Category: European

ACF Chemiefarma v Commission: ECJ 15 Jul 1970

ECJ 1. The provisional character conferred by article 9(3) of Regulation no 17 on steps taken by national authorities in connexion with the implementation of article 85 of the EEC Treaty cannot call in question the Commission’s exercise to the full of its powers within the framework of the common market.
2. In order to ensure legal certainty any limitation periods must be fixed in advance; the community legislature alone is competent to fix their duration and the detailed rules for their application.
3. If, after the mandatory consultation with the European Parliament on a draft regulation submitted by the Commission, the Council modifies the wording of the draft, it is not obliged to consult the parliament again if such modifications do not affect the substance of the draft regulations considered as a whole.
4. It is lawful for the Council to confer on the Commission power to adopt the regulations necessary for the implementation of the rules which the Council has adopted within the framework of its task. Since in article 19 of regulation no 17 the Council has adopted the principle that the persons concerned shall be given the opportunity of being heard by the commission, it is lawful for the Council to entrust the Commission with the task of laying down the rules of procedure to be followed in this connexion, since such rules constitute implementing provisions within the meaning of article 155 of the Treaty.
5. Respect for the rights of the defence requires that in its notice of complaints the Commission shall set forth clearly albeit succinctly the essential facts on which it relies and that in the course of the administrative procedure it shall supply the other details which may be necessary for the defence of the persons concerned.
The rights of the defence laid down by article 4 of regulation no 99 are respected if the decision does not allege that the persons concerned have committed infringements other than those referred to in the notice of complaints and only takes into consideration facts on which the persons concerned have had the opportunity of making known their views orally or in writing.
If doubt arises as to whether communicating documents necessary for the defence of a party might be incompatible with the requirement to protect the business secrets of other undertakings, the commission may not refuse such communication without first consulting the latter.
6. If an institution addresses to a person subject to the jurisdiction of a member state a document which is not drafted in the language of such state, it commits an irregularity capable of vitiating the procedure if harmful consequences result for such person within the framework of the administrative procedure.
7. The commission is required to state the reasons on which its decisions are based, enumerating the facts forming the legal basis of the measure and the considerations which led it to adopt the decision but it is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and of law referred to by every interested party in the course of the administrative procedure.
The statement of reasons for a decision imposing a fine is to be considered sufficient if it indicates clearly and coherently the considerations of fact and of law on the basis of which the fine has been imposed on the parties concerned, in such a way as to acquaint both the latter and the court with the essential factors of the commission’s reasoning.
8. The commission is entitled to publish decisions imposing penalties with regard to cartels to the extent to which such publication does not amount to divulging the undertakings’ business secrets.
9. A gentlemen’s agreement constitutes a measure which may fall under the prohibition contained in article 85(1) if it contains clauses restricting competition in the common market within the meaning of that article and its clauses amount to a faithful expression of the joint intention of the parties.
10. The penalties provided for in article 15 of regulation no 17 are not in the nature of periodic penalty payments. Their object is to suppress illegal activity and to prevent its recurrence so that their application is not restricted to current infringements alone. The commission’s power to impose penalties is in no way affected by the fact that the conduct constituting the infringement and its effects have ceased.
11. For the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine, the gravity of the infringement is to be appraised by taking into account in particular the nature of the restrictions on competition, the number and size of the undertakings concerned, the respective proportions of the market controlled by them within the community and the situation of the market when the infringement was committed.

Citations:

C-41/69, [1970] EUECJ C-41/69

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.132017

Boehringer Mannheim v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 15 Jul 1970

europa In order to ensure legal certainty any limitation periods must be fixed in advance; the community legislature alone is competent to fix their duration and the detailed rules for their application.
Respect for the rights of the defence requires that in its notice of complaint the commission shall set forth clearly albeit succinctly the essential facts on which it relies and that in the course of the administrative procedure it shall supply the other details which may be necessary for the defence of the persons concerned.
The rights of the defence laid down by article 4 of regulation no 99 are respected if the decision does not allege that the persons concerned have committed infringements other than those referred to in the notice of complaints and only takes into consideration facts on which the persons concerned have had the opportunity of making known their views orally or in writing.
If doubt arises as to whether communicating documents necessary for the defence of a party might be incompatible with the requirement to protect the business secrets of other undertakings, the commission may not refuse such communication without first consulting the latter.
The preliminary nature of the minutes of the hearing submitted to the advisory committee on restrictive practices and monopolies and to the members of the commission may amount to a defect in the administrative procedure capable of vitiating the decision which results therefrom, on the ground of illegality, if the document is drawn up in such a way as to be misleading in a material respect.
4. A gentlemen’s agreement constitutes a measure which may fall under the prohibition contained in article 85(1) if it contains clauses restricting competition in the common market within the meaning of that article and its clauses amount to a faithful expression of the joint intention of the parties.
Article 15 of regulation no 17 does not limit the application of the sanction for which it makes provision merely to cases in which the infringement was committed deliberately. This consideration could only be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine.
The penalties provided for, in article 15 of regulation no 17 are not in the nature of periodic penalty payments. Their object is to suppress illegal activity and to prevent its recurrence so that their application is not restricted to current infringements alone. The commission’s power to impose penalties is in no way affected by the fact that the conduct constituting the infringement and its effects have ceased.
For the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine, the gravity of the infringement is to be appraised by taking into account in particular the nature of the restrictions on competition, the number and size of the undertakings concerned, the respective proportions of the market controlled by them within the community and the situation of the market when the infringement was committed.
The prior fixing of a maximum aggregate amount for a fine in relation to the seriousness of the danger which the agreement represented to competition and trade in the common market is not incompatible with the individual fixing of the penalty. The situation, the individual conduct of each undertaking and the importance of the role which it played in the agreement may weigh in the individual assessment of the amount of the fine.

Citations:

C-45/69, [1970] EUECJ C-45/69

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.132021

Theodorus Mulders v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1969

Europa 1. Officials – accounting officer – independence of duties – concept (financial regulation, article 22, decision of 30 July 1968, article 2) 2. Officials – financial controller and accounting officer – equivalence of duties – none (financial regulation, article 24). 1. The independence of the accounting officer, as regards the performance of his duties, from those whose authorizations of expenditure he has to verify, does not necessarily mean that there can be no difference in rank within the service between him and them, but merely that he is not subordinate to any superior in the actual performance of his duties. 2. No equivalence exists between the duties of a financial controller and those of an accounting officer such as to justify their being given an equal grading.

