

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. Â
		European - From: 1970 To: 1979 This page lists 1303 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Reinarz v Commission (Order) C-17/68 21 Jan 1970 ECJ European Â Van Eick v Commission (Judgment) C-13/69; [1970] EUECJ C-13/69 4 Feb 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-31/69; [1970] EUECJ C-31/69 17 Feb 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Oberelbe v Firma Paul G. Bollmann. (Eec ) R-40/69; [1970] EUECJ R-40/69 18 Feb 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Hamburg Oberelbe v Bollmann (Judgment) C-40/69 18 Feb 1970 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-38/69; [1970] EUECJ C-38/69 18 Feb 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-33/69; [1970] EUECJ C-33/69 4 Mar 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-7/69; [1970] EUECJ C-7/69 10 Mar 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bilger v Jehle (Judgment) C-43/69 18 Mar 1970 ECJ European Â Bundesknappschaft v Elisabeth Brock. (Measures Adopted By Community Institutions ) R-68/69; [1970] EUECJ R-68/69 14 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cafiero v Commission (Judgment) C-42/69; [1970] EUECJ C-42/69 14 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nebe v Commission (Judgment) C-24/69; [1970] EUECJ C-24/69 14 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bundesknappschaft v Brock (Judgment) C-68/69 14 Apr 1970 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-28/69; [1970] EUECJ C-28/69 15 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie D'Approvisionnement, De Transport and De Credit v Commission C-65/69; [1970] EUECJ C-65/69 16 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Francaise Commerciale and Financiere v Commission C-63/69; [1970] EUECJ C-63/69 16 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Francaise Commerciale and Financiere v Commission (Judgment) C-64/69; [1970] EUECJ C-64/69 16 Apr 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Judgment) C-77/69; [1970] EUECJ C-77/69 5 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Reinarz v Commission (Judgment) C-46/69; [1970] EUECJ C-46/69 13 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fournier v Commission (Judgment) C-39/69; [1970] EUECJ C-39/69 13 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fournier v Commission (Judgment) C-18/69; [1970] EUECJ C-18/69 13 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â X v Audit Board (Judgment) C-12/68 27 May 1970 ECJ European Â Peco v Commission (Judgment) C-36/69; [1970] EUECJ C-36/69 28 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lacroix v Commission (Judgment) C-30/68; [1970] EUECJ C-30/68 28 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Richez-Parise and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-19/69 28 May 1970 ECJ European Â Denise Richec-Parise And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-30/69; [1970] EUECJ C-30/69 28 May 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alcan v Commission (Judgment) C-69/69; [1970] EUECJ C-69/69 16 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Chanel v Cepeha (Order) C-31/68 16 Jun 1970 ECJ European Â Caisse De Compensation Pour Allocations Familiales Des Charbonnages Du Couchant De Mons v Di Bella (Judgment) C-3/70 17 Jun 1970 ECJ European Â Caisse De Compensation Pour Allocations Familiales Des Charbonnages Du Couchant De Mons v Francesca Di Bella, Widow Of Vincenzo Beninato. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-3/70; [1970] EUECJ R-3/70 17 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft (Common Customs Tariff ) R-72/69; [1970] EUECJ R-72/69 18 Jun 1970 ECJ European, Customs and Excise ECJ 1. The interpretation of one tariff heading in relation to another must, in a case of doubt, take into account both the function of the customs tariff in regard to the necessities of the systems of organization of the markets and its purely customs function. 2. The expression "manioc flours" within the meaning of article 1(d) of regulation no 19, read in conjunction with heading no 11.06 of the common customs tariff, mentioned in the annex to that regulation, refers to all farinaceous substances obtained from manioc roots, irrespective of the treatment which those roots may have undergone, where the product has a starch content in excess of 40 per cent. [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen v Waren-Import-Gesellschaft Krohn and Co. (Eec ) R-74/69; [1970] EUECJ R-74/69 18 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Bremen Freihafen v Krohn C-74/69 18 Jun 1970 ECJ European Â Firma H. Oehlmann and Co. v Hauptzollamt Muenster. (Agriculture ) R-73/69; [1970] EUECJ R-73/69 24 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Oehlmann and Co v Hauptzollamt Munster (Judgment) C-73/69 24 Jun 1970 ECJ European Â France v Commission (Judgment) C-47/69; [1970] EUECJ C-47/69 25 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Elz v Commission(Judgment) C-58/69; [1970] EUECJ C-58/69 25 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rochas v Bitsch (Judgment) C-1/70 30 Jun 1970 ECJ European Â Parfums Marcel Rochas Vertriebs-Gmbh v Helmut Bitsch. (Policy Of The Eec ) R-1/70; [1970] EUECJ R-1/70 30 Jun 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hake v Commission (Judgment) C-75/69; [1970] EUECJ C-75/69 8 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Algiso Brembati v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-71/69; [1970] EUECJ C-71/69 9 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Brembati v Commission (Judgment) C-59/69 9 Jul 1970 ECJ European Â Lampe v Commission (Judgment) C-35/69; [1970] EUECJ C-35/69 9 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Tortora v Commission (Judgment) C-32/69; [1970] EUECJ C-32/69 9 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Judgment) C-26/69; [1970] EUECJ C-26/69 9 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fiehn v Commission (Judgment) C-23/69; [1970] EUECJ C-23/69 9 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Borromeo v Commission (Judgment) C-6/70; [1970] EUECJ C-6/70 15 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Chuffart and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-60/69 15 Jul 1970 ECJ European Â Charles Chuffart And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-62/69; [1970] EUECJ C-62/69 15 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Boehringer Mannheim v Commission (Judgment) C-45/69; [1970] EUECJ C-45/69 15 Jul 1970 ECJ European europa In order to ensure legal certainty any limitation periods must be fixed in advance; the community legislature alone is competent to fix their duration and the detailed rules for their application. Respect for the rights of the defence requires that in its notice of complaint the commission shall set forth clearly albeit succinctly the essential facts on which it relies and that in the course of the administrative procedure it shall supply the other details which may be necessary for the defence of the persons concerned. The rights of the defence laid down by article 4 of regulation no 99 are respected if the decision does not allege that the persons concerned have committed infringements other than those referred to in the notice of complaints and only takes into consideration facts on which the persons concerned have had the opportunity of making known their views orally or in writing. If doubt arises as to whether communicating documents necessary for the defence of a party might be incompatible with the requirement to protect the business secrets of other undertakings, the commission may not refuse such communication without first consulting the latter. The preliminary nature of the minutes of the hearing submitted to the advisory committee on restrictive practices and monopolies and to the members of the commission may amount to a defect in the administrative procedure capable of vitiating the decision which results therefrom, on the ground of illegality, if the document is drawn up in such a way as to be misleading in a material respect. 4. A gentlemen's agreement constitutes a measure which may fall under the prohibition contained in article 85(1) if it contains clauses restricting competition in the common market within the meaning of that article and its clauses amount to a faithful expression of the joint intention of the parties. Article 15 of regulation no 17 does not limit the application of the sanction for which it makes provision merely to cases in which the infringement was committed deliberately. This consideration could only be taken into account for the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine. The penalties provided for, in article 15 of regulation no 17 are not in the nature of periodic penalty payments. Their object is to suppress illegal activity and to prevent its recurrence so that their application is not restricted to current infringements alone. The commission's power to impose penalties is in no way affected by the fact that the conduct constituting the infringement and its effects have ceased. For the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine, the gravity of the infringement is to be appraised by taking into account in particular the nature of the restrictions on competition, the number and size of the undertakings concerned, the respective proportions of the market controlled by them within the community and the situation of the market when the infringement was committed. The prior fixing of a maximum aggregate amount for a fine in relation to the seriousness of the danger which the agreement represented to competition and trade in the common market is not incompatible with the individual fixing of the penalty. The situation, the individual conduct of each undertaking and the importance of the role which it played in the agreement may weigh in the individual assessment of the amount of the fine. [ Bailii ] Â Buchler and Co v Commission(Judgment) C-44/69; [1970] EUECJ C-44/69 15 Jul 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â ACF Chemiefarma v Commission; ECJ 15-Jul-1970 - C-41/69; [1970] EUECJ C-41/69 Â Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) C-9/70; R-9/70; [1970] EUECJ R-9/70; [1970] ECR 825 6 Oct 1970 ECJ European Europa It would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to decisions by article 189 to exclude in principle the possibility that persons affected may invoke the obligation imposed by a decision. Particularly in cases where, for example, the community authorities have by means of a decision imposed an obligation in a member state or all the member states to act in a certain way, the effectiveness ("l' effet utile") of such a measure would be weakened if the nationals of that state could not invoke it in the courts and the national courts could not take it into consideration as part of community law. Although the effects of a decision may not be identical with those of a provision contained in a regulation, this difference does not exclude the possibility that the end result, namely the right of the individual to invoke the measure before the courts, may be the same as that of a directly applicable provision of a regulation. Therefore, in each particular case, it must be ascertained whether the nature, background and wording of the provision in question, are capable of producing direct effects in the legal relationships between the addressee of the act and third parties. The second paragraph of article 4 of the council decision of 13 May 1965, which prohibits the member states from applying the common system of turnover tax concurrently with specific taxes levied instead of turnover tax, is capable, in conjunction with the provisions of the council directives of 11 april 1967 and 9 december 1969, of producing direct effects in the legal relationships between the member states to which the decision is addressed and those subject to their jurisdiction and of creating for the latter the right to invoke these provisions before the courts. Europa The prohibition on applying the common system of turnover tax concurrently with specific taxes becomes effective on the date laid down in the third council directive of 9 Dec 1969, namely on 1 Jan 1972. Whilst the second paragraph of article 4 of the decision of 13 May 1965 provides for the abolition of " specific taxes " in order to ensure a common and consistent system of taxation of turnover, this objective does not prohibit the imposition on transport services of other taxes which are of a different nature and have aims different from those pursued by the common system of turnover tax. A tax which is not imposed on commercial transactions but merely because goods are carried by road and the basis of assessment of which is not consideration for a service but the physical load expressed in metric tons/kilometres to which the roads are subjected by the activity taxed, does not correspond to the usual form of turnover tax within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 4 of the decision of 13 May 1965. It is not for the court, in the procedure laid down by article 177 of the eec treaty, to assess, from the point of view of community law, the features of a measure adopted by one of the member states . On the other hand it is within its jurisdiction to interpret the relevant provision of community law in order to enable the national court to apply it correctly to the measure in question. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hake v Commission (Order) C-75/69 21 Oct 1970 ECJ European Â Haselhorst v Finanzamt Dusseldorf (Judgment) C-23/70 21 Oct 1970 ECJ European Â Transports Lesage and Cie Sa v Hauptzollamt Freiburg. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) R-20/70; [1970] EUECJ R-20/70 21 Oct 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Erich Haselhorst v Finanzamt Duesseldorf-Altstadt. (Measures Adopted By An Institution ) R-23/70; [1970] EUECJ R-23/70 21 Oct 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Transports Lesage and Cie v Hauptzollamt Freiburg (Judgment) C-20/70 21 Oct 1970 ECJ European Â Paul Craeynest And Michel Vandewalle v Belgian State. R-12/70; [1970] EUECJ R-12/70 22 Oct 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Craeynest and Others v Belgian State (Judgment) C-12/70 22 Oct 1970 ECJ European Â Necomout v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten and Others (Judgment) C-16/70 28 Oct 1970 ECJ European Â Cooperatieve Vereniging 'Necomout' Ga v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten And Produktschap Voor Granen, Zaden En Peulvruchten. R-16/70; [1970] EUECJ R-16/70 28 Oct 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Koninklijke Lassie Fabrieken Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten Et Produktschap Voor Granen, Zaden En Peulvruchten. R-17/70; [1970] EUECJ R-17/70 28 Oct 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten and Others (Judgment) C-17/70 28 Oct 1970 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-8/70; [1970] EUECJ C-8/70 18 Nov 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Chevalley v Commission (Judgment) C-15/70; [1970] EUECJ C-15/70 18 Nov 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union Nationale Des Mutualites Socialistes v La Marca Stephanie. R-32/70; [1970] EUECJ R-32/70 1 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union Nationale Des Mutualites Socialistes v La Marca (Judgment) C-32/70 1 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Bakels Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen (Judgment) C-14/70 8 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Kommanditgesellschaft In Firma Otto Witt v Hauptzollamt Lueneburg. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-28/70; [1970] EUECJ R-28/70 8 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deutsche Bakels Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Muenchen. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-14/70; [1970] EUECJ R-14/70 8 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Witt v Hauptzollamt Luneburg (Judgment) C-28/70 8 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Edding and Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg St Annen C-27/70 10 Dec 1970 ECJ European Europa The normal price which constitutes the value for customs purposes is in principle the price actually paid for a specific item of goods at the time of sale in conditions of free competition; it is unnecessary to distinguish between the various means of transport even if the choice of one of them may appear unusual with regard to the goods in question. It includes the carriage and freight referred to in article 7 of regulation no 803/68. Unless exceptions are expressly laid down such costs are those actually incurred even where the choice of the means of transport seems unusual in relation to the goods in question and they result in fixing a normal price higher than the cif price for the same goods transported by a more usual means of transport. Â C. W. Edding and Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen. R-27/70; [1970] EUECJ R-27/70 10 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deutsche Getreide Und Futtermittel-Handelsgesellschaft Mbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Altona R-31/70; [1970] EUECJ R-31/70 15 Dec 1970 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ 1. Levies are derived from the treaty and not from national law and are simultaneously applicable in all the member states; they act as regulators of the market within the framework of a common organization and are calculated on the basis of weighted values and having regard to standard qualities; they are therefore standard charges which do not take account of the individual characteristics of the products imported. Products of lower quality than the standard quality are therefore subject to the general levy in the same way as products of higher quality. 2. Products which have suffered damage before being imported and which have therefore lost some value may in spite of this loss in value affect the agricultural market in the same way as other products which were of a lower quality than the standard quality from the start and which are however subject to the general levy. The reasons why the condition of impaired goods is below the standard quality do not affect the grounds which justify the application of the general levy to them. [ Bailii ] Â Deutsche Getreide- Und Futtermittel Handelsgesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Altona (Judgment) C-31/70 15 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Francesco Cinzano and Cia Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Saarbruecken. R-13/70; [1970] EUECJ R-13/70 16 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Getreide-Import Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-36/70; [1970] EUECJ R-36/70 16 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Getreide Import Gmbh v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-36/70 16 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Prelle v Commission (Judgment) C-5/70; [1970] EUECJ C-5/70 16 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cinzano and Cia Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Saarbrucken (Judgment) C-13/70 16 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel v Koster Et Berodt and Co. (Agriculture ) R-25/70; [1970] EUECJ R-25/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Manpower v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie De Strasbourg C-35/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Syndicat National Du Commerce Exterieur Des Cereales and Others v O N I C (Judgment) C-34/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Spa Sace v Ministero Delle Finanze (Judgment) C-33/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel v Guenther Henck. R-26/70; [1970] EUECJ R-26/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Scheer v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-30/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Spa Sace v Finance Minister Of The Italian Republic. (Free Movement Of Goods ) R-33/70; [1970] EUECJ R-33/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel v Koster C-25/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European Â Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Mbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Measures Adopted By Institutions ) C-11/70; R-11/70; [1970] EUECJ R-11/70; [1970] EUECJ C-11/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European, Constitutional 1. The validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the community can only be judged in the light of community law. The law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national law, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called in question. Therefore the validity of a community measure or its effct within a member state cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the principles of its constitutional structure. 2. Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the court of justice. The protection of such rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the member states, must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the community. 3. The requirement by the agricultural regulations of the community of import and export licences involving for the licensees an undertaking to effect the proposed transactions under the guarantee of a deposit constitutes a method which is both necessary and appropriate, for the purposes of articles 40 (3) and 43 of the EEC Treaty, to enable the competent authorities to determine in the most effective manner their interventions on the market in cereals. The system of deposits violates no fundamental right. 4. The concept of force majeure adopted by the agricultural regulations is not limited to absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of unusual circumstances, outside the control of the importer or exporter, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice. 5. By limiting the cancellation of the undertaking to export and the release of the deposit to cases of force majeure the community legislature adopted a provision which, without imposing an undue burden on importers or exporters, is appropriate for ensuring the normal functioning of the organization of the market in cereals, in the general interest as defined in article 39 of the Treaty. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Otto Scheer v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-30/70; [1970] EUECJ R-30/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel v Gunther Henckk C-26/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa Agriculture - common organization of the markets - cereals - export licences - refund fixed in advance - deposit - amount - fixing such amount (Regulation no 102/64 of the commission, article 7) Â Syndicat National Du Commerce Exterieur Des Cereales And Others v Office National Interprofessionnel Des Cereales And Minister For Agriculture. (Agriculture ) R-34/70; [1970] EUECJ R-34/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â S.A.R.L. Manpower v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie De Strasbourg. R-35/70; [1970] EUECJ R-35/70 17 Dec 1970 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rittweger v Commission (Judgment) C-21/70; [1971] EUECJ C-21/70 3 Feb 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Norddeutsches Vieh Und Fleischkontor Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen. (Regulation ) R-39/70; [1971] EUECJ R-39/70 11 Feb 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Norddeutsches Vieh- Und Fleischkontor v Hauptzollamt Hamburg St Annen C-39/70 11 Feb 1971 ECJ European Europa The uniform application of community provisions allows no recourse to national rules except to the extent necessary to carry out the regulations. Where community rules introducing a special system for imports lay down all the conditions for the applicability of the system as well as the arrangements for security and supervision designed to prevent fraud, national authorities may not subject the importers to whom the special system applies to additional requirementsarising under national law, in particular where such requirements are incompatible with the criteria on which the community rules are based; the position is the same where the applicability of such a special system is made dependent upon a subjective assessment on the part of the national authority. Â Lutticke v Hauptzollamt Passau (Judgment) C-51/70 3 Mar 1971 ECJ European Â Acciaierie E Ferriere Riva v Commission C-2/70; [1971] EUECJ C-2/70 3 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alfons Luetticke Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Passau. R-51/70; [1971] EUECJ R-51/70 3 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deutsche Tradax Gmbh v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-38/70 10 Mar 1971 ECJ European Â Deutsche Tradax Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-38/70; [1971] EUECJ R-38/70 10 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Continentale (France) Sa And Compagnie Continentale D'Importation (Hollande) Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten And Produktschap Voor Granen, Zaden En Peulvruchten. R-58/70; [1971] EUECJ R-58/70 10 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bernardi v Parliament (Judgment) C-48/70; [1971] EUECJ C-48/70 16 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Feram v Commission (Judgment) C-70/69; [1971] EUECJ C-70/69 16 Mar 1971 ECJ European 1. The recommendations drawn up by the council upon the giving of an assent cannot have the effect of restricting or modifying the express powers conferred by the decision which is the subject of that assent. The legality of decisions taken in implementation of a general decision which has been the subject of an assent can therefore be examined only on the basis of the actual provisions of that general decision. 2. The inevitable and inherent disadvantages in the equalization scheme which, of its nature, necessitates a posteriori calculations for the fixing of the rate do not constitute damage giving a right to compensation. 3. The existence of frauds does not alone suffice to prove that the administration has failed in its duty of supervision and consequently is guilty of a wrongful act or omission. [ Bailii ] Â Simet v Commission (Judgment) C-67/69; [1971] EUECJ C-67/69 16 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marcato v Commission (Judgment) C-29/70; [1971] EUECJ C-29/70 17 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kschwendt v Commission (Judgment) C-47/70; [1971] EUECJ C-47/70 17 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Council (Judgment) C-22/70; [1971] EUECJ C-22/70 31 Mar 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rabe v Commission (Judgment) C-76/69; [1971] EUECJ C-76/69 1 Apr 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Landra v Commission (Judgment) C-54/70; [1971] EUECJ C-54/70 1 Apr 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lutticke v Commission (Judgment) C-4/69; [1971] EUECJ C-4/69 28 Apr 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cadillon v Hoss (Judgment) C-1/71 6 May 1971 ECJ European Â Societe Anonyme Cadillon v Firma Hoss, Maschinenbau Kg R-1/71; [1971] EUECJ R-1/71 6 May 1971 ECJ European Competition [ Bailii ] Â Â Blackburn v Attorney-General; CA 10-May-1971 - [1971] 2 All ER 1380; [1971] 1 WLR 1037; [1971] EWCA Civ 7; [1971] CMLR 784 Â X v Commission (Order) C-1/71; [1971] EUECJ C-1/71 11 May 1971 ECJ European Europa By application of 21 april 1971, a limited company, requests the court for authorization to serve an attachment order in respect of sums owed by the commission of the european communities to mrs z, an official in the service of the commission, as security for a principal sum of... And... Costs and interest, which the said mrs z was required to pay by an order of the... Magistrate. It must first be examined whether such an authorization is necessary. Under article 1 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the european communities, the property and assets of the communities shall not be the subject of any administrative or legal measure of constraint without the authorization of the court. The aim of this provision is to prevent obstacles being placed in the way of the functioning and independence of the communities. An attachment order can only in certain circumstances constitute such an obstacle. The authorization to serve an attachment order can arise only through the existence of privileges and immunities of the european communities to be taken into consideration in the course of proceedings which for the rest are entirely decided by the laws of the member states. The legal protection which this authorization is intended to give would exceed its aim if a third party, being an institution, which has an attachment order served upon it considers that it has no grounds for opposing a requirement to pay into the hands of a creditor of one of its officials all or part of the sums which it owes or will owe to the latter. On the other hand, if the institution were opposed to being served with an attachment order or were to take the view subsequently that it should oppose the proceedings to obtain the order or the execution of the order, it would fall to the court to decide the matter on application by the parties. [ Bailii ] Â Reinarz v Commission (Judgment) C-55/70; [1971] EUECJ C-55/70 12 May 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nagels v Commission (Judgment) C-52/70; [1971] EUECJ C-52/70 12 May 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wunsche v Hauptzollamt Ludwigshafen (Judgment) C-76/70 12 May 1971 ECJ European Â Ludwig Wuensche and Co. v Hauptzollamt Ludwigshafen/Rhein. (Agriculture ) R-76/70; [1971] EUECJ R-76/70 12 May 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â International Fruit Company and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-41/70 13 May 1971 ECJ European Â Nv International Fruit Company And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Procedure ) C-44/70; [1971] EUECJ C-44/70 13 May 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State C-80/70; R-80/70; [1971] EUECJ R-80/70; [1974] 1 CMLR 494; [1971] ECR 445 25 May 1971 ECJ European, Discrimination, Benefits ECJ The concept of pay as defined in article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not include social security schemes or benefits directly governed by legislation without any element of agreement within the undertaking or the occupational branch concerned, which are obligatorily applicable to general categories of workers or which, within the framework of such a general system established by legislation, relate to certain categories of workers in particular. This applies especially to retirement pension schemes which give workers the benefit of a legal system, the financing of which, workers, employers and possibly the public authorities contribute in a measure determined less by the employment relationship between the employer and the worker than by considerations of social policy. The part due from the employer in the financing of such schemes does not constitute a direct or indirect payment to the worker; the latter receives the benefits legally prescribed solely by reason of the fact that he fulfils the legal conditions required for their being granted. Situations involving discrimination resulting from the application of such a scheme are not subject to the requirements of article 119. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft Mbh v Metro-Sb-Grossmarkte Gmbh and Co Kg C-78/70; R-78/70; [1971] EUECJ R-78/70; [1971] ECR 487 8 Jun 1971 ECJ European, Intellectual Property ECJ Under article 177 of the court, when giving a preliminary ruling, is entitled only to pronounce on the interpretation of the treaty and of acts of the institutions of the community or on their validity but may not, on the basis of that article, give judgment on the interpretation of a provision of national law. It may however extract from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court those matters only which pertain to the interpretation of the treaty, taking into account the facts communicated by the said court. The second paragraph of article 5 of the eec treaty lays down a general duty for the member states, the actual tenor of which depends in each individual case on the provisions of the treaty or on the rules derived from its general scheme. The exercise of an industrial property right falls under the prohibition set out in article 85 (1) of the treaty each time it manifests itself as the subject, the means or the result of an agreement which, by preventing imports from other member states of products lawfully distributed there, has as its effect the partitioning of the market. The provisions of article 36 of the treaty may be relevant to a right related to copyright, in the same way as to an industrial or commercial property right. It is clear from article 36 that, although the treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the legislation of a member state with regard to industrial and commercial property, the exercise of such rights may nevertheless fall within the prohibitions laid down by the treaty. Article 36 only admits derogations from the free movement of products in order to protect industrial and commercial property to the extent to which such derogations are justified for the purpose of safeguarding rights which constitute the specific matter of such property. It is in conflict with the rules providing for the free movement of products within the common market for the holder of a legally recognized exclusive right of distribution to prohibit the sale on the national territory of products placed by him or with his consent on the market of another member state on the ground that such distribution did not occur within the national territory. Such a prohibition, which could legitimize the isolation of national markets, would be repugnant to the essential purpose of the treaty, which is to unite national markets into a single market. The holder of a legally recognized exclusive right of distribution does not occupy a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty merely by exercising that right. It is necessary that the holder, alone or jointly with other undertakings in the same group, should have the power to impede the maintenance of effective competition over a considerable part of the relevant market, having regard in particular to the existence of any producers marketing similar products and to their position on the market. The difference between the controlled price and the price of the product reimported from another member state does not necessarily suffice to disclose an abuse of a dominant position; it may, however, if unjustified by any objective criteria and if it is particularly marked, be a determining factor in such abuse. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Prelle v Commission (Judgment) C-77/70; [1971] EUECJ C-77/70 16 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fritc-August Bode And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-75/70; [1971] EUECJ C-75/70 16 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Durrafour v Council (Judgment) C-18/70; [1971] EUECJ C-18/70 16 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bode and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-63/70 16 Jun 1971 ECJ European Â Vistosi v Commission (Judgment) C-61/70; [1971] EUECJ C-61/70 16 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gebrueder Bagusat v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. R-3/71; [1971] EUECJ R-3/71 17 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bagusat v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof (Judgment) C-3/71 17 Jun 1971 ECJ European Â Vinck v Commission (Judgment) C-53/70; [1971] EUECJ C-53/70 24 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Almini v Commission (Judgment) C-19/70; [1971] EUECJ C-19/70 30 Jun 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Commission (Judgment) C-2/71; [1971] EUECJ C-2/71 6 Jul 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Netherlands v Commission C-59/70 [1971] EUECJ C-59/70 6 Jul 1971 ECJ European ECJ 1. It follows from the common purpose of articles 33 and 35 that the requirements of legal certainty and of the continuity of community action underlying the time-limits for bringing proceedings laid down in article 33 must also be taken into account - having regard to the special difficulties which the silence of the competent authorities may involve for the interested parties - in the exercise of the rights conferred by article 35. Where the commission fails to act the interested parties are therefore bound to raise the matter with the commission within a reasonable period. This is so a fortiori once it is clear that the commission has decided to take no action. 2. The duty of cooperation imposed on member states by articles 86 must prompt a member state which considers that a measure adopted by another member state is contrary to the treaty to resort to the procedures or means of legal action placed at its disposal by the treaty in sufficient time to ensure that effective intervention is still possible and that the position of third parties is not needlessly called in issue. [ Bailii ] Â Mullers v ESC C-79/70; [1971] EUECJ C-79/70 7 Jul 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deutscher Komponistenverband v Commission (Judgment) C-8/71; [1971] EUECJ C-8/71 13 Jul 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Henck v Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Judgment) C-13/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European Â Henck v Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Judgment) C-12/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European Â Ministere public luxembourgeois v Madeleine Muller, Veuve J.P. Hein and others. (Judgment) C-10/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European In applying article 177 of the Treaty the court is not competent to decide questions of compatibility of a provision of national law with community law. It can, however, infer from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court, in the light of the facts as found by the latter, the matters involving interpretation of the treaty. An undertaking which enjoys certain privileges for the accomplishment of tasks entrusted to it by law, maintaining for this purpose close links with the public authorities, and which is responsible for ensuring the navigability of the state' s most important waterway, may fall under article 90(2) of the EEC treaty. The application of article 90(2) involves an appraisal of the requirements, on the one hand, of the particular task entrusted to the undertaking concerned and, on the other hand, the protection of the interests of the community. This appraisal depends on the objectives of general economic policy pursued by the states under the supervision of the commission. Consequently, and without prejudice to the exercise by the commission of the powers conferred by article 90(3), article 90(2) cannot create individual rights which the national courts must protect. Â Henck v Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Judgment) C-14/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European Â Rheinmuhlen Dusseldorf v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Order) C-6/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European Â Guenther Henck v Hauptzollamt Emmerich. (Procedure) R-12/71; [1971] EUECJ R-12/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Guenther Henck v Hauptzollamt Emmerich. (Procedure ) R-13/71; [1971] EUECJ R-13/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ministere Public Luxembourgeois v Madeleine Muller, Veuve J.P. Hein And Others. (Procedure ) R-10/71; [1971] EUECJ R-10/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Guenther Henck v Hauptzollamt Emmerich. R-14/71; [1971] EUECJ R-14/71 14 Jul 1971 ECJ European (Procedure) [ Bailii ] Â Gema v Commission (Order) C-45/71; [1971] EUECJ C-45/71R 18 Aug 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mackprang v Commission (Judgment) C-15/71; [1971] EUECJ C-15/71 26 Oct 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Eunomia Di Porro E -c- v Ministry Of Education Of The Italian Republic. R-18/71; [1971] EUECJ R-18/71 26 Oct 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Eunomia Di Porro E C (Judgment) C-18/71 26 Oct 1971 ECJ European Â Janssen v Landsbond Der Christelijke Mutualiteiten (Judgment) C-23/71 27 Oct 1971 ECJ European Â Rheinmuehlen Duesseldorf v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-6/71; [1971] EUECJ R-6/71 27 Oct 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Michel Janssen v Landsbond Der Christelijke Mutualiteiten. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-23/71; [1971] EUECJ R-23/71 27 Oct 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rheinmuhlen Dusseldorf v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-6/71 27 Oct 1971 ECJ European Â Keller v Caisse D'Assurance Vieillesse De Strasbourg (Judgment) C-27/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ European Â Hohn v Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg R-28/71; [1971] EUECJ R-28/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ European, Benefits 1. Where the legislation of a member state provides for old-age benefits of different kinds, depending on the length of time for which the worker concerned has been affiliated, insurance periods completed successively or alternatively in two or more member states must be aggregated wherever the worker has not completed the number of periods necessary under the legislation of the first state to entitle him to benefit of the more advantageous kind. 2. Where aggregation is necessary, for the purpose of calculating the fraction of the benefit to be borne by the relevant institution, account must be taken of the periods in fact completed by the worker concerned, and not merely those representing the total required in the state in question for entitlement to full benefit. [ Bailii ] Â Gross v Caisse D'Assurance Vieillesse De Strasbourg (Judgment) C-26/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ European Â Hohn v Caisse D'Assurance Vieillesse De Strasbourg (Judgment) C-28/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ European Â Bock v Commission (Judgment) C-62/70; [1971] EUECJ C-62/70 23 Nov 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kurt Siemers and Co. v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-30/71; [1971] EUECJ R-30/71 24 Nov 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Siemers and Co v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall (Judgment) C-30/71 24 Nov 1971 ECJ European Â Beguelin Import v G L Import Export (Judgment) C-22/71 25 Nov 1971 ECJ European Â Beguelin Import Co. v S.A.G.L. Import Export. (Competition ) R-22/71; [1971] EUECJ R-22/71 25 Nov 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council (Judgment) C-5/71; [1971] EUECJ C-5/71 2 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Politi v Ministero Delle Finanze (Judgment) C-43/71 14 Dec 1971 ECJ European Â Politi S.A.S. v Ministry For Finance Of The Italian Republic. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-43/71; [1971] EUECJ R-43/71 14 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Judgment) C-7/71; [1971] EUECJ C-7/71 14 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Schleswig-Holsteinische Landwirtschaftliche Hauptgenossenschaft Egmbh v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe R-35/71; [1971] EUECJ R-35/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ 1. The concept "day of importation", which is conclusive for the purposes of the application of the levy scheme must have the same meaning in all the member states, since otherwise there is a danger that different rates of levy would be applied to goods which are in the same situation economically at the same date and the introduction of which into the territory of the member states has comparable effects on the market in agricultural products. This meaning is to be inferred from the purpose of the levy system. 2. The levies are mainly intended to protect and stabilize the community market, in particular by preventing fluctuations in world market prices from having repercussions within the community. This aim is best achieved if the levy is fixed on the basis of the date from which the imported goods exercise an influence on the internal market of the community, that is to say, the date on which they finally reach this market and enter into competition with domestic products. The rate of levy applicable must therefore be that in force on the date on which the goods are irrevocably put into free circulation. 3. As regards goods which are stored in deferred levy warehouses (abschoepfungsaufschublager) article 15 of regulation no 120/67 of the council of the european communities must be interpreted as meaning that the day of importation or of the effecting of the importation is the day on which the goods are removed from the warehouse, which implies that they are irrevocably put into free circulation. It is for the legislation of the individual member states to stipulate in detail what factual circumstances or what customs formalities fulfil these conditions. 4. Where goods in respect of which a levy fixed in advance are not removed from store until after the expiry of the period of validity of the import licence, the rate of levy applicable on the date of removal from store must be applied. [ Bailii ] Â Heinrich P. Brodersen Nachf., Gmbh and Co. Kg, v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-21/71; [1971] EUECJ R-21/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gervais-Danone Ag v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Schwanthalerstrasse. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-77/71; [1971] EUECJ R-77/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â International Fruit Company Nv And Others v Produktschap Voor Groenten En Fruit. (Member States ) R-54/71; [1971] EUECJ R-54/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gervais-Danone AG v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Schwanthalerstrasse C-77/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa Common customs tariff - description of goods - interpretation - absence of community provisions - authority of explanatory notes and classification opinions of the convention on the Brussels nomenclature. Common customs tariff - description of goods - classification of a product under tariff heading 21.07 - regulation no 241/70 of the commission - legislative nature - no retroactive effect. Common customs tariff - description of goods - classification of a product under tariff heading 21.04 - criteria - discretion of the national court (regulation no 950/68 of the council). Common customs tariff - entry into force - no effect on the binding customs tariff notices within the meaning of article 23 of the German Zollgesetz (regulation no 950/68 of the council, article 1) Â International Fruit Company and Others v Produktschap Voor Groenten En Fruit (Judgment) C-51/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European Â Brodersen Gmbh and Co Kg v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-21/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European Â Tontodonati v Commission (Judgment) C-17/71; [1971] EUECJ C-17/71 15 Dec 1971 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Westzucker Gmbh And Gebrueder Dietz v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. (Agriculture ) R-39/71; [1972] EUECJ R-39/71 26 Jan 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Westzucker Gmbh and Others v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten (Judgment) C-38/71 26 Jan 1972 ECJ European Â Wunsche v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-50/71 1 Feb 1972 ECJ European Â Hagen Ohg v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-49/71 1 Feb 1972 ECJ European Â Hagen Ogh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Community Law ) R-49/71; [1972] EUECJ R-49/71 1 Feb 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wuensche Ohg v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Community Law ) R-50/71; [1972] EUECJ R-50/71 1 Feb 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Richez-Parise v Commission (Judgment) C-40/71; [1972] EUECJ C-40/71 17 Feb 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marimex v Ministero Delle Finanze (Judgment) C-84/71 7 Mar 1972 ECJ European Â Spa Marimex v Ministero Delle Finanze. (Measures Adopted By Institutions ) R-84/71; [1972] EUECJ R-84/71 7 Mar 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nordgetreide Gmbh and Co v Commission C-42/71; [1972] EUECJ C-42/71 8 Mar 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â S.A.I.L. (Rec.1972,p.119) (DK1972/00043 P 1972/00059) (Judgment) 82/71 21 Mar 1972 ECJ European Â Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company v Commission (Order) C-6/72; [1972] EUECJ C-6/72R; [1973] EUECJ C-6/72; [1975] EUECJ C-6/72 21 Mar 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ministere Public De La Italian Republic v Societa Agricola Industria Latte (Sail). (Questions Referred For A Preliminary Ruling ) R-82/71; [1972] EUECJ R-82/71 21 Mar 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ministere public de la Italian Republic v Societa agricola industria latte (SAIL) Europa, 21 March 1972; C-82/71 21 Mar 1972 ECJ European Â Â Costacurta v Commission (Judgment); ECJ 22-Mar-1972 - C-78/71; [1972] EUECJ C-78/71 Â Adalgisa Merluzzi v Caisse Primaire Centrale D'Assurance Maladie De La Region Parisienne. (Request For A Preliminary Ruling ) R-80/71; [1972] EUECJ R-80/71 22 Mar 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Merluzzi v Caisse Maladie Paris (Judgment) C-80/71 22 Mar 1972 ECJ European Â Â Guenter Henck v Hauptzollamt Emden. (Common Customs Tariff ); ECJ 23-Mar-1972 - R-36/71; [1972] EUECJ R-36/71 Â E. Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-85/71; [1972] EUECJ R-85/71 23 Mar 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Henck v Hauptzollamt Emden (Judgment) C-36/71 23 Mar 1972 ECJ European Â Â Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr-Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel; ECJ 23-Mar-1972 - C-85/71 Â Interfood Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Ericus (Judgment) C-92/71 26 Apr 1972 ECJ European Â Interfood Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus. (Agriculture ) R-92/71; [1972] EUECJ R-92/71 26 Apr 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Haan v Commission (Judgment) C-33/71; [1972] EUECJ C-33/71 3 May 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Meinhardt v Commission (Judgment) C-24/71; [1972] EUECJ C-24/71 17 May 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Leonensio v Minstero Dell' Agricoltura E Foreste (Judgment) C-93/71 17 May 1972 ECJ European Â Â Leonesio v Ministero Della Agricoltura E Foreste; ECJ 17-May-1972 - [1972] ECR 287; R-93/71; [1972] EUECJ R-93/71 Â Murru v Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie De Paris (Judgment) C-2/72 6 Jun 1972 ECJ European Â Salvatore Murru v Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie De Paris. R-2/72; [1972] EUECJ R-2/72 6 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Schluter and Maack v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Jonas (Judgment) C-94/71 6 Jun 1972 ECJ European Â Bertoni v Parliament (Judgment) C-20/71; [1972] EUECJ C-20/71 7 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bauduin v Commission (Judgment) C-32/71; [1972] EUECJ C-32/71 7 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Brandau v Council (Judgment) C-46/71; [1972] EUECJ C-46/71 7 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie D'Approvisionnement, De Transport Et De Credit Sa And Grands Moulins De Paris Sa v Commission Of The European Communities. (Procedure ) C-11/71; [1972] EUECJ C-11/71 13 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie D'Approvisionnement, De Transport and De Credit and Others v Commission C-9/71 13 Jun 1972 ECJ European Â Marcato v Commission (Judgment) C-44/71; [1972] EUECJ C-44/71 14 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Grassi v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato (Judgment) C-5/72 15 Jun 1972 ECJ European Â Â Fratelli Grassi Fu Davide v Italian Finance Administration. (Questions Referred To The Court For A Preliminary Ruling); ECJ 15-Jun-1972 - R-5/72; [1972] EUECJ R-5/72; (1973) 12 CMLR 335 Â Rita Frilli v Belgian State. (Preliminary Questions ) R-1/72; [1972] EUECJ R-1/72 22 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Frilli v Belgian State (Judgment) C-1/72 22 Jun 1972 ECJ European Â Jamet v Commission (Judgment) C-37/71; [1972] EUECJ C-37/71; [1973] EUECJ C-37/71R 28 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Brasseur v Parliament (Judgment) C-88/71; [1972] EUECJ C-88/71 28 Jun 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bernardi v Parliament (Judgment) C-90/71; [1972] EUECJ C-90/71 13 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-48/71; [1972] EUECJ C-48/71 13 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Maric-Josee Besnard And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-95/71; [1972] EUECJ C-95/71 13 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Besnard and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-55/71 13 Jul 1972 ECJ European Â Heinemann v Commission (Judgment) C-79/71; [1972] EUECJ C-79/71 13 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vellozzi v Commission (Judgment) C-29/71; [1972] EUECJ C-29/71 13 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bayer Ag v Commission (Judgment) C-51/69; [1972] EUECJ C-51/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Badische Anilin- and Soda-Fabrik AG (BASF) v Commission of the European Communities. C-49/69; [1972] EUECJ C-49/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European Europa The notice of objections is the measure stating the final attitude of the commission concerning undertakings against which proceedings for infringement of the rules on competition have been commenced. In order to protect the rights of the defence during the course of the administrative procedure, those concerned must be informed of the essential elements of fact on which the objections are based without its being necessary for the contents of the file to be made available in their entirety. Article 9(2) of regulation no 99/63 which provides that undertakings may be represented only by a duly authorized agent appointed from among their permanent staff or by legal representatives or representatives authorized by their constitution, is justified by the fact that as a general rule those persons are the best-informed as to the facts and technical or economic aspects of their undertaking' s actions which may be of decisive importance in applying the rules on competition. A measure adopted by an institution must set out clearly and coherently the essential elements of fact and law on which it is based. In order to fulfil their function, limitation periods must be fixed in advance. Although the provisions governing the commission' s power to impose fines in cases where community rules have been infringed do not lay down any period of limitation, the fundamental requirement of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its power to impose fines. By its very nature, a concerted practice does not have all the elements of a contract but may inter alia arise out of coordination, which becomes apparent from the behaviour of the participants. Although parallel behaviour may not by itself be identified with a concerted practice, it may however amount to strong evidence of such a practice if it leads to conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market, having regard to the nature of the products, the size and number of the undertakings, and the volume of the said market. This is especially the case if the parallel conduct is such as to enable those concerned to attempt to stabilize prices at a level different from that to which competition would have led, and to consolidate established positions to the detriment of effective freedom of movement of the products in the common market and of the freedom of consumers to choose their suppliers. The function of price competition is to keep prices down to the lowest possible level and to encourage the movement of goods between the member states, thereby permitting the most efficient possible distribution of activities in the matter of productivity and the capacity of undertakings to adapt themselves to change. Independent and non-uniform conduct by undertakings in the common market encourages the pursuit of one of the basic objectives of the treaty, namely the interpenetration of national markets and, as a result, direct access by consumers to the sources of production of the whole community. Although every producer is free to change his prices, taking into account in so doing the present or foreseeable conduct of his competitors, nevertheless it is contrary to the rules on competition contained in the treaty for a producer to cooperate with his competitors, in any way whatsoever, in order to determine a coordinated course of action relating to price changes and to ensure its success by prior elimination of all uncertainty as to each other's conduct regarding the essential elements of that action, such as the amount, subject-matter, date and place of the changes. Article 15 of regulation no 17/62 does not limit the imposition of fines exclusively to cases of recurrence of infringements already found to have taken place and forbidden by the commission under article 3. [ Bailii ] Â Geigy Ag v Commission (Judgment) C-52/69; [1972] EUECJ C-52/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sandoz Ag v Commission (Judgment) C-53/69; [1972] EUECJ C-53/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Acna v Commission (Judgment) C-57/69; [1972] EUECJ C-57/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ici v Commission (Judgment) C-48/69; [1972] EUECJ C-48/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Francolor v Commission (Judgment) C-54/69; [1972] EUECJ C-54/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hoechst Ag v Commission (Judgment) C-56/69; [1972] EUECJ C-56/69 14 Jul 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Georg Brunner Kg v Hauptzollamt Hof; ECJ 4-Oct-1972 - C-9/72; R-9/72; [1972] EUECJ R-9/72 Â Vereeniging Van Cementhandelaren v Commission (Judgment) C-8/72; [1972] EUECJ C-8/72 17 Oct 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Haegemann v Commission (Judgment) C-96/71; [1972] EUECJ C-96/71 25 Oct 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vereenigde Oliefabrieken v Produktschap Voor Margarine, Vetten En Olien (Judgment) C-26/72 26 Oct 1972 ECJ European Â Nv Vereenigde Oliefabrieken v Produktschap Voor Margarine, Vetten En Olien. (Agriculture ) R-26/72; [1972] EUECJ R-26/72 26 Oct 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State v Nv Cobelex. R-20/72; [1972] EUECJ R-20/72 7 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State v Nv Cobelex (Judgment) C-20/72 7 Nov 1972 ECJ European Â Gesellschaft Fuer Getreidehandel Ag v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-17/72; [1972] EUECJ R-17/72 8 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gesellschaft Fur Getreidehandel v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-17/72 8 Nov 1972 ECJ European Â Jozef Aimer v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-27/72; [1972] EUECJ R-27/72 15 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Aimer v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-27/72 15 Nov 1972 ECJ European Â Ortskrankenkasse Hamburg v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schleswig-Holstein (Judgment) C-16/72 16 Nov 1972 ECJ European Europa The court has power to provide the national court with factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of a provision of national law. Article 2(1) of regulation no 3 also refers to prophylactic or remedial measures. The social security benefits which, although not related to the "earning capacity" of the insured person, are also awarded to the members of his family and are principally intended to aid the recovery of the invalid and to protect those who are in contact with him must be regarded as sickness benefits within the meaning of article 2(1)(a) of regulation no 3. For the purposes of acquiring a right to such benefits the aggregation of the affiliation periods completed in the various member states is governed by article 16 et seq. Of regulation no 3. For the purpose of acquiring a right to social security benefits, social security organizations in the member states are not bound to take into account affiliation periods completed in third countries. Â Land Niedersachsen v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover (Judgment) C-15/72 16 Nov 1972 ECJ European Europa The court has power to provide the national court with factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of a provision of national law. Article 2 (1) of regulation no 3 also refers to prophylactic or remedial measures. The social security benefits which, although not related to the " earning capacity " of the insured person, are also awarded to the members of his family and are principally intended to aid the recovery of the invalid and to protect those who are in contact with him must be regarded as sickness benefits within meaning of article 2(1)(a) for the purpose of acquiring a right to such benefits the aggregation of the affiliation periods completed in the various member states is governed by article 16 et seq. Of regulation no 3. Â Â Heinze v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz; ECJ 16-Nov-1972 - C-14/72 Â Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Hamburg v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schleswig-Holstein. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-16/72; [1972] EUECJ R-16/72 16 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Helmut Heinze v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz R-14/72; [1972] EUECJ R-14/72 16 Nov 1972 ECJ European Europa The court has power to provide the national court with factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of a provision of national law. article 2(1) of regulation no 3 also refers to prophylactic or remedial measures. the social security benefits which, although not related to the " earning capacity " of the insured person, are also awarded to the member of his family and are principally intended to aid the recovery of the invalid and to protect those who are in contact with him must be regarded as sickness benefits within the meaning of article 21)a) of regulation no 3. for the purposes of acquiring a right to such benefits, the aggregation of the affiliation periods completed in the various member states is governed by article 16 et seq. Of regulation no 3. [ Bailii ] Â Thomik v Commission (Judgment) C-19/72; [1972] EUECJ C-19/72 22 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nv Granaria Graaninkoopmaatschappij v Produktschap Voor Veevoeder. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-18/72; [1972] EUECJ R-18/72 30 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Granaria v Produktschap Voor Veevoeder (Judgment) C-18/72 30 Nov 1972 ECJ European Â Wasaknacke Knackebrotfabrik Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-32/72; [1972] EUECJ R-32/72 30 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wasaknacke Knackebrotfabrik Gmbh v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-32/72 30 Nov 1972 ECJ European Â Perinciolo v Council (Order) C-75/72; [1972] EUECJ C-75/72R; [1973] EUECJ C-75/72 30 Nov 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â X v Council (Judgment) C-18/70; [1972] EUECJ C-18/70 6 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â International Fruit Company Nv And Others v Produktschap Voor Groenten En Fruit. (Preliminary Questions ) R-24/72; [1972] EUECJ R-24/72 12 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â International Fruit Company and Others v Produktschap Voor Groenten En Fruit (Judgment) C-21/72 12 Dec 1972 ECJ European Â Marsman v Rosskamp (Judgment) C-44/72 13 Dec 1972 ECJ European Â Merola v Fnrom (Judgment) C-45/72 13 Dec 1972 ECJ European Â Giuseppe Merola v Nationaal Pensioenfonds Voor Mijnwerkers. R-45/72; [1972] EUECJ R-45/72 13 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pieter Marsman v M. Rosskamp. R-44/72; [1972] EUECJ R-44/72 13 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Walzenmuhle Magstadt v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-52/72 13 Dec 1972 ECJ European Â Walzenmuehle Magstadt Karl-Heinz Kienle v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-52/72; [1972] EUECJ R-52/72 13 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Arend van de Poll KG v Hauptzollamt Trier (Judgment) C-38/72 14 Dec 1972 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa 1. Common customs tariff - tariff classification - heading 23.07 -interpretation (regulations nos 19/62 and 55/62) 2. Common customs tariff - tariff classification - criteria - application -jurisdiction of the national court 1. Heading 23.07 of the common customs tariff, to which reference is made in article 1 (d) of and the annex to regulation no 19 of 4 April 1962 and in article 12 of regulation no 55 of 30 June 1962 must be interpreted as meaning that it is concerned exclusively with cereal-based animal food preparations which are specifically intended for use as forage, provided that they are not, at the same time, fit for human consumption. 