Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














European - From: 1960 To: 1969

This page lists 364 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
"Geitling" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, "Mausegatt" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH "Prasident" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and associated companies v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community C-16/59; [1960] EUECJ C-16/59
12 Feb 1960
ECJ

European
ECJ The grounds of a decision limited to stressing the objectives to be attained by the high authority to ensure compliance with the treaty but expressly refraining from laying down precise rules which will have to be settled in the future, do not constitute a decision but simply a notice not binding the high authority in the future and not excluding the possibility of its changing its view. Where a decision contains no provisions having legal effects of a legislative or individual nature but is simply an internal measure taken by the High Authority, the applicant cannot be adversely affected. The claims of the applicant for the annulment of a decision which has not been 'revoked with retroactive effect' but simply 'revoked' are valid in respect of the period between the entry into force of the decision and its revocation; they have not 'lost their purpose'; but if the applicant subsequently states to the court that he considers them to have done so, this statement is in the nature of a withdrawal of claim. If the wording of the grounds of a decision wrongly gives the impression that a definite view has already been taken and accordingly that there is a true decision justifying an action being brought and unreasonably causing costs to be incurred, the costs are to be borne in part by the defendant.
[ Bailii ]
 
Societe Metallurgique De Knutange v ECSC High Authority C-15/59
12 Feb 1960
ECJ

European


 
De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen In Limburg v ECSC High Authority C-30/59
18 Feb 1960
ECJ

European


 
Netherlands v ECSC High Authority C-25/59; [1960] EUECJ C-25/59
19 Feb 1960
ECJ

European
Europa Although for the publication of price-lists and conditions of sale applied within the common market the treaty has expressly given the high authority a legislative power, providing even for review by the consultative committee, the absence of any provision in this respect in article 70 shows that in the transport sector the treaty denies the high authority any express power to take implementing decisions. Neither the wording nor the general structure of the treaty gives the high authority implied legislative power with regard to the publication of transport tariffs. The obligatory publishing of prices does not mean that transport tariffs have to be published. The expressions "price-lists and conditions of sale" in article 60 refer only to price-lists and conditions of sale of goods and not to those of transport for charges are only one element of the seller's cost price, which he is not required to publish. Nor is it possible to infer general powers for the high authority with regard to checking discrimination from a structural and functional correlation between the obligation to publish the prices of products and the obligation to publish transport costs. The high authority cannot under these powers introduce preventive measures by way of decision and in this connexion lay down that scales or rates must be published, since its legislative power in the matter is exceptional and subject to renunciation by the member states which the treaty does not provide for either expressly or by implication in the sphere of the publication of transport tariffs. Article 88 does not give the high authority legislative power similar to the power with regard to the general law of the treaty. The high authority cannot therefore rely on this provision to take decisions creating obligations on the part of the member states. The only object of the reasoned decision referred to in article 88 is the recording of failure to fulfil obligations arising either from an imperative provision of the treaty or a decision or recommendation prior to the application of this article. Article 88 opens means of implementation and is the ultima ratio enabling the community interests enshrined in the treaty to prevail over the inertia and resistance of member states. Nevertheless article 88 must be strictly interpreted. The recording of a failure on the part of a member state to fulfil an obligation imposed by the treaty cannot, in a matter such as the publication of transport charges where the high authority has no legislative power, relate to the means indicated by the high authority to attain the proposed objective but only to the failure to attain this objective.
[ Bailii ]
 
Procedure For The Amendment Of The Treaty Pursuant To The Third And Fourth Paragraphs Of Article 95 Of The ECSC Treaty. OP-1/60; [1960] EUECJ OP-1/60
4 Mar 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Opinion of the Court of 4 March 1960. Procedure for the amendment of the Treaty pursuant to the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. C-1/60
4 Mar 1960
ECJ

European


 
Germany v ECSC High Authority C-3/59; [1960] EUECJ C-3/59
8 Mar 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen In Limburg v ECSC High Authority C-30/59; [1960] EUECJ C-30/59; [1961] EUECJ C-30/59
24 Mar 1960
ECJ

European, Litigation Practice
(Order only) The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is, for the purpose of making its submissions in support of its conclusions during the written procedure, required to use the language of the case used in the main action, namely Dutch; but is authorized to use the german language for the oral procedure.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Elz v ECSC High Authority C-34/59; [1960] EUECJ C-34/59
4 Apr 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mannesmann Ag and Others v ECSC High Authority C-4/59; [1960] EUECJ C-4/59
4 Apr 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Barbara Erzbergbau AG and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community C-3/58
11 Apr 1960
ECJ

European
During the course of the present procedure it is not necessary to decide whether and in what circumstances an intervener may claim a stay of execution, and it is sufficient to note that in judging whether the requests in question are well-founded it is not necessary to take into account the request of the land of baden-wurttemberg to intervene in case 8/58. The requests for a stay of execution have been lodged less than six weeks before 10 may 1960, the date on which the judgment on the substance is to be published. The applicants rely on the fact that the federal government has now resolved to execute the decisions of the high authority of 9 february 1958, as it has long been required to do, as appears from the judgment of the court of justice of 8 march 1960 in case 3/59. From the time when the abovementioned decisions were adopted the applicants could have expected them to be executed and as from that time they could have lodged a request for a stay of execution which might have been justified. In principle, it is for an applicant to decide whether it is appropriate to lodge a request for a stay of execution, and to decide at what stage of the procedure to lodge it. However, there are obvious objections to granting such a request when it is lodged after the written procedure has come to an end and after the oral procedure on the substance, at a time when the court has already commenced its deliberations on the judgment on the substance. Moreover, as the defendant has also observed, it is to be noted that the execution of the decisions of 9 february 1958 will not immediately provoke disadvantageous consequences for some undertakings and will result in only partial increases in rates for most of the other undertakings. It is true that that constitutes a disadvantage for the undertakings affected by those measures, but there would not appear to be any grounds for the argument put forward by the applicants that these alterations in rates could not be withdrawn at a later stage. The foregoing considerations require that the request be rejected, and it is not necessary to order the measures of inquiry proposed by the applicants.

 
Acciaeria E Tubificio Di Brescia v ECSC High Authority C-31/59
14 Apr 1960
ECJ

European



 
 Acciaieria Ferriera Di Roma v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 10-May-1960 - C-1/60; [1960] EUECJ C-1/60
 
Barbara Erzbergbau AG and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community C-3/58; [1960] EUECJ C-3/58
10 May 1960
ECJ

European
It appears directly from article 4 and from the context of article 70 that the first paragraph of the latter provision imposes - both on the states and on the high authority - a substantive and binding rule requiring the application of its provisions.
The case of discrimination covered by the first paragraph of article 70 refers exclusively to conditions of transport and therefore to the comparability of different routes and locations from the point of view of transport.
Damage caused by discrimination may be considered as a consequence by which that discrimination may be detected. It is not however implied by definition in the concept of discrimination, the meaning of that concept being primarily that unequal conditions are laid down for comparable cases.
Special rates and conditions within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of article 70 are not only those adopted in the interest of undertakings, but also those which are advantageous to them. Therefore even reasons for the adoption of special rates and conditions which are entirely foreign to the interests of an undertaking deriving an advantage cannot exclude or restrict the application of the abovementioned provision.
The adverse effect on the profitability of an undertaking of the lack of special rates and conditions does not render those rates and conditions consonant with the principles of the treaty and therefore does not, in cases where the fourth paragraph of article 70 applies, put the high authority under an obligation based on articles 2 and 3.
A protective rate is compatible with the treaty only in exceptional cases, notably where the undertaking receiving assistance is experiencing disadvantages created by factors other than those of an economic nature; such a rate is legitimate only in so far as it is necessary in order to enable the undertaking to adapt itself to new conditions or to survive an accidental disadvantage.
In giving reasons for its decisions, the high authority may confine itself to considering the concrete cases which are submitted to it and to explaining its interpretation of the treaty in a positive manner. In no way is it required to reject or to criticize other possible interpretations, and its functions do not include the elaboration of general theories on the matters covered by the treaty.
[ Bailii ]
 
Federal Republic of Germany v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community C-19/58; [1960] EUECJ C-19/58
10 May 1960
ECJ

European
Action on the part of the high authority within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 37 must be interpreted as referring only to an action which has already occurred and not a decision which the high authority has the as yet unresolved intention of adopting.
The case of discrimination covered by the first paragraph of article 70 refers exclusively to conditions of transport and therefore to the comparability of different routes and locations from the point of view of transport.
Special rates and conditions within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of article 70 are not only those adopted in the interest of undertakings, but also those which are advantageous to them. Therefore even reasons for their adoption which are entirely foreign to the interests of an undertaking receiving an advantage cannot exclude or restrict the application of the abovementioned provision.
The adverse effect on the profitability of an undertaking of the lack of special rates and conditions does not render those rates and conditions consonant with the principles of the treaty and therefore does not, in cases where the fourth paragraph of article 70 applies, put the high authority under an obligation based on articles 2 and 3.
A protective rate is compatible with the treaty only in exceptional cases, notably where the undertaking receiving assistance is experiencing disadvantages created by factors other than those of an economic nature; such a rate is legitimate only in so far as it is necessary in order to enable the undertaking to adapt itself to new conditions or to survive an accidental disadvantage.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hauts Fourneuax De Givors and Others v ECSC High Authority C-27/58; [1960] EUECJ C-27/58
10 May 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mannesmann Ag and Others v ECSC High Authority C-4/59
18 May 1960
ECJ

European


 
Campolongo v ECSC High Authority C-27/59; [1960] EUECJ C-27/59
15 Jul 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Von Lachmuller and Others v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-43/59
15 Jul 1960
ECJ

European
Europa Where the conditions of employment appliable to servants have not been expressly determined and defined by the competent authorities, the conditions applicable for the purposes of article 179 of the eec treaty are to be deemed to consist of the express or implied terms which necessarily governed the contracts of employment of those servants. Accordingly the court has jurisdiction under article 179 of the eec treaty, and this is confirmed by the general principle set out in article 173 of the said treaty.
For the purposes of article 179 of the eec treaty, any person employed in the services of the community prior to the promulgation of the staff regulations is a servant.
Contracts of employment of servants concluded by the commission acting under its powers to provide a public service come under public law and are subject to the general rules of administrative law.

The express or implied creation, prior to the promulgation of the staff regulations, of a relationship which envisages permanent employment and carries entitlement to the future benefits of the staff regulations is prohibited by virtue of article 246(3) of the eec treaty. The case-law of the ecsc court of justice, which has accepted that servants of the ecsc employed prior to the promulgation of the staff regulations have an entitlement to future employment thereunder, is of no avail on this point because the last paragraph of article 7 of the convention on the transitional provisions does not require that all contracts of employment shall be of limited duration.
Although the contracts at issue were nevertheless concluded for a period of unlimited duration, that is to be explained by the fact that at the time when they were concluded it was impossible to enter into contracts of limited duration provided for by article 246(3) of the treaty, because at that time the permanent needs of each service of the commission were not sufficiently foreseeable. The contracts at issue, which thus constituted a phase pending the conclusion of contracts provided for by article 246(3) of the treaty, can on no account imply that there was a common intention between the parties to enter into the legal relationship of a contract of permanent employment, for such an intention is manifestly contrary to the principle set out in the said article 246(3).

Observance of the principle of good faith requires that decisions of dismissal terminating a contract of employment must be justified on grounds relevant to the interests of the service and there must be nothing arbitrary about them. Failure to state such grounds constitutes a breach of contract for which the administration is liable. The fact that the officials wrongfully dismissed have returned to posts formerly held by them or found new posts is no bar to their being awarded compensation for non-material damage caused by the wrongful act on the part of the administration.
The reasons appertaining to the public interest in justification for an administrative measure must be stated with clarity and in such a way that they may be disputed for otherwise the official concerned would have no means of knowing whether his legal rights had been respected or infringed and furthermore any review of the legality of the decision would be hampered.

 
Prasident Ruhrkolec-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh, Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh, Mausegatt Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh And I. Nold Kg v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community C-36/59; C-38/59; [1960] EUECJ C-38/59
15 Jul 1960
ECJ

European, Constitutional
ECJ 1. The court has jurisdiction over the legality of decisions taken by the high authority, but it is not the function of the court to ensure respect for national law in force in a member state, and this is true even of constitutional laws. Therefore the court may neither interpret nor apply national law.
2. Community law, such as it arises under the ecsc treaty, does not contain any general principle, whether explicit or otherwise, guaranteeing the maintenance of vested rights.
3. By article 65 (2), the high authority shall authorize specialization agreements or joint-buying or joint-selling agreements if it finds that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) are fulfilled. Such authorization therefore depends on a finding which, of its very nature, comprises an assessment of the situation created by the facts or economic circumstances, and for this reason is partly immune from review by this court. Therefore the high authority has an absolute duty to state specific reasons for these authorizations and this rule must be strictly observed. Those reasons must enable the interested parties, as also the court should occasion arise, to check the information on which the high authority has relied in finding that the requirements necessary for the granting of its authorization are met so as to be in a position to examine whether the authorization was rightly granted as a matter both of fact and of law.
4. The advantages which the selling agencies may derive from trading with the smallest possible number of wholesalers do not constitute a sufficient reason to justify the restriction which is thereby imposed on trade, particularly since the very purpose for which the selling agencies have been created is to take away from the mines the effort involved or organizing the sale of their products on a commercial basis and their function, which is to furnish wholesalers with supplies, constitutes the essential reason for their authorized joint-selling agreement.
[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v ECSC High Authority C-20/59; [1960] EUECJ C-20/59
15 Jul 1960
ECJ

European
Europa Although for the publication of price-lists and conditions of sale applied within the common market the treaty has expressly given the high authority a legislative power, providing even for review by the consultative committee, the absence of any provision in this respect in article 70 shows that in the transport sector the treaty denies the high authority any express power to take implementing decisions. Neither the wording nor the general structure of the treaty gives the high authority implied legislative power with regard to the publication of transport tariffs. The obligatory publishing of prices does not mean that transport tariffs have to be published. The expressions "price-lists and conditions of sale" in article 60 refer only to price-lists and conditions of sale of goods and not to those of transport for charges are only one element of the seller's cost price, which he is not required to publish. Nor is it possible to infer general powers for the high authority with regard to checking discrimination from a structural and functional correlation between the obligation to publish the prices of products and the obligation to publish transport costs. The high authority cannot under these powers introduce preventive measures by way of decision and in this connexion lay down that scales or rates must be published, since its legislative power in the matter is exceptional and subject to renunciation by the member states which the treaty does not provide for either expressly or by implication in the sphere of the publication of transport tariffs. Article 88 does not give the high authority legislative power similar to the power with regard to the general law of the treaty. The high authority cannot therefore rely on this provision to take decisions creating obligations on the part of member states. The only object of the reasoned decision referred to in article 88 is the recording of failure to fulfil obligations arising either from an imperative provision of the treaty or a decision or recommendation prior to the application of this article. Article 88 opens means of implementation and is the ultima ration enabling the community interests enshrined in the treaty to prevail over the inertia and resistance of member states. Nevertheless article 88 must be strictly interpreted. The recording of a failure on the part of a member state to fulfil an obligation imposed by the treaty cannot, in a matter such as the publication of transport charges where the high authority has no legislative power, relate to the means indicated by the high authority to attain the proposed objective but only to the failure to attain this objective.
[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands v ECSC High Authority C-25/59
15 Jul 1960
ECJ

European


 
Chambre Syndicale De La Siderurgie De L'Est De La France v ECSC High Authority C-24/58; [1960] EUECJ C-24/58
15 Jul 1960
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Fiddelaar v Commission EEC (Rec 1960,P 1119) (Nl60-1161 D 60-1159 I 60-1087 En60-555) (Order) C-44/59
1 Oct 1960
ECJ

European



 
 Fiddelaar v Commission EEC; ECJ 16-Dec-1960 - C-44/59; [1960] EUECJ C-44/59R; [1960] EUECJ C-44/59

 
 Jean-E Humblet v Belgian State; ECJ 16-Dec-1960 - C-6/60; [1960] EUECJ C-6/60

 
 Hamborner Bergbau Ag and Others v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 16-Dec-1960 - C-41/59; [1960] EUECJ C-41/59
 
De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen In Limburg v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1961,P 3) (Nl61-3 D 61-3 I 61-3 En61-1 Dk61-211 Gr61-549 P 61-551 Es61-1 Sv61-69 Fi61-69) (Judgment) C-30/59
23 Feb 1961
ECJ

European


 
S N U P A T v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1961,P 103) (Nl61-103 D 61-111 I 61-99 En61-53 Dk61-247 Gr61-599 P 61-597 Es61-53 Sv61-95 Fi61-95) (Judgment) C-42/59
22 Mar 1961
ECJ

European


 
Societe Nouvelle Des Usines De Pontlieue Acieries Du Temple (S.N.U.P.A.T.) v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. (Procedure ) C-49/59; [1961] EUECJ C-49/59
22 Mar 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Meroni and Others v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1961,P 203) (Nl61-207 D 61-219 I 61-201 En61-107 Dk61-251 Gr61-605 P 61-603) (Judgment) C-5/60
1 Jun 1961
ECJ

European


 
Meroni and Co., Acciaieria Ferriera Di Roma (Feram), Societa Industriale Metallurgica Di Napoli (Simet) v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. C-8/60; [1961] EUECJ C-8/60
1 Jun 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Simon v Court Of Justice C-15/60; [1961] EUECJ C-15/60
1 Jun 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Breedband N V v Societe Des Acieries Du Temple and Others C-42/59; [1961] EUECJ C-42/59
30 Jun 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Meroni and Others v ECSC High Authority C-14/60
13 Jul 1961
ECJ