Citations:

C-8/69, [1969] EUECJ C-8/69

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131992

Giulio Pasetti-Bombardella v Commission of the European Communities supported by the Council of the European Communitiesl (Judgment): ECJ 2 Jul 1969

Europa 1. Officials – administrative measure adopted at the request of an official – illegality of the measure – remedy of the person concerned – admissibility 2. Officials – rationalization of departments following the merger treaty – scheme for removal of officials – such scheme cannot be equated with the other methods of termination of service provided for by the staff regulations – those methods may not be relied upon against the system specially provided for. 1. If a disputed measure contains a defect of such a nature as to render it illegal, it must be possible to make an application against it even though the measure is adopted at the request of the official concerned. 2. Regulation no 259/68 set up a system for the removal of officials which has no equivalent amongst the methods of leaving the service provided for in the staff regulations and which may be explained by the temporary and exceptional requirements which had to be met following the merging of the administrations. It is not permissible therefore to have recourse to those other methods of leaving the service to deduce rights therefrom.

Citations:

C-20/68, [1969] EUECJ C-20/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131971

Giuseppe L V Grasselli v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1969

Europa 1. Officials – disputes with the administration – measure adversely affecting an official – concept (staff regulations of officials of the EEC, article 91) 2. Officials – disputes with the administration – unlimited jurisdiction of the court – its restriction to cases covered by the first sentence of article 91(1) of the staff regulations of officials 1. Only measures capable of directly affecting a specific legal situation may be considered as having an adverse effect. 2. The first sentence of article 91(1) governs the second so that this provision only confers unlimited jurisdiction on the court where there is a dispute within the meaning of the first sentence.

Citations:

C-32/68, [1969] EUECJ C-32/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131984

Gustav Wonnerth v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 1969

Europa Officials – recruitment – rationalization of the administration following the merger treaty – voluntary transfer to a post corresponding to career bracket immediately below that applicable to grade – nature – priority right of the official concerned to be transferred to any post corresponding to his grade – guarantees – suitability of candidates having priority -consideration – statement of reasons – duties of the administration -reference to the merits of candidates not entitled to priority not permissible. (Regulation no 259/68 of the council, article 8)
The voluntary acceptance by certain servants of transfer under article 8(1) of regulation no 259/68 constitutes an essentially temporary measure which is justified by the short-term requirements of the service following the merger of the executives and cannot be prolonged to the detriment of the official concerned. In view of the quite exceptional and temporary nature of such transfer and in order not to disregard the obligations arising under article 8(2), it is necessary to provide the officials concerned with strict guarantees regarding their priority right. The implementation of such guarantees requires that the suitability of the candidates having priority be considered independently of any reference to the possible merits of those who have no such right. A consideration of the suitability of these candidates must be based on concrete factors which are capable of review; these factors must appear in the minutes of the commission.

Citations:

C-12/69, [1969] EUECJ C-12/69

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131995

Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Judgment): ECJ 1 Jul 1969

Europa 1. Customs duties – elimination – purpose (EEC treaty, articles 9, 12) 2. Customs duties – elimination – charges having equivalent effect – concept – identity in the treaty and in the regulations – national taxation and charges having equivalent effect – distinction (EEC treaty, articles 9, 12, 95) 3. Customs duties – elimination – creation of new charges prohibited – absolute nature of such prohibition (EEC treaty, articles 9, 12). 1. Customs duties are prohibited independently of any consideration of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue obtained therefrom. 2. (A) any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods when they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the treaty, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product. (B) the regulations relating to the common organization of the agricultural markets are not intended to confer on the concept of a charge having equivalent effect a scope different from that which it has within the framework of the treaty itself, especially as, when those regulations take account of the particular conditions for establishing a common market in agricultural products, they pursue the same objectives as articles 9 to 13 of the treaty which they implement. 3. (A) the prohibition of new customs duties or charges having equivalent effect, linked to the principle of the free movement of goods, constitutes a fundamental rule which, without prejudice to the other provisions of the treaty, does not permit of any exceptions. (B) it follows from articles 95 et seq. That the concept of a charge having equivalent effect does not include taxation which is imposed in the same way within a state on imported products and similar domestic products, or which falls, in the absence of comparable domestic products, within the framework of taxation of this nature within the limits laid down by the treaty. The rendering of specific service may in certain cases warrant the payment of a free in proportion to the service actually rendered.

Citations:

C-24/68, [1969] EUECJ C-24/68

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131974

Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 9 Jul 1969

Europa 1. Transport – rates and conditions involving an element of support – examination – authorization – powers and duties of the commission (EEC treaty, article 80) 2. Measures adopted by an institution – statement of reasons (EEC treaty, article 190). 1. By empowering the commission to act on its own initiative or on application by a member state to examine the rates and conditions involving an element of support and by instructing it in this examination to take account in particular of the requirements, needs, problems and effects referred to in article 80(2), the treaty has conferred on the commission a large measure of discretionary power, not only as regards the tariffs to be authorized, but also as regards the details of the authorization to be granted. It is not possible to interpret this provision to mean that the commission is obliged to grant its authorization once certain circumstances are established, or that it is obliged to maintain such authorization in force as long as the circumstances which gave rise to it do not change. In applying article 80(2) the commission must reconcile the essential demands of the common market and the particular requirements of regional development. The commission is under no duty, in assessing the requirements of a regional economic policy, to isolate the transport sector from the other factors of development in particular from the effect of measures concerning agricultural policy. 2. A statement of reasons must show clearly and unambiguously the grounds on which the measure is based.

Citations:

C-1/69, [1969] EUECJ C-1/69

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131986

Jeannette Fux v Commission of the European Communitie (Judgment): ECJ 24 Jun 1969

Europa The fact that a candidate has taken part in a competition with the result that he has been entered on a list of suitable candidates is evidence of an interest which he has in the outcome of that competition as determined by the appointing authority. It does not follow from the provisions of the second paragraph of article 4 or from articles 29 and 30 of the staff regulations of officials of the EEC that once a recruitment procedure has been initiated the appointing authority is obliged to pursue it by filling the post which has become vacant. It does not necessarily follow from the concept of an expert that such a person cannot, should the need arise, be consulted regularly and carry out without interruption the activities assigned to him. The distinction between an expert and an official must be sought above all in the nature of the legal relationship which binds each of them to the institution to which they are assigned. The candidates entered on a list of suitable candidates have no unconditional right to be appointed to the vacant post even if they are placed first.

Citations:

C-26/68, [1969] EUECJ C-26/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131976

Wurttembergische Milchverwertung-Sudmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola: ECJ 15 Oct 1969

ECJ Free movement of persons – workers – equality of treatment – national law affording protection against disadvantages resulting from fulfilment of obligations for military service – application to the nationals of other member states. (EEC treaty, article 48; regulation no 38/64/EEC of the council, article (9)1; regulation (EEC) no 1612/68 of the council, article 7). A rule of national law protecting workers from the unfavourable consequences, as regards conditions of work and employment in the undertaking, arising out of absence through obligations for military service must also be applied to the nationals of other member states employed in the territory of the state in question who are subject to military service in their country of origin.

Citations:

C-15/69, R-15/69, [1969] EUECJ R-15/69

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation 38/64/EEC

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131998

Milch-, Fett- und Eierkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Saarbrucken (Judgment): ECJ 24 Jun 1969

Europa An interpretation given by the court of justice under article 177 of the EEC treaty binds the national court hearing the case concerned. It is for the national court, however, to decide whether it is sufficiently enlightened by the preliminary ruling given or whether it is necessary to make a further reference to the court. The power made available by article 97 permits the states concerned to tax an imported product at a single rate deemed to correspond to the aggregate tax burden borne by domestic products. In order to enable the national court to decide whether the case before it is governed by article 97, it is only necessary for it to be in a position to decide, on the one hand, whether the said case involves a turnover tax calculated on a cumulative multi-stage tax system and, on the other hand, whether the member state has actually exercised the power made available to it by the said article. If the national court can establish the existence of these two factors, it merely remains for the commission and the other member states to put into operation the machinery provided for them by the second paragraph of article 97 and by articles 169, 170 and 173, to review the legality of the measures adopted or have it reviewed. The question whether the power made available by article 97 has actually been exercised in a particular case is, from the point of view of community law, a question which national courts must decide within the context of national law. If a state has exercised the power made available to it by article 97, the rates which it has established are governed by that provision, even where it could be shown that they do not correspond to the aggregate tax burden borne by domestic products. In states which have exercised the power made available by article 97, an ‘ average rate ‘ is any rate established as such by the state concerned, even if it was established prior to the entry into force of the treaty. In order to establish an average rate within the meaning of article 97 of the EEC treaty, it is sufficient that the body which is competent in accordance with the legal system of a member state should declare that an existing rate of tax is an average rate. Under a cumulative multi-stage tax system, a rate applicable to a single stage of marketing may constitute an average rate within the meaning of article 97 of the EEC treaty. As far as national courts are concerned, infringement of articles 95 and 97 would not mean that the rate in question was no longer an ‘ average rate ‘, but would merely render it liable to the measures laid down in the second paragraph of article 97. By permitting member states to establish average rates for groups of products the treaty merely intended to indicate that the states are not bound to establish separate rates for each product. Nothing in article 97 allows the conclusion to be drawn that the status of ‘ average rate ‘ depends on the composition of the groups covered by the rate in question. Consequently, article 97 does not exclude the possibility that products liable to a rate of turnover equalization tax which does not differ from the general rate may form a group of products within the meaning of that article.

Citations:

C-29/68, [1969] EUECJ C-29/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131980

X v Commission (Order): ECJ 11 May 1971

Europa By application of 21 april 1971, a limited company, requests the court for authorization to serve an attachment order in respect of sums owed by the commission of the european communities to mrs z, an official in the service of the commission, as security for a principal sum of… And… Costs and interest, which the said mrs z was required to pay by an order of the… Magistrate.
It must first be examined whether such an authorization is necessary.
Under article 1 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the european communities, the property and assets of the communities shall not be the subject of any administrative or legal measure of constraint without the authorization of the court.
The aim of this provision is to prevent obstacles being placed in the way of the functioning and independence of the communities.
An attachment order can only in certain circumstances constitute such an obstacle.
The authorization to serve an attachment order can arise only through the existence of privileges and immunities of the european communities to be taken into consideration in the course of proceedings which for the rest are entirely decided by the laws of the member states.
The legal protection which this authorization is intended to give would exceed its aim if a third party, being an institution, which has an attachment order served upon it considers that it has no grounds for opposing a requirement to pay into the hands of a creditor of one of its officials all or part of the sums which it owes or will owe to the latter.
On the other hand, if the institution were opposed to being served with an attachment order or were to take the view subsequently that it should oppose the proceedings to obtain the order or the execution of the order, it would fall to the court to decide the matter on application by the parties.

Citations:

C-1/71, [1971] EUECJ C-1/71

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131958

Netherlands v Commission C-59/70: ECJ 6 Jul 1971

ECJ 1. It follows from the common purpose of articles 33 and 35 that the requirements of legal certainty and of the continuity of community action underlying the time-limits for bringing proceedings laid down in article 33 must also be taken into account – having regard to the special difficulties which the silence of the competent authorities may involve for the interested parties – in the exercise of the rights conferred by article 35. Where the commission fails to act the interested parties are therefore bound to raise the matter with the commission within a reasonable period. This is so a fortiori once it is clear that the commission has decided to take no action.
2. The duty of cooperation imposed on member states by articles 86 must prompt a member state which considers that a measure adopted by another member state is contrary to the treaty to resort to the procedures or means of legal action placed at its disposal by the treaty in sufficient time to ensure that effective intervention is still possible and that the position of third parties is not needlessly called in issue.

Citations:

[1971] EUECJ C-59/70

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131948

SpA Salgoil v Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade: ECJ 19 Dec 1968

ECJ 1. Procedure – preliminary ruling – jurisdiction of the court – limits (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Procedure – preliminary ruling – reference to the court by a national court or tribunal – applicability of the provision referred for interpretation – express statement not obligatory (EEC treaty, article 177) 3. Quantitative restrictions – abolition – creation of new restrictions and intensifying of existing restrictions prohibited – individual rights – protection of the same – detailed rules for application – variation according to national legal systems (EEC treaty, first paragraph of article 31; first paragraph of article 32) 4. Quantitative restrictions – global quotas – calculation – discretion of member states – no individual rights (EEC treaty, article 32, article 33) 5. Member states – protective measures – strict interpretation (EEC treaty, article 36, article 224, article 226) 1. The court has no jurisdiction when dealing with a reference under article 177 either to take cognizance of the facts of the case or to criticize the reasons for the reference. In particular, it has no jurisdiction to decide whether one or other of the provisions referred for an interpretation is applicable to the case at issue. There is therefore a valid reference to the court in so far as the quotation of the provision in question is not incorrect on the face of it. 2. A national court or tribunal which refers a question to the court under article 177 of the EEC treaty is not required to state expressly that the provision which appears to it to call for an interpretation is applicable. 3. (A) once the lists of liberalized products have been supplied, or at the latest once the time-limit laid down in the second paragraph of article 31 of the EEC treaty for the supply of these lists has expired, article 31 produces direct effects on the relationships between a member state and those subject to its jurisdiction, and creates rights in favour of the latter which national courts must protect. (B) the first paragraph of article 32 produces the same effects and creates the same rights. (C) the abovementioned provisions require the authorities, and in particular the relevant courts of the member states, to protect the interests of those persons subject to their jurisdiction who may be affected by any possible infringement of the said provisions, by ensuring for them direct and immediate protection of their interests. However, it is for the national legal system to determine which court of tribunal has jurisdiction to give this protection and, for this purpose, to decide how the individual position thus protected is to be classified. 4. As regards the data for and the methods of calculating ‘ global quotas ‘, ‘ total value ‘ and ‘ national production ‘ within the meaning of paragraph (1) and the first subparagraph of paragraph (2) of article 33 of the EEC treaty, several solutions may be envisaged. Therefore the member states are left with some discretion concerning their obligations relating to these concepts. Accordingly, the abovementioned provisions and the last sentence of article 32 of the EEC treaty do not apply in a sufficiently precise way to be capable of producing direct effects on the relationships between the member states and those subject to its jurisdiction. 5. The provisions of articles 36, 224 and 226 of the EEC treaty deal with exceptional cases which are clearly defined and which do not lend themselves to any wide interpretation. They cannot therefore be relied upon so as to deny that article 31 of the treaty is directly applicable in its effects.