2. Practical considerations arising in individual cases from the application of criteria laid down by the common customs tariff are a matter for the national courts. In case 38/72 reference to the court under article 177 of the EEC treaty by the finanzgericht rheinland-pfalz (finance court of the rhineland-palatinate) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between arend van de poll kg, having its registered office in cologne, and hauptzollamt trier (head customs office, trier) on the interpretation of article 1 (d) of and of the annex to regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals, of article 12 of regulation no 55 of the council of 30 June 1962 on the system governing processed cereal products and of regulation no 178/64 of the commission of 12 November 1964 on the amount of and conditions governing premiums on denaturing of wheat and rye, 1 by order of 3 may 1972, registered at the court of 28 June 1972, the finanzgericht rheinland-pfalz (finance court of the rhineland - palatinate) referred, in pursuance of article 177 of the EEC treaty, a number of questions on the interpretation of heading 23.07 of the common customs tariff - in the version in force at the time when the event occurred -referred to in article 1 (d) of and the annex to regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals (jo 1962, p. 933) and article 12 of regulation no 55 of the council of 30 June 1962 on the system governing processed cereal products (jo 1962, p. 1583). It is clear from the order making the reference that these questions were put in the context of a dispute concerning the classification, with a view to the application of intra-community levies, of a product composed mainly of common wheat, mixed with barley and oats and containing a small additional amount of cod liver oil. 2 according to the plaintiff in the main action this product falls under heading 23.07 (" preparations of a kind used in animal feeding "), whereas the customs administration, the defendant in the main action, claims that it should be classified under heading 10.01 of the customs tariff (" wheat and meslin "). 3 the essential purpose of the questions put to the court is to ascertain : - whether, provided that the correct proportions are used, such a mixture of itself constitutes a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding, within the meaning of heading 23.07 (questions 1 and 2); if not - whether such a " preparation " is obtained when the product contains, in addition to a mixture of cereals, other ingredients which may be considered as animal food materials (questions 3 and 4); if not - whether a mixture of cereals such as that in question in the present dispute may be considered to be a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding where a denaturing agent has been added in sufficient quantity, either to the mixture as a whole or to its principal ingredient, and if cod liver oil or fish oil can be used for this purpose (questions 5 and 8). 4 the terms of heading 23.07, with which this dispute is concerned, read as follows in the annex to regulation no 19 : " animal food preparations including sweetened forage; other preparations used in animal feeding (additives etc.): b. Containing cereals or containing products covered by the present regulation ". This heading, in the context of the customs tariff, constitutes a specific category, relating not to random combinations of cereals, with or without the addition of other substances, but to forage produced for use in animal feeding. 5 this explanation is supported by the explanatory notes to the Brussels nomenclature relating to heading 23.07, in which it is stated that " this heading excludes :... (B) simple mixtures of cereal grains... (C) preparations which, when account is taken, in particular, of the nature, purity and proportions of the components, the hygiene requirements complied with during manufacture and, where appropriate, the indications given on the packaging or any other information concerning their use, can be used indifferently for feeding animals or as human food ". These notes permit two distinct criteria to be deduced : first, from the particular use to which the product is to be put as forage and, secondly, from the impossibility of using the same product for human consumption. 6 in particular, it appears from the above that the addition of a denaturing agent to a mixture of cereals does not bring the product within the classification of heading 23.07 if, on the other hand, the product is not capable of being used specifically as forage for cattle. 7 practical considerations arising in individual cases from the application of criteria laid down by the customs tariff are a matter for the national courts. That is true, in fact, of all matters concerning the composition of cereal mixtures and the proportions of different cereals used, the nature and proportion of other additional nutrients and the nature of and method of applying the products used to render foods unfit for human consumption. 8 accordingly, in reply to the questions referred, heading 23.07 must be interpreted as meaning that it is concerned exclusively with cereal-based animal food preparations which are specifically intended for use as forage, provided that they are not, at the same time, fit for human consumption. Â S.P.A. Marimex v Italian Finance Administration. (Free Movement Of Goods ) R-29/72; [1972] EUECJ R-29/72 14 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Boehringer Mannheim v Commission (Judgment) C-7/72; [1972] EUECJ C-7/72 14 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Arend Van De Poll Kg v Hauptzollamt Trier. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-38/72; [1972] EUECJ R-38/72 14 Dec 1972 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marimex v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato (Rec 1972,P 1309) (Dk72-343 Gr72-339 P 72-473) (Judgment) C-29/72 14 Dec 1972 ECJ European Â Gesellschaft Fur Getreidehandel v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-55/72 10 Jan 1973 ECJ European Â Getreide-Import-Gesellschaft Mbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-41/72; [1973] EUECJ R-41/72 10 Jan 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gesellschaft Fuer Getreidehandel Ag v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-55/72; [1973] EUECJ R-55/72 10 Jan 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Getreide-Import v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Getreide C-41/72 10 Jan 1973 ECJ European Â Netherlands v Commission C-13/72; [1973] EUECJ C-13/72 11 Jan 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lutticke v Hauptzollamt Passau (Judgment) C-42/72 6 Feb 1973 ECJ European Â Sa Brasserie De Haecht v Wilkin-Janssen C-48/72; R-48/72; [1973] EUECJ R-48/72 6 Feb 1973 ECJ European ECJ Agreements Prior And Subsequent To Regulation No 17 - 1. When an agreement prior to the implementation of article 85 by regulation no 17 has been notified in accordance with the provisions of that regulation, the general principle of contractual certainty requires that a court can only declare the agreement to be void after the commission has given its decision under that regulation. Notifications in accordance with the provisions of article 4 of regulation no 17 in respect of agreements entered into after the application of article 85 by this regulation do not have suspensive effect. The court, which, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, must take into account, in applying the prohibitions of article 85, any delay by the commission in exercising its powers, has however an obligation to decide on the claims of interested parties who invoke the automatic nullity. These considerations apply equally to agreements exempted from notification, such exemption being merely an inconclusive indication that the agreements concerned are generally less harmful to the smooth functioning of the common market. 2. The initiation of a procedure within the meaning of article 9 of regulation no 17 implies an authoritative act of the commission, evidencing its intention of taking a decision under articles 2, 3 or 6. It follows therefore that the simple acknowledgment of a request for a negative clearance or of notification for the purposes of obtaining exemption under article 85(3) of the treaty cannot be considered as initiating a procedure under articles 2, 3 or 6 of regulation no 17. 3. Due notification of a standard contract is to be considered as due notification of all contracts in the same terms, even prior ones, entered into by the same undertaking. 4. A declaration of nullity under article 85 ( 2 ) is of retroactive effect. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Alfons Luetticke Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Passau R-42/72; [1973] EUECJ R-42/72 6 Feb 1973 ECJ European In view of the purposes and flat-rate nature of the system established by Regulation no 160/66 of the Council, the validity of the provisions of regulation no 83/67 of the Council, adopted in implementation of it, is not affected by the fact that the method of analysis provided for by that regulation for the calculation of the milkfat content yields approximate values of such content. [ Bailii ] Â Schroder Kg v Germany C-40/72 7 Feb 1973 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-39/72; [1973] EUECJ C-39/72 7 Feb 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-30/72; [1973] EUECJ C-30/72 8 Feb 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Der Schueren v Commission (Judgment) C-56/72; [1973] EUECJ C-56/72 8 Feb 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fonderie Officine Riunite v Vereinigte Kammgarn Spinnereien C-54/72 20 Feb 1973 ECJ European Â Fonderie Officine Riunite 'FOR' v Vereinigte Kammgarn-Spinnereien 'VKS' R-54/72; [1973] EUECJ R-54/72 20 Feb 1973 ECJ European ECJ (Preliminary Questions) 1. The court does not have jurisdiction under article 177 to settle a dispute relating to the interpretation of a national law. 2. The prohibition of discrimination as laid down by Article 95 relates not only to the rate but also to the basis of taxation. Article 95 of the Treaty must therefore be interpreted as prohibiting as fiscal system under which imported goods are charged twice with turnover tax, thus being treated as the object of two distinct transactions during the course of one operation which, for the same national product at the same marketing stage, would constitute only one chargeable operation. [ Bailii ] Â Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company v Commission (Judgment) C-6/72 21 Feb 1973 ECJ European Â Hubert Bentzinger v Steinbruchs-Berufsgenossenschaft. R-73/72; [1973] EUECJ R-73/72 1 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Benzinger v Steinbruchs-Berufsgenossenschaft (Judgment) C-73/72 1 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Bollmann v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Waltershof (Judgment) C-62/72 1 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Paul G. Bollmann v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof. (Preliminary Questions ) R-62/72; [1973] EUECJ R-62/72 1 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mij Ppw Internationaal Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten (Judgment) C-61/72 13 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Mij Ppw Internationaal Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-61/72; [1973] EUECJ R-61/72 13 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jamet v Commission (Judgment) C-37/71 13 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Westzucker Gmbh v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Zucker (Judgment) C-57/72 14 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Westzucker Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Zucker. (Agriculture ) R-57/72; [1973] EUECJ R-57/72 14 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission (Order) C-6/73 14 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.P.A. Et Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission Of The European Communities. C-7/73; [1973] EUECJ C-7/73R; [1974] EUECJ C-7/73 14 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Marcato v Commission (Judgment) C-37/72; [1973] EUECJ C-37/72 15 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel v Baer-Getreide Gmbh. (Transitional Period ) R-72/72; [1973] EUECJ R-72/72 22 Mar 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel v Baer Getreide Gmbh C-72/72 22 Mar 1973 ECJ European Â Angelini v Parliament (Judgment) C-31/72; [1973] EUECJ C-31/72 4 Apr 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giordano v Commission C-11/72; [1973] EUECJ C-11/72 5 Apr 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Noe-Dannewerth v Parliament (Judgment) C-51/72; [1973] EUECJ C-51/72 5 Apr 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Michel S v Fonds National De Reclassement Social Des Handicapes (Judgment) C-76/72 11 Apr 1973 ECJ European Â Michel S. v Fonds National De Reclassement Social Des Handicapes. (Preliminary Questions ) R-76/72; [1973] EUECJ R-76/72 11 Apr 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gunnella v Commission (Judgment) C-33/72; [1973] EUECJ C-33/72 8 May 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Campogrande v Commission (Judgment) C-60/72; [1973] EUECJ C-60/72 8 May 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ster - Algemeen Syndikaat v De Waal (Judgment) C-78/72 16 May 1973 ECJ European Â L'Etoile-Syndicat General v W. E. De Waal. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-78/72; [1973] EUECJ R-78/72 16 May 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Perinciolo v Council (Judgment) C-58/72 17 May 1973 ECJ European Â Meganck v Commission (Judgment) C-36/72; [1973] EUECJ C-36/72 30 May 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Greef v Commission (Judgment) C-46/72; [1973] EUECJ C-46/72 30 May 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Drescig v Commission (Judgment) C-49/72; [1973] EUECJ C-49/72 30 May 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Council (Judgment) C-81/72; [1973] EUECJ C-81/72 5 Jun 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â C. J. Walder v Bestuur Der Sociale Verzekeringsbank. R-82/72; [1973] EUECJ R-82/72 7 Jun 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Walder v Soziale Verzekeringsbank (Judgment) C-82/72 7 Jun 1973 ECJ European Â Â Carmine Capolongo v Azienda Agricole Maya. (Aids Granted By A Member State ); ECJ 19-Jun-1973 - C-77/72; R-77/72; [1973] EUECJ R-77/72 Â Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten (Judgment) C-80/72 20 Jun 1973 ECJ European Â Nv Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v Hoofproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. (Acts Of Institution ) R-80/72; [1973] EUECJ R-80/72 20 Jun 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-79/72; [1973] EUECJ C-79/72 21 Jun 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuhl v Council (Judgment) C-71/72; [1973] EUECJ C-71/72 27 Jun 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kley v Commission (Judgment) C-35/72; [1973] EUECJ C-35/72 27 Jun 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Westzucker Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Zucker. (Acts Of An Institution ) R-1/73; [1973] EUECJ R-1/73 4 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Westzucker Gmbh v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Zucker (Judgment) C-1/73 4 Jul 1973 ECJ European Â Hessische Mehlindustrie Karl Schottler Kg v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-3/73; [1973] EUECJ R-3/73 11 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hessische Mehlindustrie Karl Schottler Kg v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-3/73 11 Jul 1973 ECJ European Â Getreide-Import Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Preliminary Questions ) R-11/73; [1973] EUECJ R-11/73 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven v Massey-Ferguson Gmbh; ECJ 12-Jul-1973 - C-8/73; R-8/73; [1973] EUECJ R-8/73 Â Riseria Luigi Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi. (Member States ) R-2/73; [1973] EUECJ R-2/73 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nunzio Di Pillo v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-47/72; [1973] EUECJ C-47/72 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Angenieux v Hakenberg (Judgment) C-13/73 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European Â Getreide Import Gmbh v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-11/73 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European Â Tontodonati v Commission (Judgment) C-28/72; [1973] EUECJ C-28/72 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Di Pillo v Commission (Judgment) C-10/72 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European Â Di Blasi v Commission (Judgment) C-74/72; [1973] EUECJ C-74/72 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi C-2/73 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European Â Wunsche v Commission (Judgment) C-59/72; [1973] EUECJ C-59/72 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Judgment) C-70/72; [1973] EUECJ C-70/72 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Anciens Etablissements D. Angenieux Fils Aine Et Caisse Primaire Centrale D'Assurance Maladie De La Region Parisienne v Willy Hakenberg. (Social Security ) R-13/73; [1973] EUECJ R-13/73 12 Jul 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Muras v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Jonas (Judgment) C-12/73 9 Oct 1973 ECJ European Â Claus W. Muras v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Jonas (Community Law) R-12/73; [1973] EUECJ R-12/73 9 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â G. Fiege v Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie De Strasbourg. (Social Security ) R-110/73; [1973] EUECJ R-110/73 10 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fratelli Variola Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-34/73; R-34/73; [1973] EUECJ R-34/73; [1973] ECR 981 10 Oct 1973 ECJ European, European, Customs and Excise Europa The concept of "charge having equivalent effect" under the agricultural regulations must be taken to have the same meaning as in articles 9 et seq . Of the treaty. The prohibition of all customs duties and charges having equivalent effect covers any charge levied at the time or by reason of importation and which, specifically affecting the imported product and not the home-produced product, has the same restrictive effect on the free movement of goods as a customs duty. Accordingly, a charge imposed exclusively on imported goods because they have been unloaded in home ports constitutes a "charge having equivalent effect" and is prohibited. Owing to its very nature and its place in the system of sources of community law, a regulation has immediate effect and, consequently, operates to confer rights on private parties which the national courts have a duty to protect. The direct application of a regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law. A legislative provision of national law reproducing the content of a directly applicable rule of community law can in no way affect direct applicability, or the court' s jurisdiction under the treaty. In the absence of valid provision to the contrary, repeal of a regulation does not mean abolition of the private rights it created. A legislative provision of internal law cannot be set up against the direct application, in the legal order of member states, of regulations of the community and other provisions of community law without compromising the essential character of community rules and the fundamental principle that the community legal system is supreme. This is particularly true as regards the date from which the community rule becomes operative and creates rights in favour of private parties. The freedom of member states, without express authority, to vary the date on which a community rule comes into force is excluded by reason of the need to ensure uniform and simultaneous application of community law throughout the community. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Fratelli Variola Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-34/73; R-34/73; [1973] EUECJ R-34/73; [1973] ECR 981 10 Oct 1973 ECJ European, European, Customs and Excise Europa The concept of "charge having equivalent effect" under the agricultural regulations must be taken to have the same meaning as in articles 9 et seq . Of the treaty. The prohibition of all customs duties and charges having equivalent effect covers any charge levied at the time or by reason of importation and which, specifically affecting the imported product and not the home-produced product, has the same restrictive effect on the free movement of goods as a customs duty. Accordingly, a charge imposed exclusively on imported goods because they have been unloaded in home ports constitutes a "charge having equivalent effect" and is prohibited. Owing to its very nature and its place in the system of sources of community law, a regulation has immediate effect and, consequently, operates to confer rights on private parties which the national courts have a duty to protect. The direct application of a regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law. A legislative provision of national law reproducing the content of a directly applicable rule of community law can in no way affect direct applicability, or the court' s jurisdiction under the treaty. In the absence of valid provision to the contrary, repeal of a regulation does not mean abolition of the private rights it created. A legislative provision of internal law cannot be set up against the direct application, in the legal order of member states, of regulations of the community and other provisions of community law without compromising the essential character of community rules and the fundamental principle that the community legal system is supreme. This is particularly true as regards the date from which the community rule becomes operative and creates rights in favour of private parties. The freedom of member states, without express authority, to vary the date on which a community rule comes into force is excluded by reason of the need to ensure uniform and simultaneous application of community law throughout the community. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Fiege v Assurance Maladie De Strasbourg (Judgment) C-110/73 10 Oct 1973 ECJ European Â Ludwig Kunz v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fuer Angestellte. R-35/73; [1973] EUECJ R-35/73 11 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rewe-Zentralfinanz Egmbh v Direktor Der Landwirtschaftskammer Westfalen-Lippe. R-39/73; [1973] EUECJ R-39/73 11 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kunz v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte C-35/73 11 Oct 1973 ECJ European (Judgment) Â Â Rewe Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaftskammer Westphalen-Lippe; ECJ 11-Oct-1973 - C-39/73; [1976] ECR 1989 Â Miles Druce and Co. Ltd. v Commission of The European Communities. C-160/73; C-161/73; [1973] EUECJ C-161/73R 11 Oct 1973 ECJ European 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Merkur Aussenhandels Gmbh v Commission C-43/72; [1973] EUECJ C-43/72 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rewe v Hauptzollamt Kehl (Judgment) C-10/73 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European Â Schluter v Hauptzollamt Lorrach (Judgment) C-9/73 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European Â Balkan Import Export Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof (Judgment) C-5/73 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European Â Balkan-Import-Export Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. (Agriculture ) R-5/73; [1973] EUECJ R-5/73 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Carl Schlueter v Hauptzollamt Lorrach. (Agriculture ) R-9/73; [1973] EUECJ R-9/73 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rewe Zentral Ag v Hauptzollamt Kehl. (Agriculture ) R-10/73; [1973] EUECJ R-10/73 24 Oct 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Smieja v Soziale Verzekeringsbank (Judgment) C-51/73 7 Nov 1973 ECJ European Â Fleischer Import Export v Hauptzollamt Flensburg (Judgment) C-49/73 7 Nov 1973 ECJ European Â Bestuur Der Sociale Verzekeringsbank v B. Smieja. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-51/73; [1973] EUECJ R-51/73 7 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Herbert Fleischer Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Flensburg. R-49/73; [1973] EUECJ R-49/73 7 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Werhahn Hansamuehle and Others v Council (Judgment) C-63/72 13 Nov 1973 ECJ European Â Wilhelm Werhahn Hansamuehle and Others v Council of The EC. (Action For Damages Against The Eec ) C-69/72; [1973] EUECJ C-69/72 13 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel v Eugen Muench. (Period, Date And Time Limit ) R-139/73; [1973] EUECJ R-139/73 22 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Past and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Freiburg. R-128/73; [1973] EUECJ R-128/73 22 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel v Munch C-139/73 22 Nov 1973 ECJ European Â Nv Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Minister Van Verkeer En Waterstaat R-36/73; [1973] EUECJ R-36/73 27 Nov 1973 ECJ European, Transport ECJ 1. A legal obligation in general terms requiring transport rates to be approved by public authority cannot in itself be deemed to constitute a "tariff obligation" within the meaning of article 2 (5) of regulation no 1191/69. Under this provision, the distinguishing features of a tariff obligation are not only that rates are fixed or approved by public authority but also that it satisfies the double condition that " special " tariff obligations for certain specified categories of passenger or goods, or on certain routes, should be involved, and that, in addition, they should be contrary to the commercial interests of the undertaking. 2. Articles 4 and 5 of regulation no 1191/69 do not exclude the possibility that economic disadvantages, within the meaning of the regulation, can subsist over a period of only one year and, accordingly, give rise to a claim for compensation. Neither do they exclude the right of member states, in assessing these disadvantages, to take into account the whole of the transport undertaking' s economic situation, and to withhold compensation for disadvantages which appear to be temporary or accidental and, on a longer-term assessment, capable of being off-set in due course, or neutralized by a change of operating methods. 3. In calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to a transport undertaking, in a case where public service obligations have been partially terminated, there must be an apportionment, having regard to the characteristics and volume of the activities involved, of the total costs between the transport activities in respect of which the public service obligations have been maintained and those in which they are terminated. The mere prospect for a transport undertaking of discontinuing certain activities following termination of public service obligations is insufficient to justify allocating the whole of the total costs to the activities it has been compelled to maintain, as this could take place only where those activities are in fact discontinued. [ Bailii ] Â Magdalena Vandeweghe And Others v Berufsgenossenschaft Fuer Die Chemische Industrie. (Preliminary Ruling ) R-130/73; [1973] EUECJ R-130/73 27 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Codrico Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten R-138/73; [1973] EUECJ R-138/73 28 Nov 1973 ECJ European ECJ Article 1 of regulation no 2410/70, read in conjunction with article 11 of regulation no 1052/68, involves that in the absence of community rules on the subject the national court is competent to assess the probative value of tests performed with a view to ascertaining the fat content of the products listed at the annex to regulation no 2410/70 under tariff headings 11.02-a-v-(a ) and 11.02-a-v-(b ). [ Bailii ] Â Codrico Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten (Judgment) C-138/73 28 Nov 1973 ECJ European Â Gigante v Commission (Judgment) C-31/71; [1973] EUECJ C-31/71; [1975] EUECJ C-31/71 29 Nov 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Societe De Produits Alimentaires Et Dietetiques Sopad Sa. v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles (Forma) Et Fonds D'Intervention Et De Regularisation Du Marche Du Sucre (Firs). (Acts Of An Institution ) R-143/73; [1973] EUECJ R-143/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sopad v Forma and Others (Judgment) C-143/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Busch v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Ericus (Judgment) C-126/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Neufeld and Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Waltershof (Judgment) C-125/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Deutsche Getreide- Und Futtermittel Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-119/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-124/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Deutsche Getreide Und Futtermittel-Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-119/73; [1973] EUECJ R-119/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â E. Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-124/73; [1973] EUECJ R-124/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Friedhelm Busch v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus. R-126/73; [1973] EUECJ R-126/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Neufeld and Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof R-125/73; [1973] EUECJ R-125/73 5 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Securite Sociale Paris v Mancuso (Judgment) C-140/73 6 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Direction Regionale De La Securite Sociale De La Region Parisienne Et Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie De Paris v Carmela Mancuso Et Caisse Nationale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries. R-140/73; [1973] EUECJ R-140/73 6 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bruns v Commission (Order) C-133/73; [1975] EUECJ C-133/73; [1973] EUECJ C-133/73 7 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Gebrueder Lorenz Gmbh v Federal Republic Of Germany Et Land De Rhenanie-Palatinat. (Aids Granted By States ) R-120/73; [1973] EUECJ R-120/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Carlheinz Lensing Kaffee-Tee-Import Kg v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. R-147/73; [1973] EUECJ R-147/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lohrey v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Others (Judgment) C-141/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Markmann Ag v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Others (Judgment) C-121/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Fritz Lohrey v Federal Republic Of Germany And The Land Hessen. (Aids Granted By States ) R-141/73; [1973] EUECJ R-141/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lorenz Gmbh v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Others C-120/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Lensing Kaffee Tee Import Kg v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof (Judgment) C-147/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Societe Anonyme Generale Sucriere and Others v Commission (Order) C-41/73; [1973] EUECJ C-41/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nordsee, Deutsche Hochseefischerei Gmbh v Federal Republic Of Germany And The Land Rheinland/Pfalz. (Aids Granted By States ) R-122/73; [1973] EUECJ R-122/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Markmann Kg v Federal Republic Of Germany Et Land De Schleswig-Holstein. (Aids Granted By States ) R-121/73; [1973] EUECJ R-121/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nordsee Gmbh v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Others (Judgment) C-122/73 11 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Â Criminal proceedings against Giulio et Adriano Grosoli; ECJ 12-Dec-1973 - C-131/73; R-131/73; [1973] EUECJ R-131/73 Â Mathes and Others v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-142/73 12 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Witt v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Ericus (Judgment) C-149/73 12 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Otto Witt Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-149/73; [1973] EUECJ R-149/73 12 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sociaal Fonds Voor De Diamantarbeiders v Nv Indiamex Et Association De Fait De Belder. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-38/73; [1973] EUECJ R-38/73 13 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gesellschaft Fur Getreidehandel v Commission (Judgment) C-24/66 13 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Hollandse Melksuikerfabriek v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-150/73; [1973] EUECJ R-150/73 13 Dec 1973 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hollandse Melksuikerfabriek v Hoofdproduktschap Akkerbouwprodukten (Judgment) C-150/73 13 Dec 1973 ECJ European Â Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v NV Indiamex et Association de fait De Belder C-37/73 13 Dec 1973 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa In answering the question as to the application of charges having equivalent effect in trade with third countries, account must be taken both of the requirements resulting from the establishment of the common customs tariff, and of those resulting from a common commercial policy, within the meaning of articles 110 to 116 of the treaty, which, according to article 3 (b) of the treaty, regulates trade arrangements with third countries. The definition of the uniform principles upon which the common commercial policy is based involves, as does the common tariff itself, the elimination of national disparities, whether in the field of taxation or of commerce, affecting trade with third countries. It is for the commission or the council to evaluate these requirements in each case both as regards the establishment of the common customs tariff and the adoption of the common commercial policy. The member states may not, subsequent to the establishment of the common customs tariff, introduce, in a unilateral manner, new charges on goods imported directly from third countries or raise the level of those in existence at that time. As regards charges already in existence, prior evaluation by the community authorities is necessary in order to establish their incompatibility with the treaty and the obligation to eliminate them. It follows that such charges may only be considered to be incompatible with community law pursuant to provisions adopted by the community. Â des Gaz SA v Falks Veritas Ltd [1974] Ch 381; [1974] 3 All ER 51 1974 CA Lord Denning MR European, Litigation Practice The court considered for the first time, the effect of the Rome Treaty. It "came about because of a tin can" . A question requiring the exercise of a judges discretion is to be determined as at the date that the primary judge gave judgment, not as at the date that the statement of claim was filed, unless a statute changing the law expresses a clear contrary intention. European Communities Act 1972 1 Citers Â Bulmer (HP) Ltd v Bollinger SA [1974] 1 Ch 401; [1974] 3 WLR 202; [1974] 2 All ER 1226 1974 CA Lord Denning MR European, Constitutional, Intellectual Property The plaintiff complained that the respondent had described its drink 'Babycham' as a champagne perry, which it said was a misuse of the appellation 'champagne'. Held: The court considered the effect of European legislation on the law of England and Wales. Lord Denning MR said: "But when we come to matters with a European element, the treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to any statute." Community instruments are not expressed against the background of English canons of construction and should not be so construed. 1 Citers Â Kurt A Becher v Hauptzollamt Emden R-154/73; [1974] EUECJ R-154/73 15 Jan 1974 ECJ European, Agriculture 1. No new element has been adduced capable of casting doubt on the court's decision in its judgments of 24 october 1973 in cases 5, 9 and 10/73, according to which examination of questions referred had not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of regulation no 974/71. 2. Article 2 of regulation no 974/71, by using the concept of 'prices' as its starting point in calculating the compensatory amounts, leaves the commission a certain discretion to adopt a reference price which differs from the c.I.F. Price, even if it differs from the contract prices actually fixed for commercial transactions. 3. It is within the commission's legal powers, when enacting detailed rules for the implementation of a system, such as that laid down by regulation no 974/71 for compensatory amounts, to have regard to certain imperative requirements of an administrative nature. This is even more so as these detailed rules are established in accordance with the so-called 'management committee' procedure. [ Bailii ] Â Becher v Hauptzollamt Emden) (Judgment) C-154/73 15 Jan 1974 ECJ European Â Holtz and Willemsen Gmbh v Council (Judgment) C-134/73; [1974] EUECJ C-134/73 15 Jan 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rheinmuehlen-Duesseldorf v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-166/73; [1974] EUECJ R-166/73 16 Jan 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rheinmuhlen Dusseldorf v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermitte (Judgment) C-166/73 16 Jan 1974 ECJ European 1 Citers Â Â Pickin v British Railways Board; HL 30-Jan-1974 - [1974] AC 765; [1974] 1 All ER 609; [1974] UKHL 1 Â Hannoversche Zucker Ag Rethen-Weetzen v Hauptzollamt Hannover (Agriculture) R-159/73; [1974] EUECJ R-159/73 30 Jan 1974 ECJ European, Agriculture [ Bailii ] Â E. Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-158/73; [1974] EUECJ R-158/73 30 Jan 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgische Radio En Televisie v Sv Sabam And Nv Fonior R-127/73; [1974] EUECJ R-127/73 30 Jan 1974 ECJ European Preliminary Questions - The Brussels Tribunal de premiere instance referred a questions in proceedings relating to the enforceability of contracts between an authors' royalties collecting society and its members who had assigned their copyrights to the society. It was said that the contracts imposed unfair trading conditions contrary to Article 86. A preliminary point arose because the Commission began a procedure against SABAM under Regulation 17 arguing that Article 9(3) of Regulation 17 (which provides that "the authorities of the Member States" lose their competence to apply Articles 85(1) and 86 in accordance with Article 88 once the Commission initiates proceedings under Regulation 17) meant that the national court was no longer competent to consider the application of Article 86. Held: The ECJ rejected the argument. "It must thus be examined whether the national courts, before which the prohibitions contained in Articles 85 and 86 are invoked in a dispute governed by private law, must be considered as 'authorities of the Member States'. The competence of those courts to apply the provisions of Community law, particularly in the case of such disputes, derives from the direct effect of those provisions. As the prohibitions of Articles 85(1) and 86 tend by their very nature to produce direct effects in relations between individuals, these Articles create direct rights in respect of the individuals concerned which the national courts must safeguard. To deny, by virtue of the aforementioned Article 9, the national courts' jurisdiction to afford this safeguard, would mean depriving individuals of rights which they hold under the Treaty itself. The fact that Article 9(3) refers to 'the authorities of the Member States' competent to apply the provisions of Articles 85(1) and 86 'in accordance with Article 88' indicates that it refers solely to those national authorities whose competence derives from Article 88. Under that Article the authorities of the Member States - including in certain Member States courts especially entrusted with the task of applying domestic legislation on competition or that of ensuring the legality of that application by the administrative authorities - are also rendered competent to apply the provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. The fact that the expression 'authorities of the Member States' appearing in Article 9(3) of Regulation No 17 covers such courts cannot exempt a court before which the direct effect of Article 86 is pleaded from giving judgment." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-158/73 30 Jan 1974 ECJ European Â Louwage v Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-148/73; C-148/73 30 Jan 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hannoversche Zucker Ag v Hauptzollamt Hannover (Judgment) C-159/73 30 Jan 1974 ECJ European Â Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost. (Freedom Of Movement ) R-152/73; [1974] EUECJ R-152/73 12 Feb 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rheinmuhlen Dusseldorf v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-146/73 12 Feb 1974 ECJ European Â Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost (Judgment) C-152/73 12 Feb 1974 ECJ European Â Rheinmuehlen-Duesseldorf v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-146/73; [1974] EUECJ R-146/73 12 Feb 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Birra Dreher S P A v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato (Judgment) C-162/73 21 Feb 1974 ECJ European Â Birra Dreher Spa v L'Administration Italienne Des Finances (Preliminary Questions ) R-162/73; [1974] EUECJ R-162/73 21 Feb 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kortner and Others v Council and Others (Judgment) C-15/73 21 Feb 1974 ECJ European Â Roswitha Schots, Nee Kortner, And Others v Council And Commission Of The European Communities And The European Parliament. (Officials ) C-137/73; [1974] EUECJ C-137/73 21 Feb 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission (Judgment) C-6/73 6 Mar 1974 ECJ European Â Miles Druce and Co. Limited v Commission Of The European Communities and Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds Limited C-170/73; [1974] EUECJ C-170/73R; C-160/73 16 Mar 1974 ECJ European 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Ireland v Council (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-151/73; C-151/73 21 Mar 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuster v Parliament (Order) C-23/74; [1974] EUECJ C-23/74R; [1975] EUECJ C-23/74 28 Mar 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kali-Chemie v Commission (Order) [1974] EUECJ C-20/74R; [1974] EUECJ C-20/74R; [1975] EUECJ C-20/74; C-20/74 3 Apr 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State And Grand Duchy Of Luxembourg v Mertens And Others. R-180/73; [1974] EUECJ R-180/73 4 Apr 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State and Grand Duchy Of Luxembourg v Mertens and Others (Judgment) C-178/73 4 Apr 1974 ECJ European Â Serio v Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-115/73; [1974] EUECJ C-115/73; C-115/73 4 Apr 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-167/73; C-167/73; [1974] ECR 359; [1996] EUECJ C-167/73 4 Apr 1974 ECJ European Europa The commission, in the exercise of the powers which it has under articles 155 and 169 of the treaty, does not have to show the existence of a legal interest, since, in the general interest of the community, its function is to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are applied by the member states and to note the existence of any failure to fulfil the obligations deriving therefrom, with a view to bringing it to an end. Conceived as being applicable to the whole complex of economic activities, the basic rules set out in part two of the eec treaty can be rendered inapplicable only as a result of express provision in the treaty. When article 74 refers to the objectives of the treaty, it means the provisions of articles 2 and 3, the attainment of which the fundamental provisions applicable to the whole complex of economic activities seek to ensure. Far from involving a departure from these fundamental rules, the object of the rules relating to the common transport policy is to implement and complement them by means of common action. Consequently the said general rules must be applied insofar as they can achieve these objectives. Under article 84(2), sea and air transport, so long as the council has not decided otherwise, is excluded only from the rules of title iv of part two of the treaty relating to the common transport policy. It remains, on the same basis as the other modes of transport, subject to the general rules of the treaty. Since the provisions of article 48 and of regulation no 1612/68 are directly applicable in the legal order of every member state, and community law has priority over national law, these provisions give rise, on the part of those concerned, to rights which the national authorities must respect and safeguard and as a result of which all contrary provisions of internal law are rendered inapplicable to them. Although article 48 and regulation no 1612/68 are directly applicable in the territory of the french republic, nevertheless the maintenance in these circumstances of the wording of the code du travail maritime gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs by maintaining, as regards those subject to the law who are concerned, a state of uncertainty as to the possibilities available to them of relying on community law. The absolute nature of the prohibition on discrimination under article 48(2) of the eec treaty has the effect of not only allowing in each state equal access to employment to the nationals of other member states, but also of guaranteeing to the state's own nationals that they shall not suffer the unfavourable consequences which could result from the offer or acceptance by nationals of other member states of conditions of employment or remuneration less advantageous than those obtaining under the national law. It thus follows from the general character of the prohibition on discrimination in article 48 and the objective pursued by the abolition of discrimination that discrimination is prohibited even if it constitutes only an obstacle of secondary importance as regards the equality of access to employment and other conditions of work and employment. A French law which provided that a proportion of the crew of a French flagged vessel must be French nationals, was contrary to the rules relating to the free movement of workers. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â R. and v Haegeman v Belgian State. (Eec ) R-181/73; [1974] EUECJ R-181/73 30 Apr 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Haegemann v Belgian State (Judgment) C-181/73 30 Apr 1974 ECJ European Â Giuseppe Sacchi. (Preliminary Questions ) R-155/73; [1974] EUECJ R-155/73 30 Apr 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sacchi (Rec 1974,P 409) (Gr74-217 P 74-223 Es74-203 Sv74-269 Fi74-269) (Judgment) C-155/73 30 Apr 1974 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy (Order) [1974] EUECJ C-172/73; C-172/73 1 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Osram Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/Main. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-183/73; [1974] EUECJ R-183/73 8 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Osram Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/Main (Judgment) C-183/73 8 May 1974 ECJ European Â Nold Kg v Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-4/73; C-4/73 14 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bestuur Van De Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging v HW Kaufmann R-184/73; [1974] EUECJ R-184/73 15 May 1974 ECJ European Social Security For Migrant Workers [ Bailii ] Â Norddeutsches Vieh Und Fleischkontor Gmbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Schlachtvieh, Fleisch Und Fleischerzeugnisse. (Agriculture ) R-186/73; [1974] EUECJ R-186/73 15 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Norddeutsches Vieh- Und Fleischkontor v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Schlachtvieh, Fleisch Und Fleischerzeugnisse (Judgment) C-186/73 15 May 1974 ECJ European Â Bedrijfsvereniging v Kaufmann (Judgment) C-184/73 15 May 1974 ECJ European Â Â HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others; CA 22-May-1974 - [1974] EWCA Civ 14; [1974] 2 All ER 1226; [1974] 3 WLR 202; [1974] Ch 401 Â Odette Callemeyn v Belgian State. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-187/73; [1974] EUECJ R-187/73 28 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Callemeyn v Belgian State (Judgment) C-187/73 28 May 1974 ECJ European Â Niemann v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte (Judgment) C-191/73 28 May 1974 ECJ European Â Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel v Pfutzenreuther (Judgment) C-3/74 28 May 1974 ECJ European Â Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel v Societe Wilhelm Pfuetzenreuter. (Agriculture ) R-3/74; [1974] EUECJ R-3/74 28 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rudolf Niemann v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fuer Angestellte. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-191/73; [1974] EUECJ R-191/73 28 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Bielefeld v Offene Handelsgesellschaft In Firma H. -c- Konig. (European Communities ) R-185/73; [1974] EUECJ R-185/73 29 May 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Bielefeld v Konig (Judgment) C-185/73 29 May 1974 ECJ European Â Jean Reyners v Belgian State C-2/74; R-2/74; [1974] EUECJ R-2/74; [1974] ECR 631 21 Jun 1974 ECJ European Europa The rule on equal treatment with nationals is one of the fundamental legal provisions of the community. As a reference to a set of legislative provisions effectively applied by the country of establishment to its own nationals, this rule is, by its essence, capable of being directly invoked by nationals of all the other member states. In laying down that freedom of establishment shall be attained at the end of the transitional period, article 52 thus provides an obligation to obtain a precise result, the fulfilment of which had to be made easier by, but not made dependent on, the implementation of a programme of progressive measures. Since the end of the transitional period article 52 of the treaty is a directly applicable provision despite the absence, in a particular sphere, of the directives prescribed by articles 54(2) and 57(1) of the treaty. Having regard to the fundamental character of freedom of establishment and the rule on equal treatment with nationals in the system of the treaty, the exceptions allowed by the first paragraph of article 55 cannot be given a scope which would exceed the objective for which this exemption clause was inserted. The exception to freedom of establishment provided for by the first paragraph of article 55 must be restricted to those activities referred to in article 52 which in themselves involve a direct and specific connexion with the exercise of official authority; it is not possible to give this description, in the context of a profession such as that of avocat, to activities such as consultation and legal assistance or the representation and defence of parties in court even if the performance of these activities is compulsory or there is a legal monopoly in respect of it. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Serio v Commission (Judgment) C-115/73 2 Jul 1974 ECJ European Â Holz and Willemsen Gmbh v Council and Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-153/73; C-153/73 2 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-173/73; C-173/73 2 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Brouerius Van Nideck v Inspecteur Der Registratie En Successie (Judgment) C-7/74 3 Jul 1974 ECJ European Â Van Zuylen v Hag Ag (Judgment) C-192/73 3 Jul 1974 ECJ European Â Van Zuylen Freres v Hag Ag. (Free Movement Of Goods ) R-192/73; [1974] EUECJ R-192/73; [1974] ECR 731 3 Jul 1974 ECJ European, Intellectual Property European Article 36 only admits derogations from the free movement of goods to the extent that such derogations are justified for the purpose of safeguarding rights that constitute the specific subject matter of industrial and commercial property. Thus the application of the legislation relating to the protection of trade marks protects the legitimate holder of the trade mark against infringement on the part of persons who lack any legal title. The exercise of a trade mark right tends to contribute to the partitioning off of the markets and thus to affect the free movement of goods between member states, all the more so since - unlike other rights of industrial and commercial property - it is not subject to limitations in point of time. Accordingly, one cannot allow the holder of a trade mark to rely upon the exclusiveness of a trade mark right - which may be the consequence of the territorial limitation of national legislation - with a view to prohibiting the marketing in a member state of goods legally produced in another member state under an identical trade mark having the same origin. This is also the case where a third party duly acquired the product in the first state. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Reiniera Charlotte Brouerius Van Nidek v Inspecteur Der Registratie En Successie. (European Communities ) R-7/74; [1974] EUECJ R-7/74 3 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Casagrande v Landeshauptstadt Munchen (Judgment) R-9/74; [1974] EUECJ R-9/74; C-9/74; [1974] ECR 773 3 Jul 1974 ECJ European The question of whether or not a person is a party must be decided according to the criteria of national law. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kali-Chemie v Commission (Order) C-20/74 8 Jul 1974 ECJ European Â Union Des Minotiers De La Champagne v French Government. R-11/74; [1974] EUECJ R-11/74 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Guillot v Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-53/72; C-53/72 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Procureur Du Roi v Benoit and Gustave Dassonville R-8/74; [1974] EUECJ R-8/74; [1974] ECR 837 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European 1. All trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. 2. In the absence of a community system guaranteeing for consumers the authenticity of a product's designation or origin, member states may take measures to prevent unfair practices in this connexion, on condition that such measures are reasonable and do not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between member states. Consequently, the requirement by a member state of a certificate of authenticity which is less easily obtainable by importers of an authentic product which has been put into free circulation in a regular manner in another member state than by importers of the same product coming directly from the country of origin constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction as prohibited by the treaty. 3. An exclusive dealing agreement falls within the prohibition of article 85 when it impedes, in law or in fact, the importation of the products in question from other member states into the protected territory by persons other than the exclusive importer. 4. An exclusive dealing agreement may adversely affect trade between member states and can have the effect of hindering competition if the concessionaire is able to prevent parallel imports from other member states into the territory covered by the concession by means of the combined effects of the agreement and a national law requiring the exclusive use of a certain means of proof of authenticity. For the purpose of judging whether this is the case, account must be taken not only of the rights and obligations flowing from the provisions of the agreement, but also of the legal and economic context in which it is situated and, in particular, the possible existence of similar agreements concluded between the same producer and concessionaires established in other member states. Price differences found to exist between member states are an indication to be taken into account [ Bailii ] Â Reinarz v Commission (Judgment) [1974] EUECJ C-177/73; C-177/73 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Procureur du Roi v Benoit and Gustave Dassonville (Judgment) C-8/74 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European, Commercial Europa All trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. In the absence of a community system guaranteeing for consumers the authenticity of a product's designation or origin, member states may take measures to prevent unfair practices in this connexion, on condition that such measures are reasonable and do not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between member states. Consequently, the requirement by a member state of a certificate of authenticity which is less easily obtainable by importers of an authentic product which has been put into free circulation in a regular manner in another member state than by importers of the same product coming directly from the country of origin constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction as prohibited by the treaty. An exclusive dealing agreement falls within the prohibition of article 85 when it impedes, in law or in fact, the importation of the products in question from other member states into the protected territory by persons other than the exclusive importer. An exclusive dealing agreement may adversely affect trade between member states and can have the effect of hindering competition if the concessionaire is able to prevent parallel imports from other member states into the territory covered by the concession by means of the combined effects of the agreement and a national law requiring the exclusive use of a certain means of proof of authenticity. For the purpose of judging whether this is the case, account must be taken not only of the rights and obligations flowing from the provisions of the agreement, but also of the legal and economic context in which it is situated and, in particular, the possible existence of similar agreements concluded between the same producer and concessionaires established in other member states. Price differences found to exist between member states are an indication to be taken into account . Â Becker v Commission C-10/74; [1974] EUECJ C-10/74 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Minotiers De La Champagne v France (Judgment) C-11/74 11 Jul 1974 ECJ European Â Vellozzi v Commission (Order) C-62/74; [1975] EUECJ C-62/74; [1974] EUECJ C-62/74R 17 Sep 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Norddeutsche Vieh- Und Fleischkontor Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Judgment) C-14/74 1 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Union Syndicale and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-175/73; [1974] EUECJ C-175/73 8 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Syndicat General Du Personnel Des Organismes Europeens v Commission (Judgment) C-18/74; [1974] EUECJ C-18/74 8 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Annc-Maria Campogrande And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-145/73; [1974] EUECJ C-145/73 9 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie v Biason (Judgment) C-24/74 9 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Campogrande v Commission (Judgment) C-112/73 9 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie De Paris v Giuseppina Biason. (Request For A Preliminary Ruling ) R-24/74; [1974] EUECJ R-24/74 9 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Guenter Henck / Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. R-25/74; [1974] EUECJ R-25/74 10 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Henck v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel (Judgment) C-25/74 10 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Fruit- En Groentenimporthandel and Frubo v Commission (Order) C-71/74; [1975] EUECJ C-71/74; [1974] EUECJ C-71/74; [1974] EUECJ C-71/74R 15 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Demag Ag v Finanzamt Duisburg-Sued. (Customs Duties And Internal Taxation ) R-27/74; [1974] EUECJ R-27/74 22 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Demag Ag v Finanzamt Duisburg Sud C-27/74 22 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Fruit- En Groentenimporthandel and Frubo v Commission (Order) C-71/74 23 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Â Transocean Marine Paint Association v Commission; ECJ 23-Oct-1974 - C-17/74; [1974] EUECJ C-17/74 Â Officier van Justitie v J W J van Haaster (Judgment) C-190/73 30 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Daniele Grassi v Council Of The Ec. (Official ) C-188/73; [1974] EUECJ C-188/73 30 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Grassi v Council (Judgment) C-188/73 30 Oct 1974 ECJ European Â Officier Van Justitie v J.W.J. Van Haaster. (Agriculture ) R-190/73; [1974] EUECJ R-190/73 30 Oct 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Centrafarm Bv and Others v Winthorp Bv [1974] ECR 1183; C-16/74; R-16/74; [1974] EUECJ R-16/74 31 Oct 1974 ECJ European, Intellectual Property (Free Movement Of Goods) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Centrafarm Bv and Others v Sterling Drug C-15/74; R-15/74; [1974] EUECJ R-15/74; [1974] ECR 1147 31 Oct 1974 ECJ European (Free Movement Of Goods) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Societe Roquette Freres v Etat Francais R-34/74; [1974] EUECJ R-34/74 12 Nov 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Friedrich Haaga Gmbh. R-32/74; [1974] EUECJ R-32/74 12 Nov 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alliance Nationale Des Mutualites Chretiennes Et Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite v Thomas Rzepa. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-35/74; [1974] EUECJ R-35/74 12 Nov 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mutualites Chretiennes v Rzepa (Judgment) C-35/74 12 Nov 1974 ECJ European Â Roquette Freres v French State (Judgment) C-34/74 12 Nov 1974 ECJ European Â Friedrich Haaga GmbH (Judgment) C-32/74 12 Nov 1974 ECJ European Â Costa v Belgian State (Judgment) C-39/74 13 Nov 1974 ECJ European Â Luciana Costa, Spouse Mazzier v Belgian State. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-39/74; [1974] EUECJ R-39/74 13 Nov 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Moulijn v Commission (Judgment) C-6/74; [1974] EUECJ C-6/74 21 Nov 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giry v Commission (Judgment) C-1/74; [1974] EUECJ C-1/74 21 Nov 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Johannes Henricus Maria Van Binsbergen v Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsvereniging Voor De Metaalnijverheid R-33/74; [1974] EUECJ R-33/74 3 Dec 1974 ECJ European Services [ Bailii ] Â Van Binsbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging Voor De Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299 [13]:; C-33/74 3 Dec 1974 ECJ European, Employment A Member State cannot be denied the right to take measures to prevent the exercise by a person providing services whose activity is entirely or principally directed towards its territory of the freedom guaranteed by Article 59 [on freedom to provide services] for the purpose of avoiding the professional rules of conduct which would be applicable to him if he were established within the State. Â Belgium and Others v Berufsgenossenschaft Feinmechanik (Judgment) C-40/74 3 Dec 1974 ECJ European Â Â Van Duyn v Home Office; ECJ 4-Dec-1974 - (1975) 1 CMLR 1; C-41/74; [1974] ECR I 1337; R-41/74; [1974] EUECJ R-41/74; [1975] Ch 358; [1974] ECR 1337 Â Van Belle v Commission (Judgment) C-176/73; [1974] EUECJ C-176/73 5 Dec 1974 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â M Charmasson v Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance C-48/74 10 Dec 1974 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa Derogations which a national organization may effect from the general rules of the treaty are only permissible provisionally until the end of the transitional period to the extent necessary to ensure its functioning, without however impeding the adaptations which are involved in the establishment of the common agricultural policy. They cease at the expiry of this period, when the provisions of article 33 must be fully effective. The national organization amounts to a totality of legal devices placing the regulation of the market in the products in question under the control of the public authority, with a view to ensuring, by means of an increase in productivity and of optimum utilization of manpower, a fair standard of living for producers, the stabilization of the market, the assurance of supplies and reasonable prices to the consumers. To continue permanently beyond the transitional period a simple quota system cannot respond to these conditions. Â B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo C-36/74; R-36/74; [1974] EUECJ R-36/74; [1974] ECR 1405 12 Dec 1974 ECJ European, Discrimination ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in the sphere of economic activities which have the character of gainful employment or remunerated service covers all work or services without regard to the exact nature of the legal relationship under which such activities are performed. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality does not affect the composition of sport teams, in particular national teams, the formation of which is a question of purely sporting interest and as such has nothing to do with economic activity. Prohibition of discrimination does not only apply to the action of public authorities but extends likewise to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating in a collective manner gainful employment and the provision of services. The rule on non-discrimination applies to all legal relationships which can be located within the territory of the community by reason either of the place where they are entered into or of the place where they take effect. The first paragraph of article 59, in any event in so far as it refers to the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality, creates individual rights which national courts must protect. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Johnson and Firth Brown v Commission (Order) C-3/75; [1975] EUECJ C-3/75R 16 Jan 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Robert Unkel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. (Agriculture ) R-55/74; [1975] EUECJ R-55/74 22 Jan 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Unkel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Jonas (Judgment) C-55/74 22 Jan 1975 ECJ European Â P.J. Van Der Hulst'S Zonen v Produktschap Voor Siergewassen. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-51/74; [1975] EUECJ R-51/74 23 Jan 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Filippo Galli (Judgment) C-31/74 23 Jan 1975 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa In sectors covered by a common organization of the market, and especially when this organization is based on a common price system, member states can no longer take action, through national provisions taken unilaterally, affecting the machinery of price formation as established under the common organization. Article 103, which refers to member states' conjