Category: European

P.B. Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees: ECJ 8 Nov 1979

A prohibited restriction on exports involved a national measure having discriminatory effect: ‘provision [i.e. Article 29 EC; now Article 35 TFEU] concerns the national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question at the expense of the production or of the trade of other Member States. This is not so in the case of a prohibition like that in question which is applied objectively to the production of goods of a certain kind without drawing a distinction depending on whether such goods are intended for the national market or for export.’

Citations:

C-15/79, R-15/79, [1979] EUECJ R-15/79, [1979] ECR 3409

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Delayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Rating

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132817

Richard Pool v Council of the European Communities (Rec 1980,P 569) (Gr80-I 0295) (Judgment): ECJ 4 Mar 1980

Europa 1. Non-contractual liability – conditions – illegality – damage – chain of causality (EEC Treaty, art. 215, second paragraph)
2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – beef and veal – price system – right of producers to precise price levels of community rules – none (regulation no 805/68 of the council)
1. The non-contractual liability of the community under the second paragraph of article 215 of the EEC Treaty depends on the coincidence of a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the institution, the fact of damage, and the existence of a direct link in the chain of causality between the wrongful act and the damage complained of.
2. The price system which is an integral part of the common organization of the market in beef and veal – established by regulation no 805/68 – does not have the effect of guaranteeing to individual traders that their produce will be disposed of at the precise price level determined by community rules. That level, expressed in units of account, does not therefore constitute a value which could be used as a basis for comparison with the prices obtained by a producer on the market with a view to demonstrating that certain damage has been caused.

Citations:

C-49/79, [1980] EUECJ C-49/79

Links:

Bailii

European, Contract, Agriculture

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132844

Commission v Italy: ECJ 22 Feb 1979

A member state may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits under community directives.

Citations:

C-163/78, [1979] EUECJ C-163/78

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132745

Distillers v Commission: ECJ 10 Jul 1980

ECJ 1. In the absence of notification in accordance with the requirements of regulation no 17 and regulation no 1133/68, an agreement may not have exemption under article 85(3) of the eec treaty, even if the text of the agreement was communicated to the commission subsequent to a request for information made by the latter.
2. Although an agreement may escape the prohibition in article 85(1) of the EEC Ttreaty when it affects the market only to an insignificant extent, having regard to the weak position which those concerned have in the market in the products in question, the same considerations do not apply in the case of a product the entire production of which is in the hands of a large undertaking.

Citations:

C-30/78, [1980] EUECJ C-30/78

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132672

SARL Denkavit Loire v Etat Francais, administration des douanes: ECJ 31 May 1979

ECJ Any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having an equivalent effect within the meaning of articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the treaty. Such a charge however escapes that classification if it constitutes the consideration for a benefit provided in fact for the importer or exporter representing an amount proportionate to the said benefit. It also escapes that classification if it relates to a general system of internal dues supplied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported and exported products alike, in which case it does not come within the scope of articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 but within that of article 95 of the treaty.
In order to relate to a general system of internal dues and thus not come within the application of the provisions prohibiting charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties, the charge to which an imported product is subject must impose the same duty on national products and identical imported products at the same marketing stage and the chargeable event giving rise to the duty must also be identical in the case of both products. It is therefore not sufficient that the objective of the charge imposed on imported products is to compensate for a charge imposed on similar domestic products – or which has been imposed on those products or a product from which they are derived – at a production or marketing stage prior to that at which the imported products are taxed.
A charge which is imposed on meat, whether or not prepared, when it is imported, and in particular on consignments of lard, even though no charge is imposed on similar domestic products, or a charge is imposed on them according to different criteria, in particular by reason of a different chargeable event giving rise to the duty, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of articles 9, 12 and 13 of the treaty.