European


 
Elz v ECSC High Authority C-22/60
13 Jul 1961
ECJ

European


 
Raymond Elz v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. C-23/60; [1961] EUECJ C-23/60
13 Jul 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Meroni and Co. And Others v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. (Liability Of The ECSC ) C-27/60; [1961] EUECJ C-27/60
13 Jul 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Niederrheinische Bergwerks Aktiengesellschaft And Unternehmensverband Des Aachener Steinkohlenbergbaues v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community C-3/60; [1961] EUECJ C-3/60
13 Jul 1961
ECJ

European
ECJ 1. Article 37 of the ecsc treaty, which is in direct relation to the second paragraph of article 2, assigns to the high authority, subject to review by the court, an exceptional power enabling it to deal with the consequences arising from the application of clauses of the treaty which do not specifically refer to the existence or the threat of fundamental and persistent disturbances.
2. The essential aim of article 37 is to allow for the reconciliation of the interests of a member state affected by the existence of fundamental and persistent disturbances or the threat of this ( in application of the basic provision set out in the second paragraph of article 2 ) and the general interests of the community. The measures adopted to this end by the high authority must be necessary and appropriate and must therefore constitute a proper remedy to the disturbed situation whilst safeguarding the essential interests of the community.
The satisfaction of these conditions is subject to review by the court which has been given extremely wide powers in this respect.
3. It is evident from the wording of the first paragraph of article 37 that the right to raise the matter with the high authority is held exclusively by the state in which the disturbed situation has appeared or has threatened to appear.
4. Only the member state concerned may institute proceedings against the express or implied refusal of the high authority to accede to its request or against a decision adopting measures which it regards as being insufficient.
The other member states also have the capacity to institute proceedings under the third paragraph of article 37 to contest the existence of disturbances or the necessity and appropriateness of measures adopted by the high authority.
5. On the other hand, undertakings do not have the right to rely on the third paragraph of article 37 since proceedings under this provision put in question the political responsibility of the member states and of the high authority, particularly in respect of reconciliation of the general interest of a member state with the general interest of the community.
Undertakings and associations of undertakings also have no right, by virtue of article 33 on its own or in conjunction with article 37, to contest a decision taken by the high authority under the second paragraph of article 37 since any judgment of the high authority's use of the special power assigned to it by article 37 should in any event be based not on the provisions of article 33 but on those of article 37.
[ Bailii ]
 
Vloeberghs v ECSC High Authority C-9/60
14 Jul 1961
ECJ

European


 
Societe Commerciale Antoine Vloeberghs Sa v High Authority of The European Coal And Steel Community C-12/60; [1961] EUECJ C-12/60
14 Jul 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Amendment Of Article 65 Of The Treaty Establishing The European Coal And Steel Community. OP-1/61; [1961] EUECJ OP-1/61
13 Dec 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gorter v Councils EEC and EAEC C-12/61; [1961] EUECJ C-12/61
14 Dec 1961
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Societe Fives Lille Cail and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community; ECJ 15-Dec-1961 - C-19/60; [1961] EUECJ C-19/60

 
 Commission EEC v Italy; ECJ 19-Dec-1961 - C-7/61; [1961] EUECJ C-7/61
 
Societe Fives Lille Cail and Others v ECSC High Authority C-19/60
31 Jan 1962
ECJ

European



 
 Commission EEC v Italy; ECJ 27-Feb-1962 - C-10/61; [1962] EUECJ C-10/61
 
De Bruyn v Common Assembly (Rec 1962,P 39) (Nl62-43 D 62-45 I 62-41 En62-21 Dk62-289 Gr62-659 P 62-5) (Judgment) C-25/60; [1962] EUECJ C-25/60
1 Mar 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hubner Order of the Court of 13 March 1962 Application for authorization to enforce a garnishee order against the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community C-4/62; [1962] EUECJ C-4/62
13 Mar 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Compagnie Des Hauts Fourneaux De Chasse v ECSC High Authority C-33/59; [1962] EUECJ C-33/59
21 Mar 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
De Geus En Uitdenbogerd v Bosch and Others C-13/61
6 Apr 1962
ECJ

European


 
Meroni and Others v ECSC High Authority C-21/61; [1962] EUECJ C-21/61
6 Apr 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Acciaiere Ferriere E Fonderie Di Modena v ECSC High Authority C-16/61; [1962] EUECJ C-16/61
12 Jul 1962
ECJ

European
In an appeal against a pecuniary sanction or a periodic penalty payment a legal argument cannot be dismissed for the sole reason that it was not presented at the time of the administrative proceedings. To exclude an argument on this basis which is in any event incompatible with the purely preliminary nature of the procedure laid down by article 36 of the treaty, would unduly restrict the applicant's rights of defence.
The right to an alignment within the meaning of article 60(2)(b) of the ecsc treaty constitutes an exception to the principle of list prices, but it must not divest that principle of all effect through the exclusion of publicity by means of alignments carried out a posteriori. An alignment which, even though calculated correctly, is made solely in order to justify a posteriori an abatement of list prices, contravenes the general scheme of the treaty and article 60 (2) (b) in particular.
A defence of legitimate self-protection capable of justifying an infringement of the treaty presupposes an action taken by a person which is essential in order to ward off a danger threatening him. The threat must be immediate, the danger imminent, and there must be no other lawful means of avoiding it.
The concept of comparability within the meaning of the ecsc treaty is objective in nature and does not permit purely subjective factors to be taken into consideration. The prohibition of discrimination would otherwise lose its effect.
An undertaking cannot escape from the strict obligation to comply with the rules of the treaty on the grounds that other undertakings employ similar illegal devices or that it is in a difficult situation when for the time being there is an unfavourable economic state of affairs. The high authority is justified in refusing to find that these are mitigating circumstances.
[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands v ECSC High Authority C-9/61; [1962] EUECJ C-9/61
12 Jul 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Breedband N V v Societe Des Acieries Du Temple and Others C-42/59
12 Jul 1962
ECJ

European


 
Hoogovens Nv v ECSC High Authority C-14/61; [1962] EUECJ C-14/61
12 Jul 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgium v Vloebergh and ECSC High Authority (Third-Party Proceedings) C-9/60; [1962] EUECJ C-9/60
12 Jul 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Worms v ECSC High Authority C-18/60; [1962] EUECJ C-18/60
12 Jul 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Klockner-Werke Ag and Others v ECSC High Authority C-17/61; [1962] EUECJ C-17/61
13 Jul 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mannesmann Ag v ECSC High Authority C-19/61; [1962] EUECJ C-19/61
13 Jul 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Plaumann v Commission EEC (Order) (1963) ECR 95; C-25/62; [1962] EUECJ C-25/62R
31 Aug 1962
ECJ

European
ECJ (Order) The applicant bases its application on the claim that, even if in the main action the court were to annul the refusal of the commission to grant to the federal republic of germany an import quota for clementines for 1962 at the rate of 10% instead of the normal rate of 13%, this decision would come too late to prevent imports, in particular those to be made in the last quarter of that year, from being charged in the meantime with customs duty at 13%. The applicant maintains that on these grounds and because it is afraid that, even if it were successful in the main action, it would be unable according to german customs practice to recover the amounts overpaid, it has a compelling interest in the federal government's being authorized, pending judgment on the main issue, to levy a customs duty of only 10% on the importation of clementines and to accept security for the remaining 3%, this to be forfeited if the application be dismissed, with the result that the customs duty would then be paid at the rate of 13%.
the applicant is thus asking for more than a mere suspension of the operation of the decision which it is contesting. It seeks rather to prejudge the results by assuming beyond doubt that these will lead to a decision in its favour in the main action, that is to say, that the commission will then be required in each case to grant the contested authorization and moreover that the federal government will avail itself of this authorization and, indeed, with retroactive effect.
it is true that article 186 of the eec treaty does not clearly exclude such measures; nevertheless so far-reaching an interim measure could be justified only by wholly exceptional circumstances and if there were very good reasons for thinking that the party concerned would otherwise suffer serious and irreparable damage.
it may be assumed, and it is not disputed by the applicant, that the latter, even if the present application were accepted, would have to take account, in fixing the prices to be paid by its customers, of the risk of an unfavourable decision in the main action. It therefore matters little whether the interim measure asked for is adopted or not because it can have no influence on the fixing of prices. On these grounds alone it is in no way proved that failure to repay the customs duties overpaid would, in any event, cause damage to the applicant. On the other hand it is very possible that the repayment would redound to its especial advantage.
moreover it is by no means certain that the customs duties overpaid would not be repaid to the applicant in whole or in part if the applicant succeeded in the main action. Even if it must be admitted that the tax regulations in force in the federal republic of germany give the applicant no unconditional right to repayment, the competent administrative authorities would be at liberty to use their discretion in making such repayment. If the federal republic were to avail itself for 1962 of an authorization resulting from the applicants' possible success in the main action it is not improbable that the authorities would act on those lines, especially as the federal government, according to the applicant's own statement, views its arguments favourably.
moreover it must not be overlooked that the applicant would have the opportunity to act directly by availing itself of the methods of recourse provided under german law against decisions of the german customs authorities imposing on it duties amounting to 13%.
for these reasons the urgency of and the necessity for the measure requested have not been sufficiently established.
in these circumstances it is not necessary to examine the other arguments set out by the defendant on the admissibility and validity of the application for the adoption of an interim measure and of the application in the main action.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Confederation Nationale Des Producteurs De Fruits and Legumes and Others v Council EEC C-16/62; [1962] EUECJ C-16/62
24 Oct 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Wohrmann v Commission EEC C-31/62; [1962] EUECJ C-31/62
30 Oct 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission EEC v Luxembourg and Belgium (Order) C-2/62; [1962] EUECJ C-2/62
3 Dec 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission EEC v Luxembourg and Belgium (Judgment) C-2/62
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European


 
San Michele and Others v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1962,P 859) (Nl62-901 D 62-919 I 62-839 En62-449 Dk62-357 Gr62-825 P 62-169) (Judgment) C-5/62; [1962] EUECJ C-5/62
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Federation Nationale De La Boucherie En Gros and Others v Council EEC C-19/62; [1962] EUECJ C-19/62
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Confederation Nationale Des Producteurs De Fruits and Legumes and Others v Council EEC C-16/62
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European


 
Compagnie Des Hauts Fourneaux De Chasse v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1962,P 719) (Nl62-751 D 62-767 I 62-699 En62-381 Dk62-335 Gr62-795 P 62-139) (Judgment) C-33/59
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European


 
Meroni and Others v ECSC High Authority C-46/59; [1962] EUECJ C-46/59
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Wohrmann v Commission EEC C-31/62
14 Dec 1962
ECJ

European


 
Plaumann v Commission EEC [1962] EUECJ C-25/62R
21 Dec 1962
ECJ

European
ECJ The declaration of the federal minister of finance set out above and produced by the applicant in fact removes the foundation from the statement in the second paragraph of the grounds of the order of 31 August 1962. This statement must accordingly be disregarded for the purpose of the decision on the present application.
1. The applicant has stated that it would be impossible to pass on to its customers the excess customs duty which it would have to pay if its application were dismissed . This is contested by the defendant.
Having regard to the relatively small increase in the selling price of clementines in this event, and taking account of commercial practices and the behaviour of consumers in shopping at the end of the year - circumstances which it may be assumed are known to the court - the arguments of the applicant do not appear to be sufficiently convincing.
2. The applicant has further stated that during the period in which it alleges the interim measure would have its effects, that is to say, from 21 to 31 december 1962, it would still take approximately one sixth of its total imports of clementines since 31 august 1962. It has further argued that the additional costs which this increase in customs duties would involve in respect of imports made during the last eleven days of the year 1962 would amount to some 7000 dm. This claim is disputed by the defendant.
It is not necessary to go into the question whether the applicant's arguments are correct, for if they were, quite apart from the considerations mentioned at 1. Above, the interim measure asked for by the applicant would procure for it only a relatively small benefit.
3. As already set out in the order of 31 august 1962, to which reference is made, the interim measure asked for would on the contrary have far-reaching legal effects and could be justified only by wholly exceptional circumstances and if it were highly likely that the applicant would otherwise suffer serious damage, but it has not been proved that this would be so.
4. There is a further point to be made . The defendant, as it did in its observations on the first application, even now insists, in support of its conclusions for the dismissal of the application for the adoption of the interim measure, that it is improbable that the main application will be found to be either admissible or well-founded.
This argument misconceives the purely protective nature of interim measures, which would in any event apply in the present case. The application for the adoption of an interim measure is not intended to prejudge the decision in the main action and the arguments on inadmissibility or absence of grounds in the main action are irrelevant and must be dismissed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lasalle v Parliament (Order) C-15/63; [1963] EUECJ C-15/63R; [1964] EUECJ C-15/63
13 Mar 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Da Costa En Schaake Nv, Jacob Meijer Nv, Hoechst-Holland Nv v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration; ECJ 27-Mar-1963 - R-30/62; [1963] EUECJ R-30/62; (1963) 2 CMLR 224
 
Prakash v Commission EAEC C-65/63; [1965] EUECJ C-65/63R
25 Jun 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Acciaierie Ferriere Pietra Oddino v ECSC High Authority C-60/63; [1963] EUECJ C-60/63R
1 Jul 1963
ECJ

European
Order - dismissed
[ Bailii ]
 
Germany v Commission EEC [1963] EUECJ C-24/62; C-24/62
4 Jul 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schlieker v ECSC High Authority C-12/63; [1963] EUECJ C-12/63
4 Jul 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Plaumann v Commission EEC C-25/62
15 Jul 1963
ECJ

European


 
Germany v Commission EEC (Rec 1963,P 269) (Nl63-283 D 63-289 I 63-269 En63-131 Dk63-429 Gr63-961 P 63-301) (Judgment) C-34/62; [1963] EUECJ C-34/62
15 Jul 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Plaumann v Commission EEC [1963] EUECJ C-25/62
15 Jul 1963
ECJ

European
ECJ (Judgment) 1. A measure must be considered as a decision if it refers to a particular person and binds that person alone.
2. The words and the natural meaning of the second paragraph of article 173 of the eec treaty which allows an individual to institute proceedings against decisions addressed to another person which are of direct and individual concern to the former justify the broadest interpretation.
3. The provisions of the treaty regarding the right of action of interested parties must not be interpreted restrictively; where the treaty is silent a limitation in this respect may not be presumed.
4. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons, and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.
5. If an applicant includes in his application a request for a declaration with regard to the damage which may result from the contested measure and specifies in the course of the written and oral procedures the subject matter of that request and sets a value on the amount of the damage, the conclusions of an application for compensation formulated in the reply may be considered as an amplification of those contained in the application and therefore as admissible under article 38(1)(d) of the rules of procedure.
6. An administrative measure which has not been annulled cannot of itself constitute a wrongful act on the part of the administration inflicting damage upon those whom it affects . The latter cannot therefore claim damages by reason of that measure.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Leroy v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1963,P 433) (Nl63-453 D 63-461 I 63-429 En63-213) (Order) C-35/62; [1963] EUECJ C-35/62
16 Jul 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Commission EEC C-13/63; [1963] EUECJ C-13/63
17 Jul 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Luhleich v Commission EAEC C-68/63; [1963] EUECJ C-68/63R; [1965] EUECJ C-68/63
17 Jul 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Sorema v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-67/63; [1963] EUECJ C-67/63R; [1964] EUECJ C-67/63
24 Sep 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Innovation v Commission De La EEC (Order) C-85/63; [1963] EUECJ C-85/63
25 Sep 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reynier and Erba v Commission EEC (Order) C-98/63; [1963] EUECJ C-98/63
13 Nov 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lasalle v Parliament (Order) C-15/63
14 Nov 1963
ECJ

European


 
Raponi v Commission EEC (Order) C-27/63; [1964] EUECJ C-27/63
19 Nov 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Usines Emile Henricot and Others v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-23/63
5 Dec 1963
ECJ

European


 
Hoogovens Nv v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-28/63; [1963] EUECJ C-28/63
5 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lemmerz-Werke and Others v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-53/63
5 Dec 1963
ECJ

European


 
Lemmerc-Werke Gmbh And Others v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. (Measures Adopted By Institutions Of The Community ) C-54/63; [1963] EUECJ C-54/63
5 Dec 1963
ECJ

European
Europa A measure which satisfies the fundamental conditions underlying the concept of a decision within the meaning of the treaty retains the character of a decision even though it fails to comply with some inessential requirement of form laid down by the high authority for the identification of its decisions. The decision must appear as a measure adopted by the high authority, acting as a body, intended to produce legal effects, constituting the culmination of procedure within the high authority, whereby the latter gives its final ruling in a form which enables the measure in question to be identified as a decision. Any measure, therefore, which, in particular, does not appear to have been debated and adopted by the high authority and which is not authenticated by the signature of one of its members, cannot be regarded as a decision. Statements originating from officials of the high authority cannot have any influence on the interpretation of decisions taken by it, at least when that interpretation, leaving aside the statements made, leads to an unequivocal conclusion. In the absence of any formal application for the unsuccessful party to be ordered to pay the costs, the latter cannot be made to pay the costs incurred by the successful party.
[ Bailii ]
 
Societe Anonyme Usines Emile Henricot And Others v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. (Measures Adopted By Institutions Of The Community ) C-52/63; [1963] EUECJ C-52/63
5 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Leroy v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-35/62
5 Dec 1963
ECJ

European


 
Societe Des Acieries Du Temple v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-36/62; [1963] EUECJ C-36/62
16 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Macchiorlati Dalmas E Figli v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-1/63; [1963] EUECJ C-1/63
16 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Forges De Clabecq v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-14/63; [1963] EUECJ C-14/63
16 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Barge v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-18/62; [1963] EUECJ C-18/62
16 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
San Michele and Others v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-2/63
16 Dec 1963
ECJ