Citations:

[1968] ECR 453, [1969] CMLR 181, C-13/68, R-13/68, [1968] EUECJ R-13/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131874

Feram v Commission (Judgment): ECJ 16 Mar 1971

1. The recommendations drawn up by the council upon the giving of an assent cannot have the effect of restricting or modifying the express powers conferred by the decision which is the subject of that assent.
The legality of decisions taken in implementation of a general decision which has been the subject of an assent can therefore be examined only on the basis of the actual provisions of that general decision.
2. The inevitable and inherent disadvantages in the equalization scheme which, of its nature, necessitates a posteriori calculations for the fixing of the rate do not constitute damage giving a right to compensation.
3. The existence of frauds does not alone suffice to prove that the administration has failed in its duty of supervision and consequently is guilty of a wrongful act or omission.

Citations:

C-70/69, [1971] EUECJ C-70/69

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131890

Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ): ECJ 6 Oct 1970

Europa It would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to decisions by article 189 to exclude in principle the possibility that persons affected may invoke the obligation imposed by a decision. Particularly in cases where, for example, the community authorities have by means of a decision imposed an obligation in a member state or all the member states to act in a certain way, the effectiveness (‘l’ effet utile’) of such a measure would be weakened if the nationals of that state could not invoke it in the courts and the national courts could not take it into consideration as part of community law. Although the effects of a decision may not be identical with those of a provision contained in a regulation, this difference does not exclude the possibility that the end result, namely the right of the individual to invoke the measure before the courts, may be the same as that of a directly applicable provision of a regulation. Therefore, in each particular case, it must be ascertained whether the nature, background and wording of the provision in question, are capable of producing direct effects in the legal relationships between the addressee of the act and third parties.
The second paragraph of article 4 of the council decision of 13 May 1965, which prohibits the member states from applying the common system of turnover tax concurrently with specific taxes levied instead of turnover tax, is capable, in conjunction with the provisions of the council directives of 11 april 1967 and 9 december 1969, of producing direct effects in the legal relationships between the member states to which the decision is addressed and those subject to their jurisdiction and of creating for the latter the right to invoke these provisions before the courts.
Europa The prohibition on applying the common system of turnover tax concurrently with specific taxes becomes effective on the date laid down in the third council directive of 9 Dec 1969, namely on 1 Jan 1972.
Whilst the second paragraph of article 4 of the decision of 13 May 1965 provides for the abolition of ‘ specific taxes ‘ in order to ensure a common and consistent system of taxation of turnover, this objective does not prohibit the imposition on transport services of other taxes which are of a different nature and have aims different from those pursued by the common system of turnover tax. A tax which is not imposed on commercial transactions but merely because goods are carried by road and the basis of assessment of which is not consideration for a service but the physical load expressed in metric tons/kilometres to which the roads are subjected by the activity taxed, does not correspond to the usual form of turnover tax within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 4 of the decision of 13 May 1965.
It is not for the court, in the procedure laid down by article 177 of the eec treaty, to assess, from the point of view of community law, the features of a measure adopted by one of the member states . On the other hand it is within its jurisdiction to interpret the relevant provision of community law in order to enable the national court to apply it correctly to the measure in question.

Citations:

C-9/70, R-9/70, [1970] EUECJ R-9/70, [1970] ECR 825

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131904

Johannes Coenraad Moulijn v Commission of the CEE (Judgment): ECJ 22 Jun 1967

Europa Officials – disputes with the administration – appeal through official channels made after the expiry of the period for appeal to the court – time-limit for appeal to the court not retained (staff regulations of officials of the EEC, articles 90 and 91) cf. Paragraph 1, summary, joined cases 27 and 30/64, (1965) ECR 481. It appears from articles 90 and 91 of the staff regulations, read together, that appeals through official channels are subject to the same time – limits as applies to appeals to the court of justice, provided that they were themselves instituted within the time laid down for appeals to the court. In the case of a rejection of an appeal through official channels, the date on which the applicant becomes aware of this rejection constitutes the termination of the administrative procedure and marks the date from which time begins to run in respect of the time limit for lodging an appeal to the court.

Citations:

C-10/67, [1967] EUECJ C-10/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131839

Dietrich Kurrer v Council of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 28 Mar 1968

Europa 1. Officials – recruitment – vacancy notices and notices of competition – specific requirements – definition of duties – special details – powers of the appointing authority (staff regulations of officials of the communities, articles 2, 4, 5 and 29 and annex iii, article 1) 2. Officials – recruitment – vacancy notices and notices of competition – specific requirements – definition of duties – special details – criterion of nationality – knowledge of a system of national law (staff regulations of officials of the communities, article 27) 3. Officials – recruitment – competition – promotions committee – joint committee – powers – limits (staff regulations of officials of the communities, articles 9 and 45, annex ii, articles 2 and 3, annex iii, article 1) 4. Officials – recruitment – competition open to a higher grade of a career bracket – exceptional nature – conditions (staff regulations of officials of the communities, article 31(2)). 1. When the definition of duties adopted by the institution does not contain the essential information for procuring (by way of vacancy notices or notices of competition) the most suitable applications for the posts to be filled, it is for the appointing authority, as the body responsible under the staff regulations for issuing the notices in question to add to the definition drawn up by the institution the necessary specific requirements, having regard to the needs of the service. In so far as the appointing authority keeps within the definition laid down by the institution, it is a permissible method of carrying out promotions or recruitment policy to stipulate, as regards duties calling for specific qualifications, special details with regard to posts which are the subject of vacancy notices or notices of competition. 2. Although the staff regulations prohibit the reservation of a post for nationals of any specific member state, the appointing authority may nevertheless legitimately make its choice depend, as regards the recruitment of an official to the legal department, on knowledge and experience of a given national legal system. 3. The promotions committee, as regards the question whether promotion can be effected within the institution, and the joint committee, as regards the drawing up of the notice of competition, exercise their powers within the framework of the powers conferred by the staff regulations both on the institution itself and on the appointing authority and having regard to the special features of the post to be filled. 4. It is only permissible to make appointments by way of open competitions to the higher grade of a career bracket in exceptional cases where recourse to the provisions of article 31(2) is justified by the specific needs of the service, which call for the recruitment of a specially qualified official.