Citations:

C-132/78, R-132/78, [1979] EUECJ R-132/78

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.132717

Rewe-Zentral Ag v Bundesmonopolverwaltung Fuer Branntwein: ECJ 20 Feb 1979

ECJ 1. Since it is a provision relating specifically to state monopolies of a commercial character, article 37 of the EEC Treaty is irrelevant with regard to national provisions which do not concern the exercise by a public monopoly of its specific function – namely, its exclusive right – but apply in a general manner to the production and marketing of given products, whether or not the latter are covered by the monopoly in question.
2. In the absence of common rules, obstacles to movement within the community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of a product must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognized as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer.
3. The concept of ‘measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports’, contained in article 30 of the eec treaty, is to be understood to mean that the fixing of a minimum alcohol content for alcoholic beverages intended for human consumption by the legislation of a member state also falls within the prohibition laid down in that provision where the importation of alcoholic beverages lawfully produced and marketed in another member state is concerned.

Citations:

C-120/78, R-120/78, [1979] EUECJ R-120/78, [1979] ECR 649, [1979] EUECJ R-120/78

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132706

Commission v Netherlands: ECJ 11 Apr 1978

ECJ Member states – failure to apply a directive – effect on the functioning of the common market – absence thereof – justification for failure to fulfil obligations under a directive – not permissible (EEC Treaty, art 169)
A member state may not invoke, for the purpose of justifiying a failure to fulfil obligations under a harmonizing directive, the argument that the failure to apply that directive has had no adverse effect on the functioning of the common market.

Citations:

C-95/77, [1978] EUECJ C-95/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132655

Jean Razanatsimba: ECJ 24 Nov 1977

Europa Article 62 of the ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lome on 28 February 1975 between the African, Caribbean and Pacific states of the one part and the European Economic Community of the other part does not purport to provide equality of treatment between nationals of an ACP state and those of a member state of the EEC; more particularly, it does not oblige either the ACP states or the member states of the EEC to give to the nationals of a state belonging to the other group treatment identical to that reserved to their own nationals.
It is not contrary to the rule as to non-discrimination laid down in article 62 for a member state to reserve more favourable treatment to the nationals of one acp state , provided that such treatment results from the provisions of an international agreement comprising reciprocal rights and advantages.
Article 62 of the lome convention does not give a national of an ACP state the right to establish himself in the territory of a member state of the EEC without any condition as to nationality, in so far as the right to practise professions reserved by the legislation of that state to its own nationals is concerned.

Citations:

C-65/77, R-65/77, [1977] EUECJ R-65/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132630

Defrenne v Sabena Airlines: ECJ 15 Jun 1978

LMA Ms Defrenne was an air hostess employed by SABENA, a Belgian airline company. She brought an action against the airline based on Art.119 [now141] EC. Ms Defrenne claimed that in paying their male stewards more than their air hostesses, when they performed identical tasks, Sabena were in breach of Art.119EC. The question to the ECJ was whether, and in what context, Art.199EC was directly effective. The ECJ held ‘the prohibition on discrimination between men and women applies not only to the action of public authorities but also extends to all agreements which are intended to regulate paid labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals’
Europa Article 119 of the EEC Treaty, which is limited to the question of pay discrimination between men and women workers, constitutes a special rule, whose application is linked to precise factors. It cannot be interpreted as prescribing, in addition to equal pay, equality in respect of the other working conditions applicable to men and women. The fact that the fixing of certain conditions of employment – such as a special age-limit – may have pecuniary consequences is not sufficient to bring such conditions within the field of application of article 119, which is based on the close connection which exists between the nature of the services provided and the amount of remuneration.
Fundamental personal human rights form part of the general principles of community law, the observance of which the court has a duty to ensure. The elimination of discrimination based on sex forms part of those fundamental rights. However, it is not for the court to enforce the observance of that rule of non-discrimination in respect of relationships between employer and employee which are a matter exclusively for national law.

