Category: European

Criminal proceedings against Giulio et Adriano Grosoli: ECJ 12 Dec 1973

ECJ The community institutions alone have power to determine the economic use to which community tariff quotas must be put and, consequently, to lay down how they are to be administered. To this end they may provide access to the quota for any user, or themselves decide to what use it must be put, or, again, leave member states free to use it as they see fit in their own interests. Under this last alternative, the grant to the states of this freedom requires a declared intention to this effect on the part of the institutions of the community and the absence of any direction as to the use which is to be made of a quota must be interpreted as freedom for all interested to have access to it. The provisions of regulation no 92/68 and regulation no 110/69 on the delegation of administrative arrangements to the member states must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of any direction by the council as to use, the reference in these regulations to the ‘administrative’ provisions of member states cannot be regarded as going outside the confines of the technical and procedural rules designed to ensure conformity with the general terms of the quota and equality of treatment for those entitled to make use of it. These provisions do not give states authority to lay down rules governing the use to which their allotted share is put.

Citations:

C-131/73, R-131/73, [1973] EUECJ R-131/73

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132129

Costacurta v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 22 Mar 1972

ECJ 1. The purpose of the specifications set out in article 1(1) of annex iii to the staff regulations of officials is to ensure that in every case where a post is to be filled by means of a competition the conditions of recruitment are adapted as closely as possible to the requirements of the post to be filled. When they laid down the obligation to state those conditions in the notice of competition the authors of the staff regulations intended to preclude the appointing authority from justifying the exclusion of certain candidates by relying on conditions of recruitment which were not properly notified in advance to all the persons concerned.
2. Amongst the conditions of recruitment of officials age may well constitute an important factor regarding the quality and efficienty of the official to be recruited. Although the age of an official may be of no matter where certain posts are concerned this possibility must be regarded as exceptional by reason of the special nature of such posts. In such a case the notice of competition must indicate that there is no age-limit.

Citations:

C-78/71, [1972] EUECJ C-78/71

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132053

Fenix International Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Dec 2020

Vat – Validity of European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 282/2011 – Application for reference to CJEU under art 267 TFEU – Validity of European Commission Implementing Regulation – test to be applied – Order for referral – Interpretation of Council Implementing Regulation – test to be applied – application for reference refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 499 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, European

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.656874

Brandgroup v OHMI – Brauerei S Riegele, Inh. Riegele (Spezoomix): ECFI 1 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark SPEZOOMIX – Earlier Community word mark Spezi – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

Citations:

T-557/14, [2016] EUECJ T-557/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:116

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.560500

Commission v Portugal C-200/15: ECJ 16 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Article 110 TFEU – Internal taxation – Discriminatory taxation – used motor vehicles imported from other Member States – Determination of taxable value – Depreciation Rates

Citations:

ECLI: EU: C: 2016 453, C-200/15, [2016] EUECJ C-200/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Taxes – Other

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.565601

Commission v McBride And Others: ECJ 14 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Resource conservation measures and restructuring of the fisheries sector – Requests for increased safety tonnage – Annulment by the European Union judicature of the decision initially rejecting those requests – Article 266 TFEU – Repeal of the legal basis on which that initial decision was founded – Competence and legal basis to adopt new decisions – Annulment by the General Court of new decisions rejecting the requests – Principle of legal certainty

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:434, [2016] EUECJ C-361/14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

TFEU 266

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.565600

Commission v Netherlands C-22/15: ECJ 25 Feb 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Tax on value added – Directive 2006/112 / EC – Exemptions – Article 132, paragraph 1, sub m) – Services closely associated with sport or physical education – exemption for the leasing of berths and sites for storage of boats for water sports association members through navigation or recreation activities that can not be equated with sport or physical education – exemption from income limited to members of watersports associations that do not employ staff for the provision of services – Excluded – Article 133, first paragraph d)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:118, [2016] EUECJ C-22/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/112/EC 132

Jurisdiction:

European

European, VAT

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.560478

Badische Anilin- and Soda-Fabrik AG (BASF) v Commission of the European Communities.: ECJ 14 Jul 1972

Europa The notice of objections is the measure stating the final attitude of the commission concerning undertakings against which proceedings for infringement of the rules on competition have been commenced. In order to protect the rights of the defence during the course of the administrative procedure, those concerned must be informed of the essential elements of fact on which the objections are based without its being necessary for the contents of the file to be made available in their entirety. Article 9(2) of regulation no 99/63 which provides that undertakings may be represented only by a duly authorized agent appointed from among their permanent staff or by legal representatives or representatives authorized by their constitution, is justified by the fact that as a general rule those persons are the best-informed as to the facts and technical or economic aspects of their undertaking’ s actions which may be of decisive importance in applying the rules on competition. A measure adopted by an institution must set out clearly and coherently the essential elements of fact and law on which it is based. In order to fulfil their function, limitation periods must be fixed in advance. Although the provisions governing the commission’ s power to impose fines in cases where community rules have been infringed do not lay down any period of limitation, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its power to impose fines. By its very nature, a concerted practice does not have all the elements of a contract but may inter alia arise out of coordination, which becomes apparent from the behaviour of the participants. Although parallel behaviour may not by itself be identified with a concerted practice, it may however amount to strong evidence of such a practice if it leads to conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market, having regard to the nature of the products, the size and number of the undertakings, and the volume of the said market. This is especially the case if the parallel conduct is such as to enable those concerned to attempt to stabilize prices at a level different from that to which competition would have led, and to consolidate established positions to the detriment of effective freedom of movement of the products in the common market and of the freedom of consumers to choose their suppliers. The function of price competition is to keep prices down to the lowest possible level and to encourage the movement of goods between the member states, thereby permitting the most efficient possible distribution of activities in the matter of productivity and the capacity of undertakings to adapt themselves to change. Independent and non-uniform conduct by undertakings in the common market encourages the pursuit of one of the basic objectives of the treaty, namely the interpenetration of national markets and, as a result, direct access by consumers to the sources of production of the whole community. Although every producer is free to change his prices, taking into account in so doing the present or foreseeable conduct of his competitors, nevertheless it is contrary to the rules on competition contained in the treaty for a producer to cooperate with his competitors, in any way whatsoever, in order to determine a coordinated course of action relating to price changes and to ensure its success by prior elimination of all uncertainty as to each other’s conduct regarding the essential elements of that action, such as the amount, subject-matter, date and place of the changes. Article 15 of regulation no 17/62 does not limit the imposition of fines exclusively to cases of recurrence of infringements already found to have taken place and forbidden by the commission under article 3.

Citations:

C-49/69, [1972] EUECJ C-49/69

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.132025