Category: European

Regina v Stanislaus Pieck: ECJ 3 Jul 1980

Europa The right of community workers to enter the territory of a member state which community law confers may not be made subject to the issue of a clearance to that effect by the authorities of that member state. The restriction which article 48 of the EEC Treaty lays down concerning freedom of movement in the territory of member states, namely limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, must be regarded not as a condition precedent to the acquisition of the right of entry and residence but as providing the possibility, in individual cases where there is sufficient justification, of imposing restrictions on the exercise of a right derived directly from the treaty. It does not there- fore justify administrative measures requiring in a general way formalities at the frontier other than simply the production of a valid identity card or passport.
Article 3(2) of council directive no 68/360 prohibiting member states from demanding an entry visa or equivalent requirement for community workers moving within the community must be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘ entry visa or equivalent requirement ‘ covers any formality for the purpose of granting leave to enter the territory of a member state which is coupled with a passport or identity card check at the frontier, whatever may be the place or time at which that leave is granted and in whatever form it may be granted.
The issue of the special residence document provided for in article 4 of directive no 68/360 has only a declaratory effect and, for aliens to whom article 48 of the eec treaty or parallel provisions give rights, it cannot be assimilated to a residence permit such as is prescribed for aliens in general. A member state may not therefore require from a person enjoying the protection of community law that he should possess a general residence permit instead of the document provided for by the combined provisions of article 4 of and the annex to directive no 68/360, or impose penalties for the failure to obtain such a permit.
The failure on the part of a national of a member state of the community, to whom the rules on freedom of movement for workers apply, to obtain the special residence permit prescribed in article 4 of directive no 68/360 may not be punished by a recommendation for deportation or by measures which go as far as imprisonment.

Citations:

C-157/79

European, Immigration

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132927

Denilauler v SNC Couchet Freres (Judgment): ECJ 21 May 1980

The courts of the place or, in any event, of the Contracting State, where the assets subject to the measures sought are located, are those best able to assess the circumstances which may lead to the grant or refusal of the measures sought or to the laying down of procedures and conditions which the plaintiff must observe in order to guarantee the provisional and protective character of the measures ordered.

Citations:

[1980] ECR 1553, C-125/79

Cited by:

Cited – Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) CA 12-Jun-2003
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard HL 12-Jun-2003
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132901

Firma Stadtereinigung K. Nehlsen KG v Freie Hansestadt Bremen: ECJ 6 Dec 1979

Transport – common policy – social provisions – regulation no 543/69 of the council – material scope – vehicles of public authorities – exclusion – vehicles of a private undertaking used to perform a public service – inclusion (regulation no 543/69 of the council, art. 4 (4), as amended by regulation no 2827/77) Pursuant to article 4 (4) of regulation no 543/69 of the council on the har- monization of certain social legis- lation relating to road transport, as amended by regulation no 2827/77, that regulation does not apply to carriage by ‘.. Vehicles which are used by other public authorities for public services. ‘ That expression must be understood as covering only vehicles which are owned by or under the control of the public authority and does not extend to vehicles belonging to a private undertaking and used by the latter to perform a public service or a service in the public interest which it has undertaken to provide under a contract governed by private law.

Citations:

C-47/79, [1979] ECR 3639

Cited by:

Cited – Vehicle Inspectorate v Bruce Cook Road Planing Ltd and Another HL 8-Jul-1999
The transport of motorway maintenance vehicles and plant to and from sites on the back of a low loader is not sufficiently closely connected with the use of such machines on the motorways, to attract exemption as for such use from the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132841

Jacques de Cavel v Louise de Cavel: ECJ 27 Mar 1979

The term ‘rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 1 of the Convention, includes not only property arrangements specifically and exclusively envisaged by certain national legal systems in the case of marriage but also any proprietary relationships resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof. Judicial decisions authorizing provisional protective measures – such as the placing under seal or the freezing of the assets of the spouses – in the course of proceedings for divorce do not fall within the scope of the convention as defined in article 1 thereof if those measures concern or are closely connected with either questions of the status of the persons involved in the divorce proceedings or proprietary legal relations resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof. In relation to the matters covered by the convention, no legal basis is to be found therein for drawing a distinction between provisional and definitive measures.

Citations:

C-143/78

Statutes:

Convention Of 27 September 1968 On Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments

Cited by:

Cited – Charalambous v Charalambous; C v C (Ancillary Relief: Nuptial Settlement) CA 30-Jul-2004
The parties had been wealthy. Whilst still married, substantial sums had been placed in a trust. Their business interests had crashed and both faced personal bankruptcy. The husband appealed an order setting aside the trust.
Held: A clause in . .
See Also – Louise De Cavel v Jacques De Cavel. ECJ 6-Mar-1980
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Family

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132727