Citations:

[1979] ECR 1365, C-149/77, R-149/77, [1978] EUECJ R-149/77

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

see also – Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State ECJ 25-May-1971
ECJ The concept of pay as defined in article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not include social security schemes or benefits directly governed by legislation without any element of agreement within the undertaking or . .
See also – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132571

Koninklijke Scholten-Honig v Council and Commission: ECJ 5 Dec 1979

A finding that a legal situation resulting from a legislative measure by the Community involving choices of economic policy is illegal is insufficient by itself to involve the Community in liability under the second paragraph of article 215 of the EEC Treaty; in addition the measure must be vitiated by a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual. In the context of community legislation in which one of the chief features is the exercise of a wide discretion essential in particular for the implementation of the common agricultural policy, the liability of the community can arise only exceptionally, that is to say, in cases in which the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of its powers. Grave disregard is to be understood as meaning conduct verging on the arbitrary.
This concept is confirmed in particular by the fact that, even though an action for damages under article 178 and the second paragraph of article 215 of the Treaty constitutes an independent action, it must nevertheless be assessed having regard to the whole of the system of legal protection of individuals set up by the treaty. If an individual takes the view that he is injured by a community legislative measure which he regards as illegal he has the opportunity, when the implementation of the measure is entrusted to national authorities, to contest the validity of the measure, at the time of its implementation, before a national court in an action against the national authority. Such a court may, or even must, in pursuance of article 177 of the treaty, refer to the court of justice a question on the validity of the community measure in question. The existence of such an action is by itself of such a nature as to ensure the efficient protection of the individuals concerned.

Citations:

C-143/77, [1979] EUECJ C-143/77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Constitutional

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132567

Hoffman-La Roche v Centrafarm: ECJ 23 May 1978

ECJ (Judgement) 1. It is clear from article 36 of the EEC treaty, in particular its second sentence, as well as from the context, that whilst the treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the laws of a member state in matters of industrial and commercial property, yet the exercise of those rights may nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, be restricted by the prohibitions contained in the treaty.
Inasmuch as it creates an exception to one of the fundamental principles of the common market, article 36 in fact admits of derogations from the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are justified for the purpose of safeguarding the rights which constitute the specific subject-matter of that property.
2. In order to answer the question whether that exclusive right involves the right to prevent the trade-mark being affixed by a third person after the product has been repackaged, regard must be had to the essential function of the trade-mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the trade-marked product to the consumer or ultimate user, by enabling him without any possibility of confusion to distinguish that product from products which have another origin.
This guarantee of origin means that the consumer or ultimate user can be certain that a trade-marked product which is sold to him has not been subject at a previous stage of marketing to interference by a third person, without the authorization of the proprietor of the trade-mark, such as to affect the original condition of the product.
The proprietor of a trade-mark right which is protected in two member states at the same time is justified pursuant to the first sentence of article 36 of the treaty in preventing a product to which the trade-mark has lawfully been applied in one of those states from being marketed in the other member state after it has been repacked in new packaging to which the trade-mark has been affixed by a third party.
However, such prevention of marketing constitutes a disguised restriction on trade between member states within the meaning of the second sentence of article 36 of the treaty where;
– it is established that the use of the trade-mark right by the proprietor, having regard to the marketing system which he has adopted, will contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between member states;
– it is shown that repackaging cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product;
– the proprietor of the mark receives prior notice of the marketing of the repackaged product; and
– it is stated on the new packaging by whom the product has been repackaged.
3. To the extent to which the exercise of a trade-mark right is lawful in accordance with the provisions of article 36 of the treaty, such exercise is not contrary to article 86 of the treaty on the sole ground that it is the act of an undertaking occupying a dominant position on the market if the trade-mark right has not been used as an instrument for the abuse of such a position.

Citations:

[1978] ECR 1139, [1978] 3 CMLR 217, [1978] FSR 598, [1978] ECR I-1139, C-102/77, R-102/77, [1978] EUECJ R-102/77

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 36 86

Cited by:

Cited – Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd SC 27-Jun-2012
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132530

North Kerry Milk Products v Minister For Agriculture: ECJ 3 Mar 1977

ECJ 1. Community law – linguistic discrepancies – elimination – interpretation
2. Agriculture – common organization of the market – skimmed milk – processing into casein before 7 October 1974 – marketing after that date – aid – calculation – rate of conversion

Citations:

R-80/76, [1977] EUECJ R-80/76

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132483