European


 
Societa Industriale Acciaierie San Michele And Others v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. (Procedure ) C-10/63; [1963] EUECJ C-10/63
16 Dec 1963
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Nv Internationale Crediet En Handelsvereniging 'Rotterdam' And De Cooperatieve Suikerfabriek En Raffinaderij GA 'Puttershoek' v Netherlands Minister Of Agriculture and Fisheries R-74/63; [1964] EUECJ R-74/63
18 Feb 1964
ECJ

European
1. Article 226 constitutes an exceptional provision only as regards the nature and the extent of derogation from the treaty and not as regards the detailed rules laid down by the commission in order to achieve the protection sought. In this respect, the commission, which is bound to give priority to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of the common market, must use the means which are least likely to have an adverse effect on the state, a sector of whose economic activity is affected by the measures authorized.
With this in view, the authorization granted to the state applying to take the protective measures may be made subject to the condition, express or implied, that the state, a sector of whose economic activity is affected by these measures, does not itself prefer to apply them.
Cf. Judgment in case 13/63, paragraph 4 of summary, (1964) ECR 165.
2. Article 226 employs the term ' difficulties ' without making any distinction on the basis of whether the difficulties are caused by the application of the treaty or otherwise.
3. Article 226 constitutes a clearly stipulated exception to the prohibition against the introduction of new customs duties.
Cf. Judgment in joined cases 2 and 3/63, paragraph 3 of summary, (1962) ECR 817.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hoekstra (Nee Unger) v Bestuur Der Bedrijfsvereniging Voor Detailhandel En Ambachten (Administration Of The Industrial Board For Retail Trades And Businesses) R-75/63; [1964] EUECJ R-75/63
19 Mar 1964
ECJ

European
(Free Movement Of Persons)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Wollast nee Schmitz v EEC; ECJ 19-Mar-1964 - C-18/63; [1964] EUECJ C-18/63
 
Maudet v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-20/63; [1964] EUECJ C-20/63
19 Mar 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sorema v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-67/63
19 Mar 1964
ECJ

European


 
Unger v Bedrijfsvereniging Voor Detailhandel En Ambachten (Judgment) C-75/63
19 Mar 1964
ECJ

European


 
Raponi v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-27/63
19 Mar 1964
ECJ

European


 
Lepape v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1964,P 121) (Nl64-129 D 64-133 I 64-123 En63-61 Dk63-461 Gr64-1049 P 64-399) (Judgment) C-11/63; [1964] EUECJ C-11/63
19 Mar 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ley v Commission EEC (Order) [1965] EUECJ C-12/64; C-12/64; [1964] EUECJ C-12/64R
4 May 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier R-101/63; [1964] EUECJ R-101/63
12 May 1964
ECJ

European
Common Institutions
[ Bailii ]
 
Wagner v Fohrmann and Others (Judgment) C-101/63
12 May 1964
ECJ

European


 
Suss v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-17/64; [1964] EUECJ C-17/64R
29 May 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Acciaierie Fonderie Ferriere Di Modena v ECSC High Authority C-55/63; [1964] EUECJ C-55/63
9 Jun 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Nonnenmacher v Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Judgment) C-92/63
9 Jun 1964
ECJ

European


 
Bernusset v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-94/63; [1964] EUECJ C-94/63
9 Jun 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Capitaine v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-69/63; [1964] EUECJ C-69/63
9 Jun 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reynier and Others v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-79/63; [1964] EUECJ C-79/63
9 Jun 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
M. Th. Nonnenmacher, Widow Of H.E. Moebs v Bestuur Der Sociale Verzekeringsbank. (Free Movement Of Persons ) R-92/63; [1964] EUECJ R-92/63
9 Jun 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Van Steenwijk v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-84/63; [1964] EUECJ C-84/63
25 Jun 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Toepfer v Commission EEC (Order) C-106/63
25 Jun 1964
ECJ

European


 
Pistoj v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-26/63; [1964] EUECJ C-26/63
1 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Degreef v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-80/63; [1964] EUECJ C-80/63
1 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Huber v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-78/63; [1964] EUECJ C-78/63
1 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rhenania and Others v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-103/63; [1964] EUECJ C-103/63
2 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Glucoseries Reunies v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-1/64; [1964] EUECJ C-1/64
2 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Georges v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-87/63; [1964] EUECJ C-87/63
7 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Collotti v Court Of Justice (Judgment) [1965] EUECJ C-70/63; C-70/63; [1964] EUECJ C-70/63
7 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Di Pascale v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-97/63; [1964] EUECJ C-97/63
7 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Van Nuffel v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-93/63; [1964] EUECJ C-93/63
7 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Prakash v Commission EAEC (Order) C-76/63; [1964] EUECJ C-76/63
14 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Van Der Veen v Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Judgment) C-100/63
15 Jul 1964
ECJ

European


 
J.G. Van Der Veen, Widow Of J. Kalsbeek v Bestuur Der Sociale Verzekeringsbank And Nine Other Cases. (Procedure ) R-100/63; [1964] EUECJ R-100/63
15 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands v ECSC High Authority C-66/63; [1964] EUECJ C-66/63
15 Jul 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Fonzi v Commission EAEC (Order) C-30/64; [1964] EUECJ C-30/64R
7 Aug 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sorema v ECSC High Authority(Order) C-36/64; [1964] EUECJ C-36/64R; [1965] EUECJ C-36/64
17 Sep 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Maudet v Commission EEC (Order) C-20/63
30 Sep 1964
ECJ

European


 
Commission EEC v Luxembourg and Belgium (Judgment) C-90/63; [1964] EUECJ C-90/63
13 Nov 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lemmerz Werke v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-111/63; [1965] EUECJ C-111/63
25 Nov 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
A.M. Dingemans v Bestuur Der Sociale Verzekeringsbank. (Procedure ) R-24/64; [1964] EUECJ R-24/64
2 Dec 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dingemans v Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Judgment) C-24/64
2 Dec 1964
ECJ

European


 
Charles Muller v Commission of the European Economic Community EEC (Judgment) C-13/64; C-109/63; [1964] EUECJ C-109/63
16 Dec 1964
ECJ

European
Europa Officials - Grading Which Can No Longer Be Contested - Publication By The Administration Of A Table Defining The Duties Of Officials - Important New Fact - Application For Review Of The Decision On Grading -Permissibility 2. Officials - Grading - No Right To A Particular Post Based On An Internal Administrative Proposal For The Improvement Of The Service 3. Officials - Appeal Against A General Measure For The Organization Of Departments - Inadmissibility
[ Bailii ]
 
Boursin v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-102/63; [1964] EUECJ C-102/63
17 Dec 1964
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Officine Ellettromeccaniche Merlini v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-108/63; [1965] EUECJ C-108/63
21 Jan 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sarl Albatros v Societe Des Petroles Et Des Combustibles Liquides (Sopeco). (Procedure ) R-20/64; [1965] EUECJ R-20/64
4 Feb 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sarl Albatros v Sopeco (Judgment) C-20/64
4 Feb 1965
ECJ

European


 
Ferriera Preo v ECSC High Authority C-2/65; [1965] EUECJ C-2/65R; [1966] EUECJ C-2/65
12 Feb 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Barge v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) [1965] EUECJ C-14/64; C-14/64
16 Feb 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Julien v Commission EEC (Judgment) [1965] EUECJ C-10/64; C-10/64
24 Feb 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Betriebskrankenkasse Der Heseper Torfwerk Gmbh v Egbertina Van Dijk R-33/64; [1965] EUECJ R-33/64
11 Mar 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sociale Voorzorg v Bertholet (Judgment) C-31/64
11 Mar 1965
ECJ

European


 
'De Sociale Voorzorg' Mutual Insurance Fund v W H Bertholet R-31/64; [1965] EUECJ R-31/64
11 Mar 1965
ECJ

European
(Freedom Of Movement For Persons )
[ Bailii ]
 
Betriebskrankenkasse Der Heseper Torfwerke v Van Dijk (Judgment) C-33/64
11 Mar 1965
ECJ

European


 
Ley v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-12/64
31 Mar 1965
ECJ

European


 
Vandevyvere v Parliament (Judgment) C-23/64; [1965] EUECJ C-23/64
31 Mar 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rauch v Commission EEC (Judgment) [1965] EUECJ C-16/64; C-16/64
31 Mar 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Macchiorlati Dalmas E Figli v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-21/64; [1965] EUECJ C-21/64
31 Mar 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-38/64; [1965] EUECJ C-38/64
1 Apr 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sgarlata and Others v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-40/64; [1965] EUECJ C-40/64
1 Apr 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alfieri v Parliament (Judgment) C-35/64; [1965] EUECJ C-35/64
7 Apr 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Muller v Council EEC and Council EAEC (Judgment) [1965] EUECJ C-28/64; C-28/64
7 Apr 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ecsc High Authority v Collotti and Court Of Justice (Judgment) C-70/63
7 Apr 1965
ECJ

European


 
Weighardt v Commission EAEC (Judgment) [1965] EUECJ C-11/64; C-11/64
7 Apr 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gutmann v Commission EAEC (Order) [1965] EUECJ C-18/65R; C-18/65
8 Apr 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Grundig v Commission EEC; ECJ 16-Jun-1965 - [1966] ECR 429; C-58/64; [1966] EUECJ C-58/64

 
 Brus v Commission EEC; ECJ 16-Jun-1965 - [1965] EUECJ C-48/64; C-48/64
 
Muller v Councils EEC, EAEC and ECSC C-43/64; [1965] EUECJ C-43/64
17 Jun 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-32/64; [1965] EUECJ C-32/64
17 Jun 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
San Michele v ECSC High Authority (Order) [1965] EUECJ C-9/65; C-9/65
22 Jun 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alfred Toepfer And Getreidc-Import Gesellschaft v Commission Of The EEC. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) C-107/63; [1965] EUECJ C-107/63
1 Jul 1965
ECJ

European
Europa A decision which comes into force immediately is of direct concern to an interested party within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 173 of the eec treaty. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons, and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed. A decision of general economic scope and effect within the common market cannot be of individual concern to an undertaking, even if the latter occupies, a special position as regards the relevant product in the market of one of the member states. Since they come into force immediately decisions of the commission amending or abolishing protective measures taken by member states for the protection of the market in cereals are directly applicable and concern interested parties subject to them as directly as the measures which they replace. Decisions retaining protective measures have the same effect because they do not constitute a mere approval of these measures but render them valid.
[ Bailii ]
 
Toepfer v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-106/63
1 Jul 1965
ECJ

European


 
Fonzi v Commission EAEC (Order) C-28/65; [1965] EUECJ C-28/65R; [1966] EUECJ C-28/65; [1966] EUECJ C-28/65
7 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Luhleich v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-68/63
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European


 
Krawczynski v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment) C-83/63; [1965] EUECJ C-83/63
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European
Europa Procedure - conclusions in the application - amendment in the course of proceedings - prohibited in principle - permissibility in certain circumstances (rules of procedure, article 42(2)) 2. Officials - disputes with the administration - classification as the subject of an appeal - disputes of a financial character within the meaning of article 91(1) of the staff regulations of officials of the EEC_EAEC - admissibility.
[ Bailii ]
 
Emmanuel Stipperger v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) C-49/64; [1965] EUECJ C-49/64
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European, Costs
Europa If an applicant has been misled and induced to make his application by reason of the ambiguous drafting of a measure by an institution then he has been unreasonably caused to incur his costs which must be borne by the administration
[ Bailii ]
 
Prakash v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-19/63; [1965] EUECJ C-19/63
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Deutschmann v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Judgment) C-10/65
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European


 
Fonzi v Commission EAEC(Judgment) C-27/64; [1965] EUECJ C-27/64
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Officials - disputes with the administration - appeal through official channels made within the time-limit for appeal to the court - time-limit for appeal to the court retained - rejection of appeal through official channels - notification to applicant - date of notification constituting the date from which time runs in respect of the date from which time runs in respect of time-limit for lodging an appeal to the court (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 90, 91) 2. Officials - vocational competence - assessment by the administration - jurisdiction of the court - limits (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 91) 3. Officials - promotion - list of those proposed for promotion - exclusion - no requirement to give reasons (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 25, 45) 4. Officials - disciplinary system - hearing of the person concerned through the intermediary of a senior official - permissibility (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 87) 1. It appears from articles 90 and 91 of the staff regulations, read together, that appeals through official channels are subject to the same time-limit 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. 2. The court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own value judgment for the assessments of the local vocational competence of an official by the administration (cf. Para. 3, summary, joined cases 35/62 and 16/63, (1963) ECR 403). 3. Article 45 of the EAEC staff regulations does not require decisions regarding promotion to be reasoned in respect of candidates not promoted. A fortiori, there is no obligation to give reasons for proposals from an internal administrative body having only consultative powers. (Cf. Para. 3, summary, case 27/63, (1964) ECR 251). 4. In disciplinary matters the hearing of the person concerned may be entrusted to a senior official.
[ Bailii ]
 
Waldemar Deutschmann v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-10/65; [1965] EUECJ R-10/65
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Willame v Commission EAEC ) (Judgment) C-110/63; [1965] EUECJ C-110/63; [1966] EUECJ C-110/63
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Chambre Syndicale De La Siderurgie Francaise and Others v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-4/64; C-3/64; [1965] EUECJ C-4/64
8 Jul 1965
ECJ

European
Europa 1. For an application by an undertaking against a general decision of the high authority to be admissible, the undertaking in question must convincingly point to facts and circumstances indicating the probability that in this instance the high authority, through want of foresight or serious lack of care amounting to disregard for the purpose of the law, has pursued other objectives than those for which the powers provided by the treaty were conferred upon it. Cf. Para. 2, summary, case 8/57, (1958) ECR 227. 2. A general decision is one which establishes a legislative principle, laying down conditions for its implementation and setting out the legal consequences resulting from them. Cf. Para. 5, summary, case 13/57, (1958) ECR 265. 3. A general decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers against an undertaking by the mere circumstances that that decision might be discriminatory or incomplete, above all since the remedy against such a possibility lies in the vigilance of the persons concerned who, under article 33, are enabled to contest the implementing measures concerning them on all the grounds set out in the said provision.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mannesmann Ag v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-37/64; [1965] EUECJ C-37/64
13 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lemmerz Werke v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-111/63
13 Jul 1965
ECJ

European


 
Societe Des Acieries Du Temple v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-39/64; [1965] EUECJ C-39/64
13 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alvino v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-18/64
14 Jul 1965
ECJ

European


 
Schoffer v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-46/64; [1965] EUECJ C-46/64
14 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ralph Loebisch And Others v Councils Of The Eec, EAEC And Ecsc. (Officials ) C-57/64; [1965] EUECJ C-57/64
14 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lobisch v Councils EEC, EAEC and ECSC (Judgment) C-50/64
14 Jul 1965
ECJ

European


 
Filippo Alvino And Others v Commission Of The Eec. (Procedure ) C-19/64; [1965] EUECJ C-19/64
14 Jul 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mondini v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-53/65; [1965] EUECJ C-53/65R
24 Sep 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lens v Court Of Justice (Judgment) C-55/64; [1965] EUECJ C-55/64
17 Nov 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Collotti v Court Of Justice (Judgment) C-20/65; [1965] EUECJ C-20/65
17 Nov 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schwarze v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-16/65
1 Dec 1965
ECJ

European



 
 Dekker v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte; ECJ 1-Dec-1965 - C-33/65; [1965] EUECJ R-33/65
 
Commission EEC v Italy (Judgment) C-45/64; [1969] EUECJ C-45/64; [1965] EUECJ C-45/64
1 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Firma G Schwarze v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel R-16/65; [1965] EUECJ R-16/65
1 Dec 1965
ECJ

European
ECJ Preliminary Ruling Validity of a measure adopted by a community institution - jurisdiction of the court
EEC Treaty 177
[ Bailii ]

 
 Hessische Knappschaft v Maison Singer And Sons; ECJ 9-Dec-1965 - (1966) 5 CMLR 82; R-44/65; [1965] EUECJ R-44/65
 
Laminoirs De La Providence and Others v ECSC High Authority(Judgment) C-29/63; [1963] EUECJ C-29/63
9 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Societe Anonyme Des Laminoirs, Hauts Fourneaux, Forges, Fonderies Et Usines De La Providence And Others v High Authority Of The ECSC C-51/63; [1965] EUECJ C-51/63
9 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kalkuhl v Parliament (Judgment) C-47/65; [1965] EUECJ C-47/65
14 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Morina v Parliament (Judgment) C-21/65; [1965] EUECJ C-21/65
14 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pfloeschner v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-52/64; [1965] EUECJ C-52/64
14 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bauer v Commission EEC (Judgment) C-12/65; [1965] EUECJ C-12/65
14 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Morina v Parliament (Judgment) C-11/65; [1965] EUECJ C-11/65
14 Dec 1965
ECJ

European
Europa Conclusions seeking the annulment of a competition are admissible only in so far as they support the application which is directed against the decision of appointment following upon the competition.
Assessment of the expediency or necessity of organizing a competition lies within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority . In these circumstances, the court cannot order a competition to be held or reheld without encroaching upon the prerogatives of the administrative authority.
[ Bailii ]
 
Saudray v Commission EEC (Rec 1965,P 1227) (Nl65-1280 D 65-1306 I 65-1190 En65-993 Dk65-151 Gr65-219 P 65-269) (Judgment) C-5/65; [1965] EUECJ C-5/65
14 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sa Metallurgique D'Esperance-Longdoz v ECSC High Authority C-3/65; [1965] EUECJ C-3/65
15 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Societe anonyme metallurgique Hainaut-Sambre v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) C-4/65; [1965] EUECJ C-4/65
15 Dec 1965
ECJ