Citations:

C-33/67, [1968] EUECJ C-33/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131862

S A Brasserie de Haecht v Consorts Wilkin-Janssen: ECJ 12 Dec 1967

ECJ 1. Policy of the EEC- competition – agreements between undertakings – prohibition in article 85(1) – consideration of the economic and legal context 2. Policy of the EEC – competition – agreements which may effect trade between member states – concept (EEC treaty, article 85) 3. Policy of the EEC – competition – brewery contracts – prohibition in article 85(1) – conditions of application 1. For the purpose of examining whether a contract is caught by article 85(1) it cannot be examined in isolation from its economic and legal context, that is, from the factual or legal circumstances causing it to prevent, restrict or distort competition. 2. To be capable of affecting trade between member states, it must be possible for an agreement, decision or practice, when viewed in the light of all the objective factual or legal circumstances, to appear to be capable of having some influence, direct or indirect, on trade between member states, of being conducive to a partitioning of the market or of hampering the economic interpenetration sought by the treaty. Cf. Paragraph 7, summary, case 56/65 (1967) ECR 3. Agreements whereby an undertaking agrees to obtain its supplies from one undertaking to the exclusion of all others do not by their very nature necessarily include all the elements constituting incompatibility with the common market referred to in article 85(1) of the treaty. Such agreements may, however, exhibit such elements where, taken either in isolation or together with others, and in the economic and legal context in which they are made, on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact, they may affect trade between member states and where they have either as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.

Citations:

C-23/67, [1967] ECR 407, R-23/67, [1967] EUECJ R-23/67

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
See Also – Sa Brasserie De Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen ECJ 6-Feb-1973
ECJ Agreements Prior And Subsequent To Regulation No 17 – 1. When an agreement prior to the implementation of article 85 by regulation no 17 has been notified in accordance with the provisions of that regulation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131852

Firma Kurt A Becher v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 30 Nov 1967

Europa 1. Procedure – proceedings in matters arising from non-contractual liability for reparation for the same damage brought both against the EEC and a member state – necessity for a decision of the national court before a decision by the court of justice 2. Non-contractual liability – damage resulting from an act illegal under community law and the law of a member state – existence of a right to reparation against the EEC dependent upon proof of the prior exhaustion of all methods of recourse (EEC treaty, article 215) 3. Non-contractual liability – injury suffered owing to the reliance of a person subject to the jurisdiction of the EEC on the apparent legality of an administrative act held to be illegal – compensation (EEC treaty, article 215) 4. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – cereals – protective measures taken by member states – examination by the commission (regulation no 19, article 22) 5. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – cereals – regulation no 19 – sphere of application – general interests concerned – possibility of protection of individual interests 1. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, joined cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66, (1967) ECR 245. If, for the purposes of obtaining compensation for the same damage, two actions are brought, one against a member state before a national court and one against the EEC before the court of justice, it is necessary to avoid the applicant’s being insufficiently or excessively compensated because of the different assessment of two different courts applying different rules of law. For that reason the final judgment of the court cannot be given before the decision of the national court on the matter. */ 666j0005 /*. 2. Cf. Paragraph 3, summary, joined cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66, (1967) ECR 245. When there is damage resulting from an act illegal according to community law and the law of a member state, it is appropriate to ask the applicant to prove that he has exhausted all methods of recourse, both administrative and judicial, under the national law applicable for obtaining repayment of sums improperly paid. Only after production of such proof is it appropriate to consider whether any damage exists which the community should make good. */ 666j0005 /*. 3. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, joined cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66, (1967) ECR 245. Damage suffered by a person subject to the jurisdiction of the EEC by reason of the fact that he has relied on the legality of an unlawful administrative act must be made good. */ 666j0005 /*. 4. Cf. Paragraph 6, summary, joined cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66, (1967) ECR 245. In exercising the powers conferred upon it by article 22 of regulation n. 19, the commission is required in respect of each protective measure notified to it to conduct as exhaustive an examination as that required to be made by the member states and bears independent responsibility for the retention of protective measures. */ 666j0005 /*. 5. Cf. Paragraph 7, summary, joined cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66, (1967) ECR 245. Even though in essence they refer to interests of a general nature, the provisions of regulation n. 19 may also ensure the protection of individual interests such as those of the producers of member states and of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the EEC participating in intra-community trade.

Citations:

C-30/66, [1967] EUECJ C-30/66

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131830

Parke, Davis and Co v Probel, Reese, Beintema-Interpharm and Centrafarm: ECJ 29 Feb 1968

ECJ The restrictive nature of article 85(1) is incompatible with any extension of the prohibition for which it provides beyond the three categories of agreement exclusively enumerated therein. The existence of the rights granted by a member state to the holder of a patent is not affected by the prohibitions contained in articles 85(1) and 86 of the treaty. The exercise of such rights cannot of itself fall either under article 85(1), in the absence of any agreement, decision or concerted practice prohibited by this provision, or under article 86, in the absence of any abuse of a dominant position. A higher sale price for the patented product as compared with that of the un-patented product coming from another member state does not necessarily constitute an abuse of a dominant position.

Citations:

C-24/67, [1967] ECR 55, [1968] CMLR 47, [1968] FSR 393, R-24/67, [1968] EUECJ R-24/67

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina and The Secretary of State for Health v Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and Dowelhurst Limited CA 18-Dec-2001
The applicants sought to quash the Scheme in the 1999 Regulations by judicial review. Prescribers under the NHS are not directly concerned with price, and that led to the need for independent regulatory controls over prices. Those controls allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131853

Ciechelski v Caisse Regionale de securite sociale du Centre d’Orleans etc: ECJ 5 Jul 1967

ECJ Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – benefits – aggregation and proportional calculation – calculation of a benefit payable under the legislation of a single member state by means of aggregation and proportional calculation – not permissible (EEC treaty, article 51; regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28). Free movement of persons – migrant workers – old age and death (pensions) insurance – pension rights relating to separate periods – absence of improper accumulation (EEC treaty, article 51; regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28). Free movement of persons – migrant workers – insurance – system provided for by regulation no 3 – retention of separate national systems and of separate claims – observance of this system by the competent institutions of the member states.

