes of article 95 of the EEC treaty it may be necessary to take into account the purpose to which the revenue from the charge is put. In fact, if the revenue from such a charge is intended to finance activities for the special advantage of the taxed domestic products it may follow that the charge imposed on the basis of the same criteria on domestic and imported products nevertheless constitutes discriminatory taxation in so far as the fiscal burden on domestic products is neutralized by the advantages which the charge is used to finance whilst the charge on the imported products constitutes a net burden.
It follows that internal taxation is of such a nature as indirectly to impose a heavier burden on products from other member states than on domestic products if it is used exclusively or principally to finance aids for the sole benefit of domestic products.
5. The fact that the financial burdens arising from the imposition of a charge are passed on to the consumers does not alter the legal nature of the charge in question as regards article 95 of the EEC treaty.

Citations:

C-73/79, [1980] EUECJ C-73/79, [1980] ECR 1533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132864

Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium: ECJ 6 May 1980

Europa It is essential that each member state should implement directives in a way which fully meets the requirements of clarity and certainty in legal situations which directives seek for the benefit of traders established in other member states. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature can be changed as and when the authorities please and which are not publicized widely enough, cannot be regarded as a proper fulfilment of the obligation imposed by article 109 of the EEC Treaty on member states to which the directives are addressed. The effect of the third paragraph of article 189 of the EEC Treaty is that community directives must be implemented by appropriate im- plementing measures carried out by the member states. Only in specific circumstances, in particular where a member state has failed to take the implementing measures required or has adopted measures which do not conform to a directive, has the court of justice recognized the right of persons affected thereby to rely in law on a directive as against a defaulting member state. This minimum guarantee arising from the binding nature of the obligation imposed on the member states by the effect of the directives under the third paragraph of article 189 cannot justify a member state’s absolving itself from taking in due time implementing measures sufficient to meet the purpose of each directive. A member state cannot rely upon domestic difficulties or provisions of its national legal system, even its constitutional system, for the purpose of justifying a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits contained in community directives.

Citations:

C-102/79, [1981] 1 CMLR 282, [1980] EUECJ C-102/79

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

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132884