European, Utilities
Europa 1. Common financial arrangements - equalization - contributions - exemption - principles (ECSC treaty, article 53) 2. Common financial arrangements - equalization - ferrous scrap - exemption - own resources - concept (ECSC treaty, article 53) 1 Cf. Paragraph 1, summary in case 3/65 (1965) ECR 1065. The conditions for granting exemption from contributions under an equalization scheme must be interpreted strictly and must be consistent with the aims, the basic principles and requirements for the proper functioning of such a scheme, in particular the principle of the equal liability of all those affected to pay contributions shared in proportion to the amounts respectively consumed, and the requirement that the scheme be applied impartially to all those subject to it. No exemption from equalization contributions can be allowed which would tend to increase substantially differences in production costs, otherwise than by altering the level of output, and thereby bring about an appreciable disequilibrium in the competitive relationships between undertakings. 2. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary in case 3/65 (1965) ECR 1065. Any exemption from equalization contributions which depends not on the way in which an undertaking arranges its production but on the contractual relationships which it has with other undertakings is not compatible with the equalization scheme. Classification of scrap as 'own resources' is not necessarily dependent on the concept of ownership of the scrap, but is intended to apply in the main to scrap which is genuinely the product of an undertaking's own activity
[ Bailii ]
 
Klaer v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-15/65; [1965] EUECJ C-15/65
15 Dec 1965
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Acciaierie E Ferriere Pugliese v ECSC High Authority C-8/65; [1966] EUECJ C-8/65
8 Feb 1966
ECJ

European
Europa Basis of assessment - estimated assessment - statement of reasons - when an estimated assessment is made, which, by briefly setting forth the essential factor on which it is based, is sufficient in law, the administration is not bound to explain such assessment in detail or reproduce the accounting documents and technical analyses on which it is based. When an undertaking supplies explanations which are not irrelevant, the high authority, as defendant, may not restrict itself to a mere assertion that these explanations are not entirely conclusive and abstain from stating the reasons for its decision.
[ Bailii ]
 
Alfons Lutticke GmbH v Commission of the EEC (Judgment) C-48/65; [1966] EUECJ C-48/65
1 Mar 1966
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mosthaf v Commission EAEC (Order) C-34/65; [1966] EUECJ C-34/65
9 Mar 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Fonzi v Commission EAEC (Order) C-28/65
10 Mar 1966
ECJ

European


 
Macchiorlati Dalmas and Figli SAS v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) C-30/65; [1966] EUECJ C-30/65
15 Mar 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Information - checking - checks carried out by private inspectors - selection of inspectors - method of selection - free discretion of high authority - judicial review limited to the results of the checking (ECSC treaty, article 47) 2. Common financial arrangements - statements of account - provisional nature (ECSC treaty, article 53) 3. Common financial arrangements - equalization - statement of the reasons upon which the general decisions relating thereto are based 4. Common financial arrangements - equalization - information from the undertakings subject to the scheme - duty of the high authority - scope (ECSC treaty, articles 47 and 53) 1. The checks carried out by the high authority pursuant to article 47 of the treaty through private auditing companies are not a delegation by it of its powers but the exercise by it of its own powers by making use of the information which it has obtained on its own responsibility. It follows that an undertaking subject to investigation cannot dispute the procedures adopted for the selection of those appointed to carry out the investigation but can only challenge the results by adducing evidence that they are incorrect. Cf. Para. 5, summary in judgment in case 18/62, (1963) ECR 533. 2. As the statements of account relating to equalization reflect the stage reached in the investigations and checks being carried out, they are only provisional. Cf. Para. 4, summary in judgment in case 108/63 (1965) ECR 2. 3. The requirement that the reasons upon which general decisions relating to equalization are based must be stated does not include an obligation to reproduce in detail all the results of the checks. 4. When establishing an equalization the high authority is only obliged to inform the undertakings subject thereto of the rate of contribution and the equalization price, factors which are necessary to enable them to fix their sale prices. The high authority is not obliged to make known to the undertakings subject to the scheme the other factors relating to the equalization calculations.
[ Bailii ]
 
Stefana v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-1/66; [1966] EUECJ C-1/66R
17 Mar 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ferriere E Acciaierie Napoletane v ECSC High Authority C-49/65; [1966] EUECJ C-49/65
28 Apr 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Industria Laminati Ferrosi Odolese SRL v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) C-51/65; [1966] EUECJ C-51/65
28 Apr 1966
ECJ

European
Europa procedure - measures of inquiry - application for adoption of such measures - conditions of admissibility (rules of procedure, article 45) a- n application for the adoption of measures of inquiry made by a party cannot be accepted if that party offers no evidence whatever to justify such measures.
[ Bailii ]
 
Max Gutmann v Commission Of The Eaec. (Officials ) [1967] EUECJ C-35/65; C-35/65; [1966] EUECJ C-35/65
5 May 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Max Gutmann v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment) C-18/65
5 May 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Officials - disciplinary measures - statement of reasons for - cannot be supplemented by oral communication of the grounds of complaint alleged against the official concerned - inadequacy of statement of reasons not justified by concern to protect the reputation of the official concerned (EAEC staff regulations, articles 25, 86 and 88) 2. Officials - transfer - discretionary powers of the administration - transfer otherwise than in the interests of the service may constitute misuse of powers (EAEC staff regulations, articles 25 and 29) 3. Misuse of powers - proof 1. For disciplinary measures the grounds of complaint based on the conduct of the official concerned must be indicated, at least in brief, to enable the court to exercise its power of review, in particular with regard to the seriousness of the offence. Oral communication to the official concerned of the complaints alleged against him cannot be deemed to supplement the statement of reasons for a disciplinary measure since the court cannot take it into account in assessing the considerations by which the administration was guided in its actions. Any concern on the part of the administration to safeguard the reputation of an official who has been subjected to a disciplinary measure cannot be invoked to justify the inadequacy of the statement of reasons thereof, since the measure must remain confidential. 2. Transfer of an official in the interests of the service cannot constitute an act adversely affecting him and falls within the discretionary powers of the administration, which may arrange its departments and move its staff as required for the performance of the tasks assigned to it. However, a transfer may amount to a misuse of powers if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent facts, to have been undertaken for purposes other than those stated. 3. Misuse of powers must be proved on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent sources of information.

 
Laminoirs De La Providence and Others v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-29/63
7 Jun 1966
ECJ

European


 
Alfons Lutticke GmbH v Hauptzollamt Sarrelouis (Judgment) C-57/65
16 Jun 1966
ECJ

European
Europa Member states of the EEC - absolute obligation under the treaty - concept - rights of individuals - protection of such rights by national courts Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation of one member state imposed on the products of other member states - prohibition of discrimination as compared with charges on the domestic products of that state - entry into force of this rule - its nature and consequences - rights of individuals - protection of such rights by national courts (EEC treaty, article 95) Customs duties and internal taxation - joint applicability to the same case of provisions relating thereto - impossibility of such joint application (EEC treaty, articles 12, 13, 95) Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation - charges intended to offset its effect - nature of internal taxation (EEC treaty, article 95)

 
Acciaierie e Ferriere di Solbiate SpA v High Authority of the ECSC C-50/65; [1966] EUECJ C-50/65
16 Jun 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Common financial arrangements - equalization of ferrous scrap - own resources of scrap - concept (ECSC treaty, article 53) 2. Common financial arrangements - undertakings liable to pay contributions - concept (ECSC treaty, articles 53, 80) 3. Common financial arrangements - equalization of ferrous scrap - bought scrap added to stock - system of assessment (ECSC treaty, article 53, decision no 2/57 of the high authority, article 4) 1. Ferrous scrap which has not undergone any change of ownership, using the term in a strictly legal sense, between its production and its utilization, constitutes an undertaking's own resources. Cf. Para. 9, summary, joined cases 42 and 49/59, (1961) ECR 105. 2. For the purposes of the equalization scheme, the concept of an undertaking may be identified with that of a natural or legal person. Cf. Para. 3, summary, joined cases 17 and 20/61, (1962) ECR 619. 3. The effect of article 4 of decision no 2/57 of the high authority is not to exempt scrap purchased and consumed by users from payment of the equalization contributions. Its purpose is merely to avoid a second assessment being made at the moment they are put into the furnace of those quantities of ferrous scrap which are not used from day to day but are added to stock.
[ Bailii ]
 
Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the EEC (Judgment) C-52/65
16 Jun 1966
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Customs duties - charges having equivalent effect - concept (EEC treaty, article 13) Customs duties - charges having equivalent effect - elimination - obligations of member states - nature (EEC treaty, article 13) Customs duties - charges having equivalent effect - elimination - time-table - detailed rules of progression - powers of the commission (EEC treaty, articles 13 and 14) European economic community - legal system of the community - community institution - failure to fulfil its obligations - member state - retaliatory measures - prohibition

 
Alfons Luetticke Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Sarrelouis. (Member States Of The Eec ) R-57/65; [1966] EUECJ R-57/65
16 Jun 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Federal Republic Of Germany v Commission Of The Eec. (Customs Duties ) C-55/65; [1966] EUECJ C-55/65
16 Jun 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Compagnie des forges de Chatillon, Commentry and Neuves-Maisons v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment) C-54/65; [1966] EUECJ C-54/65
16 Jun 1966
ECJ

European
Europa Measures adopted by an institution - decision - constituent elements (ECSC treaty, article 14) cf. Para. 1(a), summary, joined cases 23, 24 and 52/63, (1963) ECR 217. A measure which satisfies the fundamental conditions underlying the concept of a decision within the meaning of the treaty retains the character of a decision even though it fails to comply with some inessential requirement of form laid down by the high authority for the identification of its decisions.
[ Bailii ]
 
G. Vaassen-Gobbels (A Widow) v Management Of The Beambtenfonds Voor Het Mijnbedrijf. (Procedure ) R-61/65; [1966] EUECJ R-61/65
30 Jun 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Societe Technique Miniere (L T M ) v Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH (M B U ) (Judgment) C-56/65
30 Jun 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - limits (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - interpretation (EEC treaty, article 177) 3. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - cartels - prohibition based on economic assessment - category of agreements as determined by their legal nature - no advance judgment with regard to such category (EEC treaty, article 85) 4. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - notification of agreements to the commission - failure to notify - effects (EEC treaty, article 85, regulation no 17/62, article 4, and regulation no 153/62) 5. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - cartels - prohibition - conditions (EEC treaty, article 85) 6. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty - no distinction in these provisions based on the levels of the undertakings in the economy 7. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements which may affect trade between member states - concept (EEC treaty, article 85) 8. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements interfering with competition - criteria (EEC treaty, article 85) 9. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - automatic nullity within the meaning of article 85(2) of the EEC treaty - void contractual provisions - consequence for the remainder of the agreement 10. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - exclusive dealing agreements falling under the prohibition contained in article 85(1) 1. Cf. Para. 2, summary, case 6/64 (1964) ECR 585f. Article 177 is based upon a clear separation of functions between national courts and the court of justice and cannot empower the latter either to investigate the facts of the case or to criticize the grounds and purpose of the request for interpretation. */ 664j0006 /*. 2. Cf. Para. 1, summary, case 6/64 (1964) ECR 585f. In the context of requests for preliminary rulings, the court has no jurisdiction either to apply the treaty to a specific case or to decide upon the validity of a provision of domestic law in relation to the treaty, as it would be possible for it to do under article 169. Nevertheless, the court has power to extract from a question imperfectly formulated by the national court those questions which alone pertain to the interpretation of the treaty. */ 664j0006 /*. 3. Article 85(1) of the EEC treaty is based on an economic assessment of the effects of an agreement and cannot therefore be interpreted as introducing any kind of advance judgment with regard to a category of agreements determined by their legal nature. 4. The fact that an agreement is not notified to the commission pursuant to regulations nos 17/62 and 153/62 cannot make an agreement automatically void. It can only have an effect as regards exemption under article 83(3) if it is later established that this agreement is one which falls within the prohibition laid down in article 85(1). 5. The prohibition of an agreement depends on one question alone, namely whether, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the agreement, objectively considered, contains the elements constituting the said prohibition, set out in article 85(1). 6. Cf. Para. 3, summary, case 32/65 (1966) ECR 389. Neither the wording of article 85 nor that of article 86 justifies interpreting either of these articles with reference to the level in the economy at which undertakings carry on business. */ 665j0032 /*. 7. In order that an agreement may affect trade between member states it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact that the agreement in question may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between member states. The influence thus foreseeable must give rise to a fear that the realization of a single market between member states might be impeded. In this respect, it is necessary to consider in particular whether the agreement is capable of bringing about a partitioning of the market in certain products between member states. 8. In considering whether an agreement has as its object the interference with competition within the common market it is necessary first to consider the precise purpose of the agreement in the economic context in which it is to be applied. The interference with competition referred to in article 85(1) must result from all or some of the clauses of the agreement itself. Where an analysis of the said clauses does not reveal the effect on competition to be sufficiently deleterious, the consequences of the agreement should then be considered, and for it to be caught by the prohibition it is then necessary to find that those factors are present which show that competition has in fact been prevented or restricted or distorted to an appreciable extent. The competition must be understood within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute. 9. The automatic nullity of an agreement within the meaning of article 85(2) of the EEC treaty only applies to those parts of the agreement affected by the prohibition, or to the agreement as a whole if it appears that those parts are not severable from the agreement itself. Any other contractual provisions which are not affected by the prohibition fall outside community law. 10. An exclusive dealing agreement may fall under the prohibition in article 85(1) by reason of a particular factual situation or of the severity of the clauses protecting the exclusive dealership. Cf. Para. 5, summary, case 32/65 (1966) ECR 389.

 
Societe Technique Miniere (L.T.M.) v Maschinenbau Ulm Gmbh (M.B.U.). (Procedure ) R-56/65; [1966] EUECJ R-56/65
30 Jun 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ferriera Ernesto Preo e Figli v High Authority of the ECSC C-2/65
30 Jun 1966
ECJ

European
Europa Common financial arrangements - equalization of ferrous scrap - calculation of contributions - account taken by the high authority of re-use of arisings of ferrous scrap - average percentage of such arisings adopted for calculation - precise information essential (ECSC treaty, article 53) when it fixes the pecuniary obligations of an undertaking assessable under the scheme for the equalization of ferrous scrap, the high authority must show - and indeed give a statement of reasons for - the average percentage adopted in the case in question for the purpose of calculating the significance of the arisings of ferrous scrap; a mere mention that account has been taken of such arisings is insufficient. The lack of this information constitutes a serious hindrance to the adequate defence of the undertakings concerned and the necessary review by the court.

 
G Vaassen-Gobbels (a widow) v Management of the Beambtenfonds voor het Mijnbedrij (Judgment) C-61/65
30 Jun 1966
ECJ

European
Europa Procedure - preliminary ruling - national court or tribunal within the meaning of article 177 of the EEC treaty - bodies analogous to ordinary courts of law - power to refer cases to the court Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - interpretation (EEC treaty, article 177) 3. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social insurance - legislation within the meaning of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC - enforceable provisions - concepts (regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC, article 1(b)) 4. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social insurance - special scheme within the meaning of article 2(2) of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC - inquiry by the national court into the existence of such a scheme - application to such a scheme of the provisions of regulations nos 3 and 4 (regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC, article 2(2)) 5. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social insurance - application of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC - Netherlands legislation - sickness insurance - general scheme and special schemes covered (regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC, annex b, heading ' Netherlands ') 6. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social insurance - territorial provisions not to be applied against them - persons in receipt of pensions under the legislation of a member state and their survivors - permanent residence in a member state other than the one where the institution liable for payment is situated - affiliation to the insurance scheme safe-guarded even when optional (EEC treaty, articles 48 to 51; regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC, articles 4, 22) 7. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social insurance - benefits in kind within the meaning of article 22 of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC - benefits in the form of reimbursement of expenses incurred (regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC, article 22) 1. The expression ' court or tribunal ' in article 177 of the EEC treaty may in certain circumstances include bodies other than ordinary courts of law. 2. Cf. Para. 1, summary in case 6/64, (1964) ECR 585. In the context of requests for preliminary rulings, the court has no jurisdiction either to apply the treaty to a specific case or to decide upon the validity of a provision of domestic law in relation to the treaty, as it would be possible for it to do under article 169. Nevertheless, the court has power to extract from a question imperfectly formulated by the national court those questions which alone pertain to the interpretation of the treaty. */ 664j0006 /*. 3. Rules governing sickness insurance for workers and their survivors, laid down and operated by an institution established under private law, since they are ' enforceable provisions ' fall within the term ' legislation ' within the meaning of articles 1(b) and 4 of regulation no 3 when the said provisions supplement or are a substitute for laws and regulations establishing a general or special social security scheme. 4. In particular a special scheme within the meaning of article 2(2) of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC exists when a specific group of workers is compulsorily made subject to a special type of insurance by virtue of public law. It is for the national court to examine whether the conditions required for the existence of a special scheme are met. Regulations nos 3 and 4 are applicable to a special scheme in its entirety, including any provisions which it may contain concerning the voluntary and optional affiliation of former insured persons and their survivors. 5. The heading ' Netherlands ' in annex b to regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC covers both the general and the special social security schemes providing for insurance against sickness. 6. One of the intentions of articles 48 to 51 of the EEC treaty and of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC is to prevent territorial provisions from being applied against workers or their survivors in matters of social security. Accordingly under regulation no 3 an institution managing a sickness insurance scheme may not refuse to give the benefit of affiliation to the scheme, even an optional scheme, to a worker entitled to a pension by virtue of the legislation of a member state or to his survivor, if the reason for so refusing is that the person so entitled resides permanently in a member state other than the one in which the said institution is situated. 7. Article 22 of regulation no 3 also applies to benefits given in the form of reimbursement of expenses for medical treatment, medicines and nursing.