Citations:

C-1/67, [1967] EUECJ R-1/67

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131831

August Josef Van Eick v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1968

Europa EAEC officials – disciplinary measures – procedure before the disciplinary board – measure preparatory to the opinion of the disciplinary board – act not adversely affecting an official – opinion of the disciplinary board – separate measure adversely affecting an official 2. EAEC officials – disciplinary measures – procedure before the disciplinary board – application of the principles of the law of procedure – hearing of witnesses – inquiry in which each side can submit its case and reply to the case of the other side – participation of the official concerned (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, annex ix, first paragraph of article 4, first paragraph of article 6) 3. EAEC officials – disciplinary measures – procedure – hearing of the official concerned by the appointing authority – delegation of powers not permissible (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, annex ix, third paragraph of article 7) 1. The procedure followed before the disciplinary board is made up of a body of purely preparatory measures which are only capable of affecting the official concerned adversely to the extent to which they influence the opinion of the board. Complaints raised against this procedure cannot, therefore, form the subject of a separate application and must be considered in the context of the application directed against the opinion of the board. 2. Although the disciplinary board only constitutes an advisory body of the appointing authority, it is bound, in the exercise of its powers, to observe the fundamental principles of the law of procedure. In accordance with the principles of the rules of procedure, the board could not reject an application for the examination of witnesses, once this request clearly indicates the witnesses to be called, the facts on which they must be heard and the reasons which are likely to justify their examination. It is, however, for the board to assess both the relevance of the application in relation to the subject-matter of the dispute and the need to examine the witnesses named. The nature of an inquiry, in which each side can submit its case and reply to the case of the other side, ordered by the disciplinary board does not demand that the official concerned should take part in the examination of documents by the rapporteur, or in the communications made by the rapporteur to his colleagues in the course of the inquiry, but merely obliges the board to keep this official informed of the conduct of the inquiry and to enable him, in good time, to submit his observations on the information obtained. 3. In the case of disciplinary proceedings, the obligatory hearing of the official concerned by the appointing authority constitutes a peremptory legal requirement. This principle must be interpreted as imposing on the appointing authority a duty to hear the official itself. Only by observing this principle and in conditions which ensure protection of the rights of the officials concerned might the appointing authority, for reasons connected with the efficient running of its departments, entrust to one or more of its members the task of hearing the official.

Citations:

C-35/67, [1968] EUECJ C-35/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131864

Ufficio Imposte di Consumo di Ispra v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 10 Dec 1968

ECJ 1. Privileges and immunities of the EAEC – inviolability of premises and buildings of the community – legal entry by a national authority to carry out inspection – administrative measure of constraint (protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EAEC, article 1) 2. Privileges and immunities of the EAEC – agreement between the commission and a member state in order to implement the protocol and to supplement it – rights and guarantees flowing from the protocol – reduction thereof not permissible – request founded directly on the protocol – admissibility 3. Privileges and immunities of the EAEC – administrative measure of constraint – authorization by the court – request – competent authority – conditions for grant of authorization (protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EAEC, article 1) 1. An entry by the authorized representatives of a tax authority of a member state upon the premises of a community institution in order to take certain action constituting the preliminary phase in the preparation of an assessment to a duty constitutes an administrative measure of constraint requiring the authorization of the court. 2. An agreement between the commission and a member state in order to implement the protocol on the privileges and immunities and if need be to supplement it cannot diminish the rights and guarantees which flow directly from the said protocol in favour of the member states and their agencies, as well as of the community institutions and of individuals. The admissibility of a request founded directly upon the protocol cannot therefore be called in issue by special provisions agreed between the commission and the government of a member state. 3. An authority which under its national law is competent to carry out an administrative measure of constraint is, by virtue of article 1 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EAEC, entitled to request the authorization for which provision is made in that article. The authorization requested from the court may be granted when the administrative measure of constraint does not raise difficulties which might place in jeopardy the functioning, independence or security of the community institution.

Citations:

C-2/68, [1968] EUECJ C-2/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131865

Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz v Joseph Welchner: ECJ 5 Dec 1967

ECJ 1. Free movement of persons – workers – social security – periods assimilated to insurance periods – reference to national law (regulation no 3, article 1(r)) 2. Free movement of persons – workers – old-age and death (pensions) insurance – application of German legislation – taking into account of ‘ substitute periods ‘ within the meaning of that legislation – German institutions not obliged to take into account a period completed under the legislation of another member state (regulation no 3, article 28, annex g) 1. In so far as it takes ‘ assimilated periods ‘ into account, regulation no 3 intends neither to modify nor supplement national law, provided that the latter observes the provisions of article 48 to 51 of the EEC treaty. In particular, regulation no 3 refers to the conditions under which national law will regard a given period as being equivalent to insurance periods properly so-called. 2. Article 28 of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers, together with annex g thereto, does not require the institutions of the federal republic of Germany to take into account a period completed under the legislation of another member state in determining whether ‘ substitute periods ‘ within the meaning of German legislation must be taken into account.

Citations:

C-14/67, R-14/67, [1967] EUECJ R-14/67

Links:

Bailii

European, Benefits, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131844

Henri Danvin v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1968

Europa 1. Officials – rules relating to acting as deputy for another official – powers of the administration – rules relating to temporary posting – application of those rules reserved for officials in the same category as those to be replaced (staff regulations of officials of the EEC, article 7) 2. Costs – order for each party to bear own costs – exceptional circumstances (rules of procedure, article 69(3)) 1. The system for the temporary replacement of absent officers forms part of the general powers of any administration in respect of the organization of its departments, which it may use for the purpose of ensuring the continuity of the service when the holder of a post is absent or prevented from attending to his duties. Such replacement may only continue for as long as is required for the normal functioning of the department, having regard to the objective needs of that department. Since temporary posting is only permissible within the category of the official to be replaced, it cannot be applied to a person replacing an official in a category other than his own. 2. Exceptional circumstances justifying an order that the parties bear their own costs in whole or in part exist where the silence of a legal provision as to the position in law of the applicant was such as to create doubts regarding the rules of law applicable.

Citations:

C-26/67, [1968] EUECJ C-26/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131855

Fonderie Acciaierie Mandelli v ECSC High Authority Fonderie Acciaierie Giovanni Mandelli v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 8 Feb 1968

ECJ 1. Measures adopted by an institution – decisions of the high authority – statement of reasons – preparatory inquiries – irrelevant objections – uncertainties due to applicant’s own conduct (ECSC treaty, article 15) 2. Assessment to contribution – estimated assessment – powers of the high authority (decision no 13/58 of the high authority of 24 July 1958, article 2; official journal 1958, p.269 decision no 16/58 of the high authority of 24 July 1958, article 15; official journal 1958, p. 275). 1. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary case 36/64, (1965) ECR 329. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary case 2/56, (1957 and 1958) ECR 3. The high authority is under no obligation to communicate all the details of its preliminary investigations, or to make known its views on wholly irrelevant objections. A party cannot plead to its advantage any uncertainties in the high authority’s attitude caused by that party’s own conduct. 2. Article 12 of decision no 13/58 of the high authority and article 15 of decision no 16/58 of the high authority are designed to enable the high authority, either in the absence of any declaration or where a declaration is incomplete or insufficiently proven, to make good by any suitable means the lack of a declaration or to remedy the omissions or inaccuracies in declarations supplied by undertakings. The powers conferred on the high authority to correct declarations are not distinct from those which it may exercise in the total absence of a declaration.

Citations:

C-3/67, [1968] EUECJ C-3/67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Administrative

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131833

Fernand De Schacht v Council of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1968

Europa Official – principle of the continuity of the career of a community official – transfer from one set of community staff regulations to another – no termination of service (staff regulations of officials of the ECSC, annex viii, article 12(a) and (b); general staff regulations of the ECSC, article 62(a) and (b)) – the provisions of both the new staff regulations of officials of the ECSC (articles 92 to 105) and the EEC-EAEC staff regulations (especially articles 2 and 3 of annex viii) confirm the principle of the continuity of the career of a community official. Consequently, article 62(a) and (b) of the former general regulations of the ECSC and article 12(a) and (b) of annex viii to the new staff regulations of officials of the ECSC are inapplicable when the relationship under the staff regulations which bound the person concerned to the ECSC has been brought to an end by the very fact of his becoming subject to the staff regulations of officials of the EEC and the EAEC.

Citations:

C-3/68, [1968] EUECJ C-3/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131866

Alois Bauer v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 12 Dec 1967

ECJ Procedure – interest in taking legal proceedings – type of interest justifying an application to the court Costs – applications by officials of the European Communities – costs which one party has unreasonably caused the opposite party to incur (rules of procedure, second subparagraph of article 69(3) and article 70)

Citations:

C-15/67, [1967] EUECJ C-15/67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Costs

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131845

Anne Muller (nee Collignon) v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 12 Dec 1967

Europa 1. Procedure – periods prescribed for instituting proceedings – legal nature 2. Procedure – application for annulment – application for damages – close connection between the two – inadmissibility of application for annulment bringing with it inadmissibility of application for damages 1. The periods prescribed for instituting proceedings are mandatory in nature and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or of the court. 2. The inadmissibility of a request for annulment brings with it the inadmissibility of a claim for damages with which it is closely connected.

Citations:

C-4/67, [1967] EUECJ C-4/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131834

Henri Labeyrie v Commission of the European Communities(Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1968

Europa 1. Officials – appeal against an internal administrative measure – inadmissibility (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 91) 2. Community institutions – administrative departments – organizational power of superior authorities – duty to respect the rights of officials 3. Officials – duties carried out, grade and post – correspondence – possibility of an infringement of this principle by withdrawing one or more of the departments for which an official is responsible (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 5, 7) 4. Officials – disciplinary measures – observations addressed to an official by his superior – not a reprimand – nature of an internal administrative measure (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 86) 1. Measures concerned exclusively with matters internal to the service and the way in which the administration is carried out are not measures which can be annulled under article 91 of the staff regulations of officials. Cf. Paragraph 3, summary, judgment in joined cases 109/63 and 13/64 (1964) ECR 663. 2. The higher authority alone is responsible for the organization of the departments, which it must be able to determine and modify according to the exigencies of the service, without prejudice to the rights which servants enjoy under their staff regulations and which they can ask the court to enforce. Cf. Paragraph 3, summary, judgment in joined cases 109/63 and 13/64 (1964) ECR 663. 3. In particular it is clear from articles 5 and 7 of the staff regulations that an official has the right to expect that the duties which are assigned to him should as a whole be in keeping with the post which corresponds to the grade which he occupies in the scale of posts; withdrawing from an official one or more of the departments for which he was previously responsible may in certain circumstances amount to an infringement of this right. Cf. Summary, judgment in case 15/65 (1965) ECR 1045. 4. Mere observations addressed to an official by his superior are not a disciplinary measure but an internal administrative measure which cannot be the subject of an appeal to the court.

Citations:

C-16/67, [1968] EUECJ C-16/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131846

Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt GmbH v Council of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jul 1968

Europa Measures adopted by an institution – regulation – concept (EEC treaty, article 189). A measure which is applicable to objectively determined situations and which involves legal consequences for categories of persons viewed in a general and abstract manner constitutes a regulation. Cf. Paragraph 3, summary, joined cases 16 and 17/62, (1962) ECR 471. A measure which abrogates a provision of general application or places a time-limit on its applicability partakes of the general nature of the latter provision. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, joined cases 36 to 38, 40 and 41/58, (1958-1959) ECR 335. A measure does not lose its character as a regulation simply because it may be possible to ascertain with a greater or lesser degree of accuracy the number or even the identity of the persons to which it applies at any given time as long as there is no doubt that the measure is applicable as the result of an objective situation of law or of fact which it specifies and which is in harmony with its ultimate objective. The fact that a legal provision may have different practical effects on the different persons to whom it applies in no way contradicts its nature as a regulation provided that the situation to which it refers is objectively determined.

Citations:

C-6/68, [1968] EUECJ C-6/68

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131869

De Wendel and Cie SA v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 11 Jun 1968

Europa 1. ECSC treaty – economic and social provisions – prices – discriminatory practices – comparable transactions – concept (ECSC treaty, article 60(1)) 2. ECSC treaty – economic and social provisions – prices – discriminatory practices – identical final price applied to comparable transactions – possibility of discrimination not excluded by this fact alone (ECSC treaty, article 60(1)) 3. ECSC treaty – economic and social provisions – dissimilar prices and conditions of sale – transactions which are not comparable – burden of proof on the seller 4. ECSC treaty – economic and social provisions – prices – publicity – rules (ECSC treaty, article 60(2)) 5. Measures adopted by an institution – decisions of the high authority – statement of reasons (ECSC treaty, article 15). 1. A transaction which is not governed by any general criterion for fixing prices is not prohibited by article 60(1) of the treaty, as any danger of discrimination is avoided because by its very nature such a transaction is not comparable to any other. On the other hand article 60(1) applies to transactions which, although as compared with normal transactions may have exceptional characteristics, such as those relating to the loyalty of customers and to the quantities purchased, and for this reason require special conditions of sale, nevertheless remain comparable one with another. 2. The application of an identical or similar final price to several comparable transactions does not of itself remove the possibility of discrimination, for the harmonization of prices may be achieved by a combination of very different factors or of premiums granted in accordance with arbitrary criteria which vary from case to case. The principle of non-discrimination is only observed to the extent to which each of these factors which have contributed to the fixing of a final identical price has been established according to objective criteria applied uniformly to all comparable transactions. 3. In conformity with decision no 30/53 the onus is on the seller to show that transactions subject to prices or conditions of sale which are dissimilar or are not shown in the price list are not comparable transactions. 4. As the obligations to publish price lists and conditions of sale is contained in a mandatory provision of the treaty, it must be regarded as a strict rule of law to which no exception is permitted. By virtue of this rule undertakings in the steel industry must publish all prices and conditions of sale in their price lists and any subsequent modifications. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, case 1/54, (1954-1955) ECR 11. 5. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, case 2/56, (1957) ECR 3. According to the general provisions of articles 5 and 15 of the treaty, the high authority is required to state the reasons for its decisions, mentioning those facts on which the legal justification for the measure depends and the considerations which have led it to adopt its decision. The reasons on which the decision is based must be stated in order that review by the court shall be possible. The high authority is not required to discuss all the objections which might be raised against the decision. It is not necessary to state independent and exhaustive reasons for an isolated article of a complex decision, when sufficient reasons can be deduced from the context of all the findings stated in support of the decision as a whole.

Citations:

C-29/67, [1968] EUECJ C-29/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131858

Industria Molitoria Imolese and others v Council of the European Communities (Judgment): ECJ 13 Mar 1968

Europa Measures adopted by an institution – proceedings instituted by individuals – regulation – possibility of measures of individual concern contained in a regulation (EEC treaty, article 173, second paragraph, article 189, second paragraph) 2. Measures adopted by an institution – proceedings instituted by individuals – provisions of regional significance, not of individual concern to individuals.

Citations:

C-30/67, [1968] EUECJ C-30/67

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131859

X v Audit Board (Judgment): ECJ 7 May 1969

Europa A mistake made by the applicant in designating the relevant provision cannot lead to the inadmissibility of the submission put forward. The disciplinary authority does not prejudice the rights of the defence by imposing a disciplinary sanction in the absence of the official concerned, when that absence is attributable exclusively to the behaviour of the latter.

Citations:

C-12/68, [1969] EUECJ C-12/68, [1970] EUECJ C-12/68

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131872

Koninklijke Nederlandsche Hoogovens en Staalfabrieken NV v High Authority of the ECSC: ECJ 14 Jun 1967

Europa The statement of reasons for a decision must contain the essential elements of the high authority’s reasoning in such a way that the court and all persons concerned may check that the legal provisions in question have been correctly applied. Ferrous scrap which has not been acquired for a consideration and which is re-used by the undertaking on whose behalf the production activity which created it was carried out constitutes an undertaking’s own resources. If the defective drafting of a measure for which the defendant is responsible has given rise to an application, this amounts to an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to order that the parties bear their own costs.

Citations:

C-26/66, [1967] EUECJ C-26/66

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131827

Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 8 Feb 1968

Europa 1. Transport – special internal rates and conditions – purpose of such special rates and conditions – authorization justified (ECSC treaty, article 70) 2. Transport – special internal rates and conditions – unforeseeable circumstances justifying authorization of special rates and conditions – modifications in the infrastructure of transport 3. ECSC treaty – general objectives – natural conditions of competition – concept (ECSC treaty, second paragraph of article 2) 4. ECSC treaty – general objectives – continuity of employment – preservation of balance between different general objectives (ECSC treaty, articles 2 and 3) 5. Transport – special interest rates and conditions – application to a group of undertakings – authorization permissible (ECSC treaty, article 70) 6. Transport – special internal rates and conditions – restrictive clause – authorization exceptional nature – temporary authorization – fixing of time-limit (ECSC treaty, article 70). 1. The purpose of the authorization of special rates and conditions is to grant temporary aid to enable undertakings to overcome – in particular by means of a re-adaptation of production and distribution – exceptional difficulties resulting from unforeseeable circumstances which are likely to result in a situation in which the composition of production costs no longer corresponds to the natural conditions of competition existing between them. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, judgment in joined cases 27, 28 and 29/58, (1960) ecr 505. 2. The unforeseeable nature of the circumstances justifying the grant of special rates and conditions must be assessed in the light of the facts of each case and according to a reasonable assessment of the situation. In the transport sector, modifications in the infrastructure, execution of which brings about a change in the existing economic situation, constitute such unforeseeable circumstances. 3. The concept set out in the second paragraph of article 2 of the treaty concerning conditions which will of themselves ensure the most rational distribution of production cannot be regarded as a fixed concept, but covers facts which are themselves contingent and variable, in particular with regard to time. 4. Although it is true that the establishment of the common market is based in particular on the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity, it in no way follows that the social objectives set out in article 2 of the treaty are always of secondary importance and can in no case constitute one of the decisive grounds for community action. As the general objectives set out in articles 2 and 3 of the ECSC treaty cannot always be pursued simultaneously in their totality, the community must continually reconcile any possible conflict which may be implied by these objectives when considered individually, and when such conflict arises must grant such priority to one or other of the general objectives as appears necessary having regard to the economic facts or circumstances in the light of which it adopts its decisions. Cf. Paragraph 4(b), summary, judgment in case 8/57, (1958) ecr 245. 5. The application of special rates and conditions in the interest of one or more undertakings does not necessarily imply individual measures and in no way excludes the introduction of measures adapted to a group of undertakings which are similarly placed. 6. As the application of special rates and conditions constitutes an altogether exceptional procedure, the treaty only allows it to the extent to which it enables the undertakings in whose favour it operates to re-establish, within the appropriate time – limits, conditions which will of themselves ensure the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity. In order to ensure observance of the objectives of the treaty, a time-limit must be attached to the temporary agreement given by the high authority to the application of the special rates and conditions. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, judgment in joined cases 27, 28 and 29/58, (1960) ecr 241.

Citations:

C-28/66, [1968] EUECJ C-28/66

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131828

Schreckenberg v Commission EAEC (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1966

Europa 1. Measures adopted by an institution – definitive nature – criteria 2. Procedure – claim for compensation distinct from an application for annulment – limits of this distinction 1. A measure adopted by an institution without conditions or reservations must be regarded as final in the absence of material factors which clearly and consistently indicate its provisional nature. Cf. Para. 1, summary, case 34/65 (1966) ECR 521. 2. A party may take action by means of a claim for compensation without being obliged to seek the annulment of the illegal measure which causes him damage. He may not, however, by this means attempt to obtain a result similar to that of the annulment of the measure in question, if the application for its annulment is inadmissible.

Citations:

C-59/65, [1966] EUECJ C-59/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131817

Alfons Lutticke GmbH v Commission of the EEC (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 1966

Europa Member states of the EEC – failure to fulfil an obligation arising under the treaty – application to the commission to initiate the procedure provided for in article 169 of the EEC treaty – refusal of the commission – application for annulment – inadmissibility. An application for the annulment of a measure by which the commission has arrived at a decision on an application to initiate the procedure laid down to deal with the failure of a member state to fulfil an obligation under the EEC treaty is inadmissible, since the initiation of this procedure is part of the administrative stage thereof and no measure taken by the commission during this stage has any binding force.

Citations:

C-48/65, [1966] EUECJ C-48/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131808