 
Italian Republic v Council Of The Eec And Commission Of The European Economic Community. (Policy Of The Eec ) C-32/65; [1966] EUECJ C-32/65
13 Jul 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mrs J.E. Labots (Nee Hagenbeek) v Raad Van Arbeid Arnhem. (Free Movement Of Persons ) R-4/66; [1966] EUECJ R-4/66
13 Jul 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alfred Willame v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment) C-110/63
13 Jul 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Procedure - interpretation of a judgment - allegation of the existence of ambiguity or obscurity - admissibility of an application for interpretation (statute of the court of justice of the EAEC, article 41) 2. Procedure - interpretation of a judgment - detailed rules (statute of the court of justice of the EAEC, article 41) 1. The question whether the judgment to be interpreted is or is not ambiguous or obscure appertains to the examination of the substance of the application. So far as admissibility is concerned, it is enough that the applicant alleges the existence of an ambiguity or of obscurity. 2. In order to decide whether the operative part of a judgment is or is not ambiguous or obscure, it should be read together with the applicant's conclusions and the statement of the grounds of the said judgment.

 
J E Labots (nee Hagenbeek) v Raad van Arbeid, Arnhem (Judgment) C-4/66
13 Jul 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social security measures to be adopted by the council of the EEC - aim (EEC treaty, article 51) 2. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - social insurance - regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC - application of Netherlands legislation (regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC, annex g(iii)(b)) 1. The aim of article 51 of the EEC treaty is to allow the migrant worker to acquire the right to benefit for all periods of work completed by him in various member states, without discrimination as against other workers by reason of the exercise of his right to freedom of movement. 2. The provisions of annex g(iii)(b)(b) concerning the ascertainment of the amount of benefit payable under the Netherlands law concerning general insurance for widows and orphans, applies in all cases in which article 27 gives rise to benefit on the basis of the maintenance or recovery of rights acquired under a previous system.

 
Italian Republic v Council of the European Economic Community and Commission of the European Economic Community (Judgment) C-32/65
13 Jul 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - regulations to be adopted by the council - discretionary powers of the latter - scope (EEC treaty, article 87) 2. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - agreements - prohibition - exemption for categories of agreements - no pre-conceived judgment thereby passed on these agreements (EEC treaty, article 85) 3. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty - no distinction in these provisions based on the levels of the undertakings in the economy 4. Policy of the EEC - rules of competition applicable to undertakings - competition - concept (EEC treaty, article 85) 5. Policy of the EEC - rules of competition applicable to undertakings - exclusive dealing agreements - prohibition under article 85(1) of the EEC treaty possible 6. Regulations of the EEC - plea of inapplicability - may only be raised when the regulation in question is applicable to the issue with which the application is concerned (EEC treaty, article 184) 1. On questions of competition the council of the EEC may decide whether a particular regulation is appropriate and adopt it on the basis of a specific principle contained in articles 85 and 86 of the EEC treaty. There is no obligation on it to deal exhaustively with all the principles set out in these articles nor is it required to adopt rules simultaneously for applying the other provisions of the said articles. 2. To define a category of agreements is only to make a classification, and means only that the agreements which come within it may be prohibited by article 85(1). Therefore to grant exemptions under article 85(3) by categories of agreements cannot amount, even by implication, to passing any pre-conceived judgment on any agreement considered individually. 3. Neither the wording of article 85 nor that of article 86 justifies interpreting either of these articles with reference to the level in the economy at which undertakings carry on business. 4. The competition mentioned in article 85(1) means not only any possible competition between the parties to the agreement, but also any possible competition between one of them and third parties. 5. Even if it does not involve an abuse of a dominant position, an exclusive dealing agreement may affect trade between member states and at the same time have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, and thus fall under the prohibition in article 85(1). 6. The intention of article 184 of the EEC treaty is not to allow a party to contest at will the applicability of any regulations in support of any application. The regulation of which the legality is called in question must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the application is concerned.

 
Gutmann v Commission EAEC (Order) C-29/66; [1966] EUECJ C-29/66R
28 Nov 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hans Dieter Mosthaf v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-34/65
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European
Europa Measures adopted by an institution - definitive nature - criteria 2. Procedure - judgment granting annulment - legal effects - limited to the parties and to the persons directly concerned by the measure annulled - judgment constituting a new factor - concept 3. Measures adopted by an institution - annulment dependent on a new factor - criteria - principle of legal certainty to be taken into consideration 1. A measure containing a specific decision made without any reservations must be regarded as final in the absence of material factors clearly and consistently indicating the contrary. 2. Cf. Para. 4, summary, case 43/64, (1965) ECR 385. Apart from the actual parties in proceedings before the court, the only persons concerned by the legal effects of a judgment of the court annulling a measure are, the persons directly affected by the measure which is annulled. Such a judgment can only constitute a new factor as regards those persons. */ 664j0043 /*. 3. Protection of the certainty of legal positions and relationships implies that the existence of decisions of community authorities governing such positions and relationships cannot for ever be called in question.

 
Fulvio Fonzi v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-28/65
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Procedure - extension of time-limits on account of distance - applicant's place of residence to be taken into account (rules of procedure, annex ii, article I) 2. Officials - disputes with the administration - appeal through official channels made within the time-limit for appeal to the court - time-limit for appeal to the court preserved (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 90, 91) 3. Procedure - principal claim - inadmissibility entailing that of ancillary claim 4. Procedure - pleadings - documents prejudicial to third parties to be removed from the file of the case - conditions (rules of procedure, article 37) 1. The extension of time-limits on account of distance is dependent solely on the facts, that is to say, on where the applicant is habitually resident. The place of residence of the applicant's lawyer cannot be taken into consideration. 2. Cf. Para. 1, summary, judgment in 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-limit 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. */ 664j0027 /*. 3. The inadmissibility of a principal claim entails that of any ancillary claim based on it. 4. Documents capable of prejudicing third parties not involved in the proceedings and unable to defend themselves must be removed from the file of the case.

 
Manlio Serio v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-62/65; [1966] EUECJ C-62/65
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Officials - recruitment - mandatory reconciliation of the concepts of competition and of selection - limits of the administration's powers of assessment (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 29 and 30) 2. Officials - recruitment - review by the court - limits (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, title iii, chapter I) 1. In the recruitment of officials the administration is obliged to reconcile the concepts of competition and selection resulting from the combined provisions of articles 29 and 30 of the staff regulations. Although the administration is entitled in making its selections to ignore the precise order of merit in the competition for reasons which it is incumbent upon the administration to evaluate and justify before the court, nevertheless it may not destroy the very concept of competition by departing substantially from the result of the competition without serious reasons. 2. As the court's review is limited to examining the ways and means which may have led to the evaluation made by the appointing authority, the court cannot encroach upon the prerogatives of the appointing authority by addressing to it instructions capable of determining its c
[ Bailii ]
 
Fonzi v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-31/65; [1966] EUECJ C-31/65
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schreckenberg v Commission EAEC (Judgment) C-59/65; [1966] EUECJ C-59/65
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jean Moreau v Commission EAEC (Rec 1966,P 663) (Nl66-664 D 66-686 I 66-624 En66-459 Dk66-319 Gr66-467 P 66-519) (Judgment) C-15/64; [1966] EUECJ C-15/64
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European, Administrative
Europa 1. Officials - integration under the state regulations - aims of the relevant provisions (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 102) 2. Officials - contractual servants - application of the staff regulations to such persons - revaluation of post - automatic transfer of the step in the new grade - not permissible - application by analogy of the provisions of the staff regulations relating to the promotion of officials (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 102) 1. The object of article 102 of the staff regulations is to ensure that contractual servants, who are integrated in accordance with the said regulations, keep the position which they previously occupied, by the almost automatic transference to the table set out in article 66 of the staff regulations of the grade and step ' expressly or impliedly ' accorded them before the staff regulations were applied to them. 2. If the post of a contractual servant engaged during the period before the staff regulations entered into force has been revalued by the regulations, the step in the previous grade of that servant, when he is integrated, cannot automatically be transferred to his new grade. In order to determine the step in the new grade the administration must be guided by the provisions of the staff regulations relating to the promotion of officials.
[ Bailii ]
 
Societa Industriale Metallurgica Di Napoli (Simet) And Acciaierie E Ferriere Di Roma (Feram) v High Authority Of The Ecsc. (Procedure ) C-26/65; [1967] EUECJ C-26/65
2 Mar 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Acciaierie San Michele SpA (in liquidation) v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment); ECJ 2-Mar-1967 - C-58/65; [1967] EUECJ C-58/65; C-9/65
 
Societa Industriale Metallurgica di Napoli (SIMET) and Acciaierie e Ferriere di Roma (FERAM) v High Authority of the ECSC C-25/65; [1967] EUECJ C-25/65
2 Mar 1967
ECJ

European
Europa Procedure - time-limit for instituting proceedings - expiry - unforeseeable circumstances (protocol on the statute of the court of justice of the ECSC, third paragraph of article 39)
Procedure - application - measures forming a single whole - subject-matter of action
Procedure - objection of illegality - general decision - direct legal relationship - measures forming a whole - admissibility (ECSC treaty, article 36)
Common financial arrangements - equalization of ferrous scrap - calculation of contributions - estimated assessment - conditions (ECSC treaty, article 53)
[ Bailii ]
 
Societe Anonyme Cimenteries C.B.R. Cementsbedrijven N.V. And Others v Commission Of The Eec. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) C-11/66; [1967] EUECJ C-11/66; [1967] EUECJ C-11/66
15 Mar 1967
ECJ

European
Europa When a community institution unequivocally adopts a measure the legal effects of which are binding on those to whom it is addressed and affect their interests, this measure by its very nature constitutes a decision. The commission must proceed by way of a decision when it excludes an agreement from the benefit of an exemption from a fine under article 15(5) of regulation no 17 and declares on the basis of article 15(6) of the said regulation that article 85(1) of the Treaty applies, and that application of article 85(3) is not justified. The commission must consider the facts of the case, and apply to them the terms of article 85(1)(3). It must expressly find that the agreement in question contains all the constituent elements prescribed by article 85(1) and that application of article 85(3) is not justified. The commission must give reasons for this decision with sufficient clarity to allow the court and all parties concerned to ascertain whether the provisions mentioned above have been applied correctly.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Max Gutmann v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment) C-18/65
15 Mar 1967
ECJ

European
Europa Officials - disciplinary measures - disciplinary proceedings - criteria for initiating such proceedings (staff regulations of officials of the European Communities, article 86) - disciplinary proceedings must be based not on general complaints capable of referring to an indeterminate and unverifiable number of reprehensible matters, but rather on facts which are sufficiently clearly defined to make it possible to distinguish them from other grounds of complaint.

 
Societe anonyme Cimenteries C B R Cementsbedrijven N V and others v Commission of the European Economic Community (Judgment) C-8/66
15 Mar 1967
ECJ

European
Europa Measures adopted by an institution - decision - concept (EEC treaty, article 189) 2. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition applicable to undertakings - infringements - fines - exemption - refusal by the commission - procedure to be followed before giving a refusal - statement of reasons (EEC treaty, articles 85, 86; regulation no 17 of the council of the EEC, article 15, paragraphs 5 and 6) 1. When a community institution unequivocally adopts a measure the legal effects of which are binding on those to whom it is addressed and affect their interests, this measure by its very nature constitutes a decision. 2. The commission must proceed by way of a decision when it excludes an agreement from the benefit of an exemption from a fine under article 15(5) of regulation no 17 and declares on the basis of article 15(6) of the said regulation that article 85(1) of the treaty applies, and that application of article 85(3) is not justified. The commission must consider the facts of the case, and apply to them the terms of article 85(1)(3). It must expressly find that the agreement in question contains all the constituent elements prescribed by article 85(1) and that application of article 85(3) is not justified. The commission must give reasons for this decision with sufficient clarity to allow the court and all parties concerned to ascertain whether the provisions mentioned above have been applied correctly.

 
Simet and Others v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-25/65
26 May 1967
ECJ

European


 
Koninklijke Nederlandsche Hoogovens en Staalfabrieken NV v High Authority of the ECSC C-26/66; [1967] EUECJ C-26/66
14 Jun 1967
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Johannes Coenraad Moulijn v Commission of the CEE (Judgment) C-10/67; [1967] EUECJ C-10/67
22 Jun 1967
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Alfred Willame v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment) C-12/66; [1967] EUECJ C-12/66
22 Jun 1967
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Officials - integration - establishment board - duties - composition (EAEC staff regulations of officials, article 102) 2. Officials - ability, efficiency and conduct - assessment not influenced by services rendered in the sphere of staff representation (EAEC staff regulations of officials, annex ii, third paragraph of article 1(3)) 1. Even in the event of the reopening of the integration procedure it is unnecessary to modify the composition of the establishment board. On the one hand, the duty of this board is not to take penal or disciplinary measures, but rather to assess the ability, efficiency and conduct of an official in relation to the performance of the duties of a given official post. On the other hand only a single establishment board is able, through prolonged experience, to develop homogeneous criteria of assessment and, if necessary, to balance discriminatory or divergent opinions expressed by superior officers on the officials concerned. Cf. Paragraphs 1 and 2, summary, case 87/63 (1964) ECR 469. 2. The value of the services rendered by an official in the sphere of staff representation must not influence the assessment of the ability, efficiency and conduct of that official in relation to the performance of the duties involved in a given post provided for in the budget. The administration is required only to consider the volume of the work performed for the staff committee by the official concerned and to establish what effect the time spent on work as staff representative has had on the time devoted to the performance of his official duties.
[ Bailii ]
 
Richard Muller v Council of the EEC and Council of the EAEC C-28/64; [1967] EUECJ C-28/64
22 Jun 1967
ECJ

European
Europa Procedure - revision of a judgment - fact causing the revision to be opened - admissibility (protocol on the statute of the court of justice of the EEC, article 41; protocol on the statute of the court of justice of the EAEC, article 42) in order to decide whether the fact relied upon by the applicant is of such a nature as to cause the revision to be opened within the meaning of article 41 of the EEC statute and article 42 of the EAEC statute, it is necessary to consider its relevance to the grounds of the judgment relating to the question at issue.
[ Bailii ]
 
Auguste De Moor v Caisse De Pension Des Employes Prives. (Procedure ) R-2/67; [1967] EUECJ R-2/67
5 Jul 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Auguste de Moor v Caisse de pension des employes prives (Judgment) C-2/67
5 Jul 1967
ECJ

European
Europa Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - limits (EEC treaty, article 177). Free movement of persons - migrant workers - insurance - benefits - proportional calculation as a corollary of aggregation (EEC treaty, article 51). Free movement of persons - migrant workers - insurance - system provided for by regulation no 3 - retention of separate national systems and of separate claims. 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).


 
 Ciechelski v Caisse Regionale de securite sociale du Centre d'Orleans etc; ECJ 5-Jul-1967 - C-1/67; [1967] EUECJ R-1/67
 
Ciechelski v Caisse Regionale De Securite Sociale Du Centre D'Orleans And Directeur Regional De La Securite Sociale D'Orleans R-1/67; [1967] EUECJ R-1/67
5 Jul 1967
ECJ

European
Free Movement Of Persons
[ Bailii ]
 
Teresa Guerra, widow of Pietro Pace v Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidite (Judgment) C-6/67
5 Jul 1967
ECJ

European
Europa Free movement of persons - migrant workers - insurance - languages - authorities of member states within the meaning of article 45(4) of regulation no 3 - national courts to be included therein - the courts of a member state having jurisdiction in social security matters are included amongst the authorities within the meaning of article 45(4) of regulation no 3, which may not reject claims, or other documents submitted to them, on the grounds that they are written in an official language of another member state.

 
Guerra, Widow Of Pietro Pace v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite R-6/67; [1967] EUECJ R-6/67
5 Jul 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma E Kampffmeyer and others v Commission of the EEC (Judgment) C-5/66
14 Jul 1967
ECJ

European, Limitation
Europa 1. Procedure - proceedings in matters arising from non-contractual liability - period for bringing proceedings - limitation (statute of the court of justice of the EEC, article 43) 2. 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 3. 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 under national law (EEC treaty, article 215) 4. 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) 5. Non-contractual liability - injury resulting from loss of profit - necessity for the performance of the transaction envisaged to have been at least commenced (EEC treaty, article 215) 6. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - cereals - protective measures taken by member states - examination by the commission (regulation no 19, article 22) 7. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - cereals - regulation no 19 - sphere of application - general interests concerned - possibility of protection of individual interests 1. It follows from the actual wording of the second and third sentences of article 43 of the statute of the court of justice of the EEC that these provisions are not intended to shorten the period of limitation of five years but that they are intended to protect those concerned by preventing certain periods from being taken into account in the calculation of the said period. Consequently the aim of the third sentence of article 43 is merely to postpone the expiration of the period of five years when proceedings instituted or a prior application made within this period start time to run in respect of the periods provided for in articles 173 or 175. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Compensation for loss of profit following a wrongful act or omission presupposes that the performance of the commercial transaction in question has at least been commenced. 6. In exercising the powers conferred upon it by article 22 of regulation no 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. 7. Even though in essence they refer to interests of a general nature, the provisions of regulation no 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.

 
Firma E. Kampffmeyer And Others v Commission Of The Eec. (Procedure ) C-24/66; [1967] EUECJ C-24/66; [1973] EUECJ C-24/66
14 Jul 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Caisse Regionale De Securite Sociale Du Nord v Goffart (Judgment) C-22/67
30 Nov 1967
ECJ

European, Benefits
Europa 1. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - insurance - benefit - aggregation and calculation pro rata - calculation of a pension the right to which is conferred in several member states but which is paid in one state only (regulation no 3, article 28(1)(b) and (f)) 1. Article 51 is intended to confer on a migrant worker the benefit arising from the community regulations without however diminishing the rights which he would have had if those regulations had not been applied. This objective would be disregarded if the worker were obliged, in order to avail himself of the freedom of movement which is guaranteed to him, as a result of the entry into force of the community regulations, to suffer the loss of rights already acquired in one of the member states under that state's own legislation. 2. Article 28(1)(f) of regulation no 3 of the EEC applies both to cases in which the person concerned does not satisfy the conditions required for the payment of benefit and to cases in which he does not satisfy the conditions for conferment of the right to such benefit. A migrant worker whose rights to an old-age pension have been calculated in accordance with the legislation of two member states under the provisions of article 28(1)(a) and (b) of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers but to whom payment of the fraction of the pension payable by one of them has been suspended, is entitled to obtain from the social security institution of the other member state an amount of pension calculated solely in accordance with the legislation of that state and taking account of the insurance periods completed under that legislation.

 
Argia Pagotto (Nee Cossutta) v Office National Des Pensions Pour Ouvriers. R-18/67; [1967] EUECJ R-18/67
30 Nov 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Kurt A Becher v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-30/66; [1967] EUECJ C-30/66
30 Nov 1967
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Caisse Regionale De Securite Sociale Du Nord-Est v Robert Goffart R-22/67; [1967] EUECJ R-22/67
30 Nov 1967
ECJ

European
Free Movement Of Persons
[ Bailii ]
 
Argia Pagotto (nee Cossutta) v Office National des Pensions pour Ouvriers (Judgment) C-18/67
30 Nov 1967
ECJ

European, Benefits
Europa 1. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - calculation of benefits - application of the system provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 - the beneficiary's objective situation to be considered
2. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - system based on insurance periods - amount of retirement pension varying solely according to insurance periods completed - rights to a pension acquired by claimant without aggregation of completed periods - articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 not applicable
3. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - simultaneous determination of pensions not obligatory (regulation no 3, article 28)
4. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - application of the system established by regulation no 3 - guarantee for persons concerned of benefits acquired by virtue of the legislative systems of member states - options granted by such legislation - waiver not required - time for exercising options determined by national legislation (regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28)

 
Bestuur Der Sociale Verzekeringsbank v J. H. Van Der Vecht (Community Law ) R-19/67; [1967] EUECJ R-19/67
5 Dec 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank v J H van der Vecht (Rec 1967,P 445) (Nl67-432 D 67-462 I 67-408 En67-345 Dk67-411 Gr67-617 P 67-683) (Judgment) C-19/67
5 Dec 1967
ECJ

European, Benefits
Europa 1. Community law - uniform interpretation - versions existing in the four community languages to be taken into consideration 2. Free movement of persons - workers - social security - legislation applicable - employment and residence of beneficiaries in the territory of different member states - conveyance between the country of residence and country of employment - social security subject to the legislation in force in country of employment (regulation no 3, article 12) 3. Free movement of persons - workers - social security - legislation of member states other than that in which the workers are employed - legislation involving an increase in charges borne by workers without any corresponding advantage - inapplicability (regulation no 3, article 12) 4. Free movement of persons - workers - social security - administrative commission within the meaning of article 43 of regulation no 3 - courts and tribunals not bound by its decisions taken in pursuance of article 43 (a) of regulation no 3 5. Free movement of persons - workers - social security - legislation applicable - beneficiaries under article 13(a) of regulation no 3 (in the wording existing prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64) 6. Free movement of persons - workers - social security - legislation applicable - residence of beneficiaries and registered office of undertaking by which they are employed in the territory of a member state other than that in which the work is carried out - probable duration of this employment within the meaning of article 13(a) of regulation no 3 (in the wording existing prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64) 1. The need for a uniform interpretation of community regulations prevents the text of a provision from being considered in isolation, but in cases of doubt requires it to be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other three languages. 2. A worker who is employed in the territory of one member state but who resides in the territory of another member state and who is conveyed at his employer's expense between his place of residence and his place of employment remains subject to the legislation of the former state by virtue of article 12 of regulation no 3, even as regards that part of the journey which takes place in the territory of the state in which he resides and in which the undertaking is established. 3. Article 12 of regulation no 3 prohibits a member state other than that in whose territory a worker is employed from applying its social security legislation to such worker where to do so would lead to an increase in the charges borne by wage-earners or their employers, without any corresponding supplementary protection by way of social security. 4. Decisions taken by the administrative commission in pursuance of article 43(a) of regulation no 3 are not binding on national courts or tribunals. 5. Article 13(a) of regulation no 3, as worded prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64, applies to a worker who is engaged solely for employment in the territory of a member state other than that in which the establishment to which he is normally attached is situated, in so far as the probable duration of his employment in the territory of the former state does not exceed twelve months. 6. The expression ' the probable duration of their employment ' used in article 13(a), as worded prior to the introduction of regulation no 24/64, refers to the duration of the employment of each individual worker.


 
 Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz v Joseph Welchner; ECJ 5-Dec-1967 - C-14/67; R-14/67; [1967] EUECJ R-14/67
 
S A Brasserie de Haecht v Consorts Wilkin-Janssen C-23/67; [1967] ECR 407; R-23/67; [1967] EUECJ R-23/67
12 Dec 1967
ECJ

European
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.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Anne Muller (nee Collignon) v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-4/67; [1967] EUECJ C-4/67
12 Dec 1967
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Office national des pensions pour ouvriers v Marcel Couture (Judgment) C-11/67
12 Dec 1967
ECJ

European, Benefits
Europa Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - calculation of benefits - application of the system provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 - the beneficiary's objective situation to be considered. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - system based on insurance periods - amount of retirement pension varying solely according to insurance periods completed - rights to a pension acquired by claimant without aggregation of completed periods - articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 not applicable. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - simultaneous determination of pensions not obligatory (regulation no 3, article 28). Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - application of the system established by regulation no 3 - guarantee for persons concerned of benefits acquired by virtue of the legislative systems of member states - options granted by such legislation - waiver not required - time for exercising options determined by national legislation (regulation no 3, articles 27 and 28).

 
Office National Des Pensions Pour Ouvriers v Marcel Couture. (Free Movement Of Persons ) R-11/67; [1967] EUECJ R-11/67
12 Dec 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alois Bauer v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-15/67; [1967] EUECJ C-15/67
12 Dec 1967
ECJ

European, Costs
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)
[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Max Neumann v Hauptzollamt Hof/Saale. (Member States ) R-17/67; [1967] EUECJ R-17/67
13 Dec 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Jules Guissart v Belgian State. (Free Movement Of Persons ) R-12/67; [1967] EUECJ R-12/67
13 Dec 1967
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Jules Guissart v Belgian State (Judgment) C-12/67
13 Dec 1967
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - calculation of benefits - application of the system provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 - the beneficiary's objective situation to be considered 2. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - system based on insurance periods - amount of retirement pension varying solely according to insurance periods completed - right to a pension acquired by a claimant without aggregation of completed periods - articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 not applicable 3. Free movement of persons - migrant workers - old-age and death (pensions) insurance - right to a pension acquired by a claimant without aggregation of completed periods - accumulation of benefits as a result of overlapping of insurance periods actually completed in one state with notional periods in another state - possibility for that second state to deduct notional periods from periods actually completed - exclusive competence of the national authority 1. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary, case 11/67. (1967) ECR 379. The application to a migrant worker of the provisions of articles 27 and 28 of regulation n. 3 does not depend upon the free choice of the person concerned but upon his objective situation. */ 667j0011 /*. 2. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, case 11/67. (1967) ECR 379. At least in those systems based on insurance periods under which the amount of the retirement pension varies in proportion solely to the insurance periods which have been completed articles 27 and 28 of regulation n. 3 do not apply to a migrant worker who, in order to acquire the right to benefit, does not have to resort to aggregation in any of the member states in which he has completed insurance periods. */ 667j0011 /*. 3. When a migrant worker acquires a right to a pension without aggregation of the periods completed and when benefits in respect of insurance periods actually completed in one state are payable in relation to one single period at the same time as benefits in respect of notional periods in another member state, it must be permissible for a state whose legislation provides for notional periods in favour of the insured person to deduct from such periods the periods actually completed in another member state, without its being possible to consider this procedure as contrary to article 51 of the treaty. However, it is for the national authority to which the social security institution is responsible and not the community authority to decide on this on the basis of its own legislation.

 
Firma Max Neumann v Hauptzollamt Hof/Saale (Judgment) C-17/67
13 Dec 1967
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Member states - sovereignty - limitation in favour of community institutions - fiscal sovereignty involved 2. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - levy - concept 3. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - levy - legality - validity of rules not affected by the nature of the levy 4. Agriculture - poultry meat - common organization of the markets - sluice-gate price - internal free-at-frontier price - levy - increase by the importing member state - legality (regulation no 22 of the council, article 6(3) and (4)) 5. Agriculture - poultry meat - common organization of the markets - imports from third countries - sluice-gate price - internal free-at-frontier price - levy - increase - individual offer prices not to be taken into consideration (regulation no 22 of the council, article 6(3); regulation nos 109/62 and 135/62 of the commission) 6. Institutions of the EEC - common provisions - regulations - entry into force - date - power of the institutions to fix that date - review by the court (EEC treaty, article 191) 1. When the member states conferred powers on the community institutions, they agreed to a corresponding limitation in their sovereign rights. In accordance with the treaty the fiscal sphere is not automatically excluded from those limitations. 2. The agricultural levy, which is based on community law, and not on national law, constitutes a change regulating external trade and is connected with a common price policy, whatever similarities it may have to a tax or a customs duty. 3. The treaty establishing the EEC conferred on the institutions of that community the right to establish systems of levy directly applicable in the member states in order to set up a common organization of agricultural markets; consequently the validity of the said regulation cannot be affected by the character of the levy thus established as either a customs duty or a tax. 4. Pursuant to article 6(3) and (4) of regulation no 22, the general methods of fixing the amounts additional to the levy are to be determined by the commission or, if necessary, by the council; the same provisions authorize the importing member state to fix the amount additional to the levy, whilst it falls within the powers of the commission or, if necessary, of the council according to the procedure laid down in article 17, when a decision has been taken to formulate a measure jointly. 5. The validity of regulation no 135/62 of the commission with regard to regulation no 22 of the council and regulation no 109/62 of the commission is not affected by the fact that it did not take into account the individual offer price in fixing the additional levy. 6. The liberty granted by the treaty to the authors of a regulation to fix the date of its entry into force cannot be considered as excluding any review by the court, particularly with regard to any retroactive effect.

 
I.G.F. Van Leeuwen v City Of Rotterdam. (Eec Officials ) R-32/67; [1968] EUECJ R-32/67
8 Feb 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities C-28/66; [1968] EUECJ C-28/66
8 Feb 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
I G F Van Leeuwen v City of Rotterdam (Judgment) C-32/67
8 Feb 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. EEC officials - privileges and immunities - exemption from national taxes and levying of a community tax - complementary nature of the provisions relating thereto - scope of the exemption from national taxes (protocol on privileges and immunities of the EEC, article 12) 2. EEC officials - privileges and immunities - charge or due representing the consideration for a service rendered by public authorities - exemption not justified (protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EEC, article 12). 1. It is as a result of the first paragraph of article 12 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EEC, which provides for the payment of a tax on salaries, wages and emoluments of officials and other servants of the community for the benefit of the community, that the second paragraph of article 12 exempts salaries, wages and emoluments from national taxes, so that article 12 taken as a whole ensures a uniform treatment of the said salaries, wages and emoluments for all the officials and servants of the community, preventing, first and chiefly, their effective remuneration from differing according to their nationality or fiscal domicile as a result of the assessment of different national taxes, and secondly preventing this remuneration from being inordinately taxed as a result of double taxation. It appears from this context that the second paragraph of article 12 refers, like the first paragraph, to national taxes on salaries, no matter what form such taxes take or whatever they are called. Cf. Paragraph 6, summary, case 6/60, (1960) ECR 1129. 2. A charge or due representing the consideration for a given service rendered by the public authorities is not a tax within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 12 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the community annexed to the EEC treaty, even if this charge or due is calculated on the basis of the salary paid by the community to the person liable.

 
San Michele v ECSC High Authority (Order) C-9/65
22 Feb 1968
ECJ

European


 
Acciaierie San Michele Spa (In Liquidation) v High Authority Of The ECSC [1968] EUECJ C-58/65
22 Feb 1968
ECJ

European, Costs

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Parke, Davis and Co v Probel, Reese, Beintema-Interpharm and Centrafarm; ECJ 29-Feb-1968 - C-24/67; [1967] ECR 55; [1968] CMLR 47; [1968] FSR 393; R-24/67; [1968] EUECJ R-24/67
 
Industria Molitoria Imolese and others v Council of the European Communities (Judgment) C-30/67; [1968] EUECJ C-30/67
13 Mar 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
W Beus GmbH and Co v Hauptzollamt Munchen (Judgment) C-5/67
13 Mar 1968
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Agriculture - common agricultural policy - common organization of the markets - fruit and vegetables - entry price - deduction of taxes on imports, including the German turnover equalization tax - fixing - duties of the commission (regulation no 23 of the council of the EEC of 4 April 1962, sixth subparagraph of article 11(2); regulation no 65/65 of the council of the EEC of 13 may 1965, article 1) 2. Agriculture - common agricultural policy - common organization of the markets - fruit and vegetables - reference price - fixing - power of the commission to exercise its discretion - review by the court (regulation no 23 of the council of the EEC of 4 April 1962, second subparagraph of article 11(2); regulation no 65/65 of the council of the EEC of 13 may 1965, article 1) 3. Agriculture - common agricultural policy - objectives - protection of the interests of producers and consumers - conflict of interests - principle of community preference (EEC treaty, article 39; article 44(2)) 4. Measures adopted by community institutions - statement of reasons in regulations - requirement to state the reasons on which the measure is based - extent (EEC treaty, article 190). 1. The expression " other taxes on imports " appearing in the sixth subparagraph of article 11(2) of regulation no 23, as amended by article 1 of regulation no 65/65/eec covers the turnover equalization tax collected in Germany (" umsatzausgleichssteuer ") as well as the community countervailing charge collected on the basis of the said regulations. In calculating the entry price of fruit and vegetables from third states, it is necessary therefore to deduct from the amount of these taxes the prices recorded on the representative import markets of the member states. Since the said sixth subparagraph provides that the entry price shall be fixed " on the basis of the lowest prices recorded on the representative import markets ", the commission must take into account the lowest prices ruling on each market during the observation period. 2. The expression " considerable part of the marketed output throughout the year or during a part thereof ", used in the second subparagraph of article 11(2) of regulation no 23, as amended by the sole article of regulation no 65/65/eec, shows that the commission has a certain area of discretion as to the choice of varieties to be considered for fixing the reference price for fruit and vegetables. The court must therefore confine itself where necessary to considering whether or not the choice made by the commission is of an arbitrary nature. 3. The objectives set out in article 39 of the EEC treaty, which are intended to safeguard the interests of farmers and consumers, may not all be simultaneously and fully attained. In balancing these interests, the council must take into account, where necessary, in favour of the farmers the principle known as " community preference ", which is one of the principles of the treaty and which in agricultural matters is laid down in articles 44(2). 4. The extent of the requirement, laid down by article 190 of the treaty, to state the reasons on which measures are based, depends on the nature of the measure in question. The statement of the reasons for a regulation may be confined to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to attain on the other. Consequently it is not possible to require that it should set out the various facts, which are often very numerous and complex, on the basis of which the regulation was adopted, or a fortiori that it should provide a more or less complete evaluation of those facts.

 
W. Beus Gmbh and Co. v Hauptzollamt Muenchen. (Agriculture ) R-5/67; [1968] EUECJ R-5/67
13 Mar 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dietrich Kurrer v Council of the European Communities (Judgment) C-33/67; [1968] EUECJ C-33/67
28 Mar 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen/Lippe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Paderborn C-28/67
3 Apr 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. European economic community - nature - natural or legal persons having rights and obligations - individuals - provisions of the treaty having direct effect - concept 2. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by one member state on products from other member states - prohibition on discrimination as compared with the tax burden on the domestic products of that state - nature and consequences of this rule - rights of individuals - protection of such rights by national courts (EEC treaty, article 95) 3. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by one member state on products from other member states - prohibition on discrimination as compared with charges on the domestic products of that state - a ' direct or indirect ' tax to be widely interpreted - taxation imposed on similar domestic products - concept (EEC treaty, article 95) 4. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - cumulative multi-stage tax - average rates for imported products or groups of imported products within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 97 - no individual rights 5. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - cumulative multi-stage tax - average rates for imported products or groups of imported products - establishment by member states - validity (EEC treaty, article 97). 1. The community constitutes a new legal order, for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, community law not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the community. In this connection, it is necessary and sufficient that the very nature of the provision of the treaty in question should make it ideally adapted to produce direct effects on the legal relationship between member states and those subject to their jurisdiction. Cf. Paragraph 3, summary, case 26/62 (1963) ECR 2. 2. The first paragraph of article 95 produces direct effects and creates individual rights which national courts must protect. Nevertheless, article 95 does not restrict the powers of the competent national courts to apply, from among the various procedures available under national law, those which are appropriate for the purpose of protecting individual rights conferred by community law. In particular when internal taxation is incompatible with the first paragraph of article 95 only beyond a certain amount, it is for the national court to decide, according to the rules of its national law, whether this illegality affects the taxation as a whole or only so much of it as exceeds that amount. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, case 57/65, (1966) ECR 294. 3. The terms ' directly or indirectly ' appearing in the first paragraph of article 95 of the EEC treaty must be widely interpreted. By internal taxation imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, this provision refers to all taxation which is actually and specifically imposed on the domestic product at all earlier stages of its manufacture and marketing or which correspond to the stage at which the product is imported from other member states. 4. The first paragraph of article 97, which applies where member states operating a turnover tax according to a cumulative multi - stage tax system have actually exercised the right therein granted to them, does not, in the present state of community law, create individual rights which national courts must protect. It is therefore not for national courts to appraise whether average rates established by member states conform to the principles of article 95. 5. In states which have exercised the power made available to them by article 97, rates are considered as ' average rates ' if they are established as such by the states in question, without prejudice to the operation of the second paragraph of that article.
1 Citers


 
Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen/Lippe Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Paderborn. (Eec ) R-28/67; [1968] EUECJ R-28/67
3 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Kunstmuhle Tivoli v Hauptzollamt Wurzburg (Judgment) C-20/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - imports from third countries - inapplicability of article 95 of the EEC treaty 2. Agriculture - common agricultural policy - common organization of the markets - turnover equalization tax - not a charge having an effect equivalent to that of custom duties (regulation no 19 of the council of the EEC on the progressive establishment of the market in cereals, article 20(1)). 1. Since the provisions of article 95 of the treaty establishing the European economic community relate only to products originating in member states, they cannot be applied to imports from a third country. 2. A tax which is levied within the framework of turnover tax legislation and is designed to place all categories of products, whatever their origin, in a comparable fiscal situation does not, in the absence of any protective intention, constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 20(1) of regulation no 19 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary, case 7/67. Cf. Paragraph 5, summary, case 57/65, (1966) ECR 295.

 
Firma Milch-, Fett- und Eierkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Saarbrucken (Judgment) C-25/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa 1. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - cumulative multi-stage tax - average rates for imported products within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 97 - no individual rights 2. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - cumulative multi-stage tax - average rates for imported products or groups of imported products - establishment by member states - validity (EEC treaty, article 97) 3. Customs duties and internal taxation - joint applicability to the same case of provisions relating thereto - impossibility of such joint application (EEC treaty, articles 12, 13 and 95) 4. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - taxation intended to put national products and imported products in a comparable tax position - nature of internal taxation (EEC treaty, article 95). 1. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, case 28/67. (1968) ECR 143. The first paragraph of article 97, which applies where member states operating a turnover tax according to a cumulative multi-stage tax system have actually exercised the right therein granted to them, does not, in the present state of community law, create individual rights which national courts must protect. It is therefore not for national courts to appraise whether average rates established by member states conform to the principles of article 95. */ 667j0028 /*. 2. Cf. Paragraph 5, summary, case 28/67. (1968) ECR 143. In states which have exercised the power made available to them by article 97, rates are considered as 'average rates' if they are established as such by the states in question, without prejudice to the operation of the second paragraph of that article. */ 667j0028 /*. 3. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, case 57/65, (1966) ECR 205. Articles 12 and 13, on the one hand, and article 95 on the other cannot be applied jointly to one and the same case. */ 665j0057 /*. 4. A tax which is levied within the framework of turnover tax legislation and is designed to place all categories of products both domestic and imported in a comparable tax situation constitutes ' internal taxation ' within the meaning of article 95.

 
Firma Milchwerke H Wohrmann and Sohn KG v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall(Judgment) C-7/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Agriculture - common agricultural policy - common organization of the markets - milk and milk products - importation from third countries - charge by way of turnover tax - not a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty - legality (regulation no 13/64/eec of the council of 5 February 1964, article 12(2)). A tax imposed on the importation of products from third countries does not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 12(2) of regulation no 13/64 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in milk and milk products when it is imposed as a charge under the national system of turnover tax. Cf. Paragraph 5, summary, case 57/65, (1966) ECR 295.

 
Firma August Stier v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-31/67; [1968] EUECJ R-31/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Fink-Frucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Landsbergerstrasse C-27/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by one member state on products from other member states - absence of similar domestic products or other products capable of being protected - permissibility (EEC treaty, article 95) 2. Quantitative restrictions and taxes - different nature - joint application of provisions thereon to the same case - not permissible (EEC treaty, articles 30, 95) 3. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by one member state on products from other member states - similarity between such products - concept (EEC treaty, first paragraph of article 95) 4. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by one member state on products from other member states - taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to products other than similar products - prohibition - individual rights - protection of such rights by national courts (EEC treaty, first paragraph of article 95) 5. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by one member state on products from other member states - taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to products other than similar products - prohibition - nature of the prohibition - conditions of application - powers of national courts (EEC treaty, second paragraph of article 95). 1. The provisions of article 95 of the EEC treaty do not prohibit member states from imposing internal taxation on products imported from other member states when there are no similar domestic products or other domestic products capable of being protected. 2. Internal taxation imposed under the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 above on products imported from other member states does not come within the prohibition on quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect, within the meaning of article 30 of the EEC treaty. One and the same tax cannot be both a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction and internal taxation. 3. Similarity between products within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 95 exists when the products in question are normally to be considered as coming within the same fiscal, customs or statistical classification, as the case may be. 4. The second paragraph of article 95 of the treaty is capable of producing direct effects and creating individual rights which national courts must protect. 5. The second paragraph of article 95 is complementary to the first. It prohibits the imposition of any internal taxation which imposes a higher charge on an imported than on a domestic product which competes with the imported product, although it is not similar to it within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 95. The prohibition also applies in the absence of direct competition where the internal taxation subjects the imported product to a specific fiscal charge in such a way as to protect certain activities distinct from those used in the manufacture of the imported product. However, the said second paragraph is only applicable when the various economic relationships envisaged by it are not merely fortuitous, but lasting and characteristic. The effects of a tax on the economic relationships referred to in the second paragraph of article 95 must be assessed in the light of the objectives of article 95, which are to ensure normal conditions of competition and to remove all restrictions of the fiscal nature capable of hindering the free movement of goods within the common market. The treaty does not prevent national courts from deciding, where necessary, the level below which the tax in question would cease to have the protective effects prohibited by the treaty and from drawing all appropriate conclusions therefrom.

 
Becher v Hauptzollamt Munchen (Judgment) C-13/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European


 
Firma August Stier v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus (Judgment) C-31/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - taxation - taxation forming part of a general tax applying without distinction to domestic and imported products - nature of internal taxation (EEC treaty, article 95) 2. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - internal taxation imposed by a member state on products from member states - absence of similar domestic products or other products capable of being protected - permissibility - limits of right of a member state to impose taxation (EEC treaty, article 95). 1. Taxation levied within the framework of legislation relating to the turnover tax applying without distinction to all categories of products, whether domestic or imported, does not constitute a specific tax on imported products even if charged at the moment of importation. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, judgment in case 25/67 (1968) ECR 207. 2. The provisions of article 95 of the EEC treaty do not prohibit member states from imposing internal taxation on imported products from other member states when there is no similar domestic product or other domestic product capable of being protected. Nevertheless it would not be permissible for member states to impose on such products charges of such an amount that the free movement of goods within the common market would be impeded as far as those products were concerned. Such a restraint on the free movement of goods cannot however be presumed to exist when the rate of taxation remains within the general framework of the national system of taxation of which the tax in question is an integral part. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary, judgment in case 27/67.

 
Firma Gebruder Luck v Hauptzollamt Koln-Rheinau (Judgment) C-34/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - cumulative multi-stage tax - average rates for imported products or groups of imported products within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 97 - no individual rights 2. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - taxation imposed on domestic products - concept (EEC treaty, article 95) 3. Policy of the EEC - common rules - tax provisions - rights conferred on individuals by community law - powers of national courts for the purpose of protecting such rights (EEC treaty, article 95). 1. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, case 28/67. (1968) ECR 143. The first paragraph of article 97, which applies where member states operating a turnover tax according to a cumulative multi-stage tax system have actually exercised the right therein granted to them, does not, in the present state of community law, create individual rights which national courts must protect. It is therefore not for national courts to appraise whether average rates established by member states conform to the principles of article 95. */ 667j0028 /*. 2. The concept of taxation imposed on a domestic product within the meaning of article 95 of the treaty means the tax burden which results from the application of the rate of tax fixed by law. 3. Article 95 of the treaty has the effect of excluding the application of any national measure incompatible with it. However, the article does not restrict the powers of the competent national courts to apply, from among the various procedures available under national law, those which are appropriate for the purpose of protecting the individual rights conferred by community law. Particularly when an internal tax is incompatible with the first paragraph of article 95 only beyond a certain amount, it is for the national court to decide, according to the rules of its national law, whether the illegality affects the whole tax or only so much of it as exceeds that amount. It is also for that court to decide whether the rules of national law which conflict with the said provision must be repealed or whether they are void as from 1 January 1962, or to select any other solution. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, case 28/67.

 
Firma Fink-Frucht Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Landsbergerstrasse. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-27/67; [1968] EUECJ R-27/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Gebrueder Lueck v Hauptzollamt Koln-Rheinau. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-34/67; [1968] EUECJ R-34/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Kunstmuehle Tivoli v Hauptzollamt Wuerzburg. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-20/67; [1968] EUECJ R-20/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Kurt A. Becher v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Landsbergerstrasse. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-13/67; [1968] EUECJ R-13/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Milch-, Fett Und Eierkontor Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Saarbruecken. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-25/67; [1968] EUECJ R-25/67
4 Apr 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Firma Milchwerke H. Wohrmann and Sohn Kg v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall; ECJ 4-Apr-1968 - R-7/67; [1968] EUECJ R-7/67
 
Becher v Hauptzollamt Munchen (Order) C-13/67
16 May 1968
ECJ

European


 
De Wendel and Cie SA v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-29/67; [1968] EUECJ C-29/67
11 Jun 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Schwarzwaldmilch Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Fette. (Agriculture ) R-4/68; [1968] EUECJ R-4/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Claude Moise Sayag And S.A. Zurich v Jean-Pierre Leduc, Denise Thonnon, Spouse Of Leduc, And S.A. La Concorde. (Official Of The Eaec ) R-5/68; [1968] EUECJ R-5/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Firma Schwarzwaldmilch GmbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Fettee (Judgment) C-4/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa 1. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk - imports subject to the production of a licence - importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence - case of force majeure - ' engine failure ' within the meaning of article 6(3) of regulation no 136/64/eec of the commission - concept 2. Force majeure - concept 3. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk - importation subject to the production of a licence - importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence - case of force majeure relied on by the importer - evidence to be adduced (regulation no 136/64/eec, article 6(2)) 4. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk - importation subject to the production of a licence - importation impossible during the term of validity of such licence - case of force majeure - national courts - jurisdiction in cases not referred to in article 6(3) or not recognized by the national authorities in accordance with article 6(4) of regulation no 136/64/eec 1. The concept of ' engine failure ' referred to in article 6(3) of regulation no 136/64/eec does not include failures which occur in machinery intended for the production of goods. 2. As the concept of force majeure is not identical in the different branches of law and the various fields of application, the significance of this concept must be determined on the basis of the legal framework within which it is intended to take effect. Recognition of a case of force majeure presupposes that the consequences of the unusual event to which this concept relates cannot be avoided. 3. Within the meaning of regulation no 136/64/eec, when an importer relies on force majeure he must show that he was unable to effect the importation within the period laid down as a result of unusual circumstances outside his control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care on his part, he could not have avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice. 4. The courts of member states may, within the limits of their own jurisdiction, recognize the existence of a case of force majeure not only when the situation relied on is included in those enumerated in article 6(3) or when it has been recognized by the national authorities in accordance with paragraph (4), but also in other specific cases which justify the application of the exemption referred to in article 6(2).

 
Fernand De Schacht v Council of the European Communities (Judgment) C-3/68; [1968] EUECJ C-3/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt GmbH v Council of the European Communities (Judgment) C-6/68; [1968] EUECJ C-6/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Claude Moïse Sayag and S A Zurich v Jean-Pierre Leduc, Denise Thonnon, spouse of Leduc, and S A La Concorde (Judgment) C-5/68
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Official of the EAEC - privileges and immunities - immunity from legal proceedings - object (protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European communities, article 12(a)) 2. Official of the EAEC - privileges and immunities - immunity from legal proceedings - extent - driving of a motor vehicle (protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European communities, article 12(a)) 1. The immunity from legal proceedings referred to in article 12(a) of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European communities (article 11(a) of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EAEC) is intended to ensure that the official activity of the community and of its servants is shielded from examination in the light of any criteria based on the domestic law of member states so that the community may accomplish its task in complete independence. 2. (A) the immunity from legal proceedings only covers acts which, by their nature, represent a participation of the person entitled to the immunity in the performance of the tasks of the institution to which he belongs; in this respect there is no necessity to distinguish between the actual exercise of normal duties or those prescribed under the staff regulations and an act performed on the occasion of the exercise of those duties if the position is that the act in question serves directly for the accomplishment of a community task. (B) driving a motor vehicle cannot be covered by immunity from legal proceedings save in the exceptional cases in which this activity cannot be carried out otherwise than under the authority of the community and by its own servants.

 
August Josef Van Eick v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-35/67; [1968] EUECJ C-35/67
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Henri Danvin v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-26/67; [1968] EUECJ C-26/67
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Henri Labeyrie v Commission of the European Communities(Judgment) C-16/67; [1968] EUECJ C-16/67
11 Jul 1968
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic; ECJ 10-Dec-1968 - C-7/68; [1968] EUECJ C-7/68

 
 Ufficio Imposte di Consumo di Ispra v Commission of the European Communities; ECJ 10-Dec-1968 - C-2/68; [1968] EUECJ C-2/68
 
Renckens v Commission (Order) C-27/68; [1968] EUECJ C-27/68R; [1969] EUECJ C-27/68
12 Dec 1968
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Giovanni De Cicco v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben C-19/68; R-19/68; [1968] EUECJ R-19/68
19 Dec 1968
ECJ

European
ECJ 1. Procedure - references for preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - limits - task of national courts or tribunals (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Procedure - references for preliminary ruling - reference to the court by a national court or tribunal - conditions (EEC treaty, article 177) 3. Procedure - references for preliminary ruling - participation in proceedings - limits (statute of court of justice of the EEC, article 20) 4. Social security for migrant workers - wage - earners - assimilated workers - concept - craftsmen - insurance periods - concept (regulation no 3 of the council concerning social security for migrant workers) 5. Social security for migrant workers - regulation no 4 - annexes 7 and 9 - declaratory nature
[ Bailii ]

 
 SpA Salgoil v Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade; ECJ 19-Dec-1968 - [1968] ECR 453; [1969] CMLR 181; C-13/68; R-13/68; [1968] EUECJ R-13/68
 
Walt Wilhelm and Others v Bundeskartellamt (Judgment) C-14/68
13 Feb 1969
ECJ

European


 
Walt Wilhelm And Others v Bundeskartellamt. (Eec ) R-14/68; [1969] EUECJ R-14/68
13 Feb 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Johannes Gerhardus Klomp v Inspektie Der Belastingen. (Privileges And Immunities ) R-23/68; [1969] EUECJ R-23/68
25 Feb 1969
ECJ

European, Taxes - Other, Constitutional
Europa Article 16 of the former ECSC protocol and Article 30 of the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a single commission which make Article 177 of the eec treaty and article 150 of the ECSC Treaty applicable to the first-named treaty have an identical objective, namely to ensure a uniform interpretation and application in the six member states of the provisions relating to the privileges and immunities of the communities.
In accordance with a principle common to the legal systems of the member states, the origins of which may be traced back to roman law, when legislation is amended, unless the legislature expresses a contrary intention, continuity of the legal system must be ensured.
Article 11(b ) of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the ecsc refers to national taxes on salaries and emoluments in whatever form and under whatever name they levied.
A contribution intended to finance a social security scheme does not constitute a tax within the meaning of article 11(b ) of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the ECSC even if such a contribution is levied in a manner resembling the levying of taxes.
[ Bailii ]
 
Elz v Commission (Judgment) C-15/68; [1969] EUECJ C-15/68
25 Feb 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Klomp v Inspectie Der Belastingen (Judgment) C-23/68
25 Feb 1969
ECJ

European


 
Huybrechts v Commission (Judgment) C-21/68; [1969] EUECJ C-21/68
6 May 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reinarz v Commission (Judgment) C-17/68; [1969] EUECJ C-17/68
6 May 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Caisse regionale de securite sociale du nord de la France v Achille Torrekens (Judgment) C-28/68
7 May 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Procedure - questions referred for preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - limits (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Social security for migrant workers - old-age and death pensions - aggregation - application of legislation mentioned in annex b to regulation no 3 including non-contributory schemes (regulation no 3, article 27, annex b) 3. Social security for migrant workers - regulation no 3 of the council concerning social security for migrant workers - conventions referred to in article 6(2)(e) and in annex d - scope of regulation no 3 - interpretation of the said conventions. 1. The considerations which may have led the national court to choose the questions referred to the court for a preliminary ruling as well as the relevance which it attaches to them in the proceedings pending before it cannot be examined by the court. Article 177, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts or tribunals and the court of justice, does not enable the latter to rule on the application of the provisions of community law. 2. The system of aggregation provided for by article 27(1) of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers also applies to the legislation mentioned in annex b, whether it establishes a contributory or non-contributory scheme. 3. It is clear from article 6(2)(e) that regulation no 3 is not intended to detract from the provisions of the conventions concluded before it entered into force. The regulation continues to apply to the extent to which these conventions do not impede its application. It is for the national court to decide what effect the conventions listed in annex d have.

 
Caisse Regionale De Securite Sociale Du Nord De La France v Achille Torrekens. (Procedure ) R-28/68; [1969] EUECJ R-28/68
7 May 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
X v Audit Board (Judgment) C-12/68; [1969] EUECJ C-12/68; [1970] EUECJ C-12/68
7 May 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Chanel v Cepeha C-31/68
3 Jun 1969
ECJ

European


 
Milch-, Fett- und Eierkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Saarbrucken (Judgment) C-29/68; [1969] EUECJ C-29/68
24 Jun 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jeannette Fux v Commission of the European Communitie (Judgment) C-26/68; [1969] EUECJ C-26/68
24 Jun 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Milch-, Fett Und Eierkontor Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Saarbruecken. (Procedure ) R-29/68; [1969] EUECJ R-29/68
24 Jun 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sociaal Fonds Voor De Diamantarbeiders v S.A. Ch. Brachfeld and Sons And Chougol Diamond Co. (Customs Duties ) R-3/69; [1969] EUECJ R-3/69
1 Jul 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Judgment) C-24/68; [1969] EUECJ C-24/68
1 Jul 1969
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v S A Ch Brachfeld and Sons and Chougol Diamond Co (Judgment) C-2/69
1 Jul 1969
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Customs duties are prohibited independently of any consideration of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue obtained therefrom. Any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its 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 and 12 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. 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. 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 general internal taxation, or which is intended to compensate for taxation of this nature within the limits laid down by the treaty. The rendering of a specific service may in certain specific cases warrant the payment of a fee in proportion to the service actually rendered. The provisions of the treaty laying down prohibitions on customs duties and charges having equivalent effect impose precise and clearly-defined obligations on member states which do not require any subsequent intervention by community or national authorities for their implementation. For this reason, these provisions directly confer rights on individuals concerned. Without prejudice to any limitations which might be imposed in order to attain the objectives of the common customs tariff, pecuniary charges other than customs duties pecuniary charges other than customs duties in the strict sense applied by a member state before the introduction of that tariff on goods imported directly from third countries are not, according to the treaty, incompatible with the requirements concerning the gradual alignment of national customs tariffs on the common external tariff.

 
Giulio Pasetti-Bombardella v Commission of the European Communities supported by the Council of the European Communitiesl (Judgment) C-20/68; [1969] EUECJ C-20/68
2 Jul 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Reinaldus Renckens v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-27/68
2 Jul 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Officials - rationalization of departments after the merger treaty - powers of the commission (regulation no 259/68 of the council, article 4) 2. Officials - decision adversely affecting - statement of reasons - scope (staff regulations of officials of the ECSC, article 25) 3. Officials - decisions concerning officials - review by the court - limits. 1. In conferring on the commission power to take measures, in particular pursuant to article 4 of regulation no 259/68, terminating the service of individuals consequent upon the rationalization and the reduction of staff, the council did not delegate legislative powers to the commission but entrusted it with the practical implementation of the rules which it laid down in that regulation within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on it by the treaty. 2. The duty to state the reasons for a decision adversely affecting an official is fulfilled when the reasons on which the measure in question is based are shown clearly and unambiguously. The administration cannot be expected to go further and give particulars of its assessment of him in comparison with each of the other officials of equal rank who are not the subject of the same measure. 3. Although the court may not substitute its own valued judgment for that of the commission, it may nevertheless check whether the decision terminating an official's service was taken having regard to the criteria laid down in article 4 of regulation no 259/68 and with the object of rationalizing its departments.

 
Franz Volk v S P R L Ets J Vervaecke (Judgment) C-5/69
9 Jul 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Procedure - preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court of justice - limits (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition between undertakings - agreements which may affect trade between member state - concept (EEC treaty, article 85) 3. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition between undertakings - exclusive dealing arrangements with absolute territorial protection - prohibition - possibility of avoiding such prohibition by reason of the weak position of the parties concerned on the market in the products in question (EEC treaty, article 85). 1. The court is not entitled within the framework of article 177 to apply the treaty to a particular case. It may however derive from the wording of the decision referring the matter the questions which relate exclusively to the interpretation of the treaty. 2. If an agreement is to be capable of affecting trade between member states it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact that the agreement in question may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between member states, in such a way that it might hinder the realization of the objectives of a single market between states. 3. An exclusive dealing agreement, even with absolute territorial protection, may, having regard to the weak position of the persons concerned on the market in the products in question in the area covered by the absolute protection, escape the prohibition laid down in article 85(1).

 
Franz Volk v S.P.R.L. Ets J. Vervaecke. (Procedure ) R-5/69; [1969] EUECJ R-5/69
9 Jul 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
S A Portelange v S A Smith Corona Marchant International and others (Judgment) C-10/69
9 Jul 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Procedure - preliminary questions - jurisdiction of the court - limits - task of the national courts (EEC treaty, article 177) 2. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition - agreements - notification - prohibition of an agreement notified - condition of prohibition (EEC treaty, article 85; regulation no 17/62 of the council) 3. Policy of the EEC - rules on competition - agreements - notification - validity of agreements notified - effects of this validity (EEC treaty, article 85; regulation no 17/62 of the council, article 15(6)). 1. Article 177 of the treaty, based on a clear separation of functions between national courts and the court of justice, does not permit the latter to take cognizance of the facts of the case or to pass judgment on the reasons for requests for interpretation. The question whether the provisions or concepts of community law, whose interpretation is requested, are in fact applicable to the case in question, lies outside the jurisdiction of the court of justice and falls within the jurisdiction of the national court. Where a court or tribunal requests the interpretation of a community provision or of a legal concept connected with it, it must be assumed that that court or tribunal considers such interpretation necessary to the solution of the dispute before it. 2. The question whether an agreement notified in accordance with regulation no 17 is in fact prohibited depends upon the appraisal of economic and legal factors which cannot be assumed to be present in the absence of an explicit finding that the individual agreement in question not only contains all the factors mentioned in article 85(1), but does not qualify for the exemption provided by article 85(3). So long as such a finding has not been made, every agreement duly notified must be considered valid. 3. It would be contrary to the general principle of legal certainty to conclude that, because agreements notified are not finally valid so long as the commission has made no decision on them under article 85(3) of the treaty, they are not completely efficacious. Where, however, article 15(6) of regulation no 17/62 has been applied, any parties who proceed with the implementation of such agreements do so at their own risk.

 
S.A. Portelange v S.A. Smith Corona Marchant International And Others. (Procedure ) R-10/69; [1969] EUECJ R-10/69
9 Jul 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-1/69; [1969] EUECJ C-1/69
9 Jul 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Claude Sayag And S.A. Zurich v Jean-Pierre Leduc, Denise Thonnon And S.A. La Concorde. R-9/69; [1969] EUECJ R-9/69
10 Jul 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Claude Sayag and S A Zurich v Jean-Pierre Leduc, Denise Thonnon and S A La Concorde (Judgment) C-9/69
10 Jul 1969
ECJ

European
Europa EAEC - non-contractual liability - compensation for damage caused by servants of the community in the performance of their duties - driving of a private car by a servant while on duty - activity in principle not included in the performance of the duties of such servant. (EAEC treaty, article 188). The performance of the duties of a servant of the community, within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 188 of the EAEC treaty, does not in principle include the use of his private car while on duty except in the case of force majeure or exceptional circumstances of such overriding importance that without the servant's using private means of transport the community would have been unable to carry out the tasks entrusted to it.

 
Germany v Commission (Order) C-50/69; [1969] EUECJ C-50/69R
5 Oct 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Markus and Walsh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-14/69
15 Oct 1969
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Agriculture - processed products not covered by the treaty - trade arrangements - sugar confectionery and food preparations containing cocoa - customs duty bound under GATT - may include the additional duty which the community has reserved the right to charge (regulation no 160/66/eec of the council, article 16). By " customs duty...Bound under GATT " and in respect of tariff headings nos 17.04-c and 18.06-b appearing in schedule xl of annex b to the protocol to the general agreement on customs tariffs and trade embodying the results of the 1960-61 tariff conference, the first paragraph of article 16 of regulation no 160/66/eec of the council includes not only the 27% duty provided for by the aforementioned provisions of that protocol, but also the " additional duty on sugar " mentioned in footnote (a) to the said headings.

 
Wurttembergische Milchverwertung-Sudmilch AG v Salvatore Ugliola C-15/69; R-15/69; [1969] EUECJ R-15/69
15 Oct 1969
ECJ

European
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.
Regulation 38/64/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-16/69; [1969] EUECJ C-16/69
15 Oct 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Markus and Walsh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-14/69; [1969] EUECJ R-14/69
15 Oct 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rittweger v Commission (Judgment) C-33/68; [1969] EUECJ C-33/68
30 Oct 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Caisse de maladie des C F L "Entr'aide medicale" and Societe nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois v Compagnie belge d'assurances generales sur la vie et contre les accidents (Judgment) C-27/69
12 Nov 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Social security for migrant workers - community rules - persons entitled to benefit - concept (regulation no 3, article 4) 2. Social security for migrant workers - benefit payable under the legislation of one member state for an injury sustained in the territory of another state - subrogation of the institution liable for payment of benefit - connection between the injury sustained by the worker and his professional or trade activity not required (regulation no 3, article 52) 3. Social security for migrant workers - benefit payable under the legislation of one member state for injury sustained in the territory of another state - subrogation of the institution liable for payment of benefit - legal proceedings before the national court of that institution - conformity with the application of article 52 of regulation no 3. 4. Social security for migrant workers - benefit payable under the legislation of one member state in respect of an injury sustained in the territory of another state - purpose of article 52 of regulation no 3 - direct application of the first paragraph of that article - bilateral agreements within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 52 - function. 1. Regulation no 3 is applicable to any wage - earner or assimilated worker who finds himself in one of the situations involving international elements as provided for in the said regulation, as well as to his survivors. 2. The provisions of article 52 of regulation no 3 are applicable even when the injury sustained by the worker has no connection with his professional or trade activity. 3. Article 52 of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC is also applicable to cases in which the institution liable for payment of benefit commences proceedings before its national court. 4. The object of article 52 is to secure the recognition by each member state of any right of action pursued by the others in favour of the institution liable for payment of benefit acting against the third party liable, either by means of subrogation or any other legal method. The provisions of the first paragraph of article 52 are worded in peremptory terms and are capable of direct application. The sole function of bilateral agreements as referred to in the second paragraph of that article is to provide for their implementation, where necessary, without however rendering the direct effect of the provision in question subordinate to them.

 
Erich Stauder v City of Ulm - Sozialamt (Judgment) C-29/69
12 Nov 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Measures adopted by an institution - decision addressed to all member states - interpretation - criteria - consideration of different language versions of the measure in question (EEC treaty, article 189) 2. Community law - general principles - fundamental human rights included - respect for these ensured by the court. 1. When a single decision is addressed to all the member states the necessity for uniform application and accordingly for uniform interpretation makes it impossible to consider one version of the text in isolation but requires that it be interpreted on the basis of both the real intention of its author and the aim he seeks to achieve, and in the light in particular of the versions in all four languages. 2. The provision at issue contains nothing capable of prejudicing the fundamental human rights enshrined in the general principles of community law and protected by the court.

 
Erich Stauder v City Of Ulm Sozialamt. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) R-29/69; [1969] EUECJ R-29/69
12 Nov 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Caisse De Maladie Des C.F.L. 'Entr'Aide Medicale' And Societe Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Luxembourgeois v Compagnie Belge D'Assurances Generales Sur La Vie Et Contre Les Accidents. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-27/69; [1969] EUECJ R-27/69
12 Nov 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Judgment) C-45/64
19 Nov 1969
ECJ

European, Agriculture
1. Internal taxation - non-discrimination - potable spirits (EEC treaty, article 95) 2. Agriculture - potable spirits - not an agricultural product (regulation no 7) 3. Agriculture - establishment of the common market - exceptions - strict interpretation. 1. The taxation of potable spirits imported from one member state on the basis of a notional alcoholic content amounts to discrimination incompatible with article 95 of the EEC treaty. 2. As potable spirits are not agricultural products (regulation no 7(a) of 18 December 1959) they are not subject to the provisions of articles 39 to 46 of the treaty. 3. In agriculture the permitted derogations 3. In agriculture the permitted derogations from certain rules laid down for the establishment of the common market are exceptions and as such must be strictly interpreted.

 
Societa 'Eridania' Zuccherifici Nazionali And Others v Commission Of The European Communities Supported By Co. Pro. B. Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli And Others. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) C-18/68; [1969] EUECJ C-18/68
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission Of The European Communities v French Republic. (Member States Of The European Communities ) C-11/69; [1969] EUECJ C-11/69
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Giuseppe L V Grasselli v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-32/68; [1969] EUECJ C-32/68
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gustav Wonnerth v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-12/69; [1969] EUECJ C-12/69
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Judgment) C-6/69
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Member states of the European communities - exclusive powers - exercise derogating from the provisions of the treaties - conditions imposed by the treaties 2. Member states of the EEC - failure to fulfil an obligation arising from the treaty - finding by the commission - allegation that the commission has intervened in a sphere reserved to the member state concerned - lack of a legal basis for a binding measure - review by the court (EEC treaty, article 169) 3. Aids granted by states - rate of preferential rediscount for exports - granted for national products exported - nature of the aid (EEC treaty, article 92) 4. Member states of the EEC - unilateral actions authorized by the treaty as a precaution - necessity for rapid intervention by the community institutions. 5. Economic policy - balance of payments - sudden crisis - protective measures - nature of unilateral action - obligations of the member state concerned (EEC treaty, article 109) 6. Member states of the EEC - failure to fulfil an obligation arising from the treaty - reasoned opinion addressed by the commission to the member state concerned - submission based on the illegality of this opinion - inadmissibility (EEC treaty, article 109) 7. Adverse effect upon the conditions of competition - action by a member state of the ECSC - damaging effect - aid to undertakings in the coal and steel sector - concept - authorization by the commission - rate of preferential rediscount for exports - nature of aid within the meaning of article 67(2) of the ECSC treaty 8. Member states of the ECSC - failure to fulfil obligation arising from the treaty - finding by the commission - subject-matter (ECSC treaty, article 88) 9. Member states of the ECSC - failure to fulfil an obligation arising from the treaty - finding by the commission - action by the member state concerned - subject-matter - different from that of action for annulment under article 33 of the ECSC treaty (ECSC treaty, article 88). 1. In the exercise of their reserved powers, member states can derogate from the obligation imposed on them by the provisions of the European treaties only on the conditions laid down in the treaties themselves. 2. If in proceedings for failure by a state to fulfil an obligation, the state alleges that the decision which it has not honoured has been taken in a sphere which belongs exclusively to its own jurisdiction, the court must investigate this allegation even if the decision has become definitive. Such an investigation accords with a fundamental requirement of the legal system for should the allegation prove correct the decision would lack all legal basis in the community system. 3. A preferential rediscount rate for exports, granted by a state in favour only of national products exported and for the purpose of helping them to compete in other member states with products originating in the latter, constitutes an aid within the meaning of article 92 the observance of which it is the commission's task to ensure. 4. In the event of unilateral action by a state derogating from the provisions of the treaty but authorized by the treaty as a precaution, intervention by the community institutions as soon as possible meets a fundamental requirement for the functioning of the common market. 5. A state which takes advantage of the exceptional power contained in article 109(1) of the EEC treaty takes a unilateral measure of an exceptional and temporary nature which derogates from the provisions of the treaty. It follows from the very nature of such a measure that it involves for that state the obligation of informing the commission and the other member states immediately - or not later than when such measures enter into force - and of making express reference to this provision. 6. The reasoned opinion sent by the commission to a member state when it considers that this state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaty, constitutes the pre-litigious stage of a procedure which may lead to an action before the court of justice. The assessment of the validity of the action itself which the commission may bring before the court of justice under article 169. It is not therefore possible to plead only the illegality of the opinion. 7. The second subparagraph of article 67(2) of the ECSC treaty in providing for situations enabling the commission to authorize member states, in derogation from article 4, to grant aid, does not distinguish between aid specific to the coal and steel sector and aid which applies to it as the result of a general measure. A preferential rediscount rate for exports therefore constitutes aid which, within the meaning of article 67, must be authorized by the commission in so far as it concerns the coal and steel sector. 8. The sole objective of the commission's reasoned decision under article 88 of the ECSC treaty is to record the state's failure to fulfil a pre-existing obligation and to set a final time limit for it to comply therewith. 9. Although a state which is accused of failure to fulfil an obligation is entitled to dispute by means of the procedure of article 88 the new conditions of implementation which the decision has set it, such power cannot result in re-opening the question of the legality of the measure, which the state has not complied with, after the expiry of the period for bringing proceedings for annulment.

 
Theodorus Mulders v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-8/69; [1969] EUECJ C-8/69
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European
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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Societe 'Eridania' Zuccherifici Nazionali and others v Commission of the European Communities supported by Co Pro B - Cooperativa Produttori (Judgment) C-10/68
10 Dec 1969
ECJ

European
Europa 1. Measures adopted by an institution - application by an individual against a decision addressed to another person - decision of individual concern to him - criteria (EEC treaty, article 173) 2. Procedure - action for failure to act - measures referred to by article 173 of the EEC treaty - inadmissibility
1. The mere fact that a measure may exercise an influence on the competitive relationships existing on a particular market cannot suffice to allow any trader in any competitive relationship whatever with the addressee of the measure to be regarded as directly and individually concerned by that measure. Only the existence of specific circumstances may enable a person subject to community law and claiming that the measure affects his position on the market to bring proceedings under article 173. 2. The treaty provides, particularly in article 173, methods of recourse by which an allegedly illegal community measure may be disputed and if necessary annulled on the application of a duly qualified party. The party concerned who has requested the institution adopting the measure to revoke it cannot if the institution fails to act, bring such an omission before the court as being an illegal omission to deal with the matter. Such proceedings would amount to providing those concerned with a method of recourse parallel to that of article 173, which would not be subject to the conditions laid down by the treaty.
EEC Treaty 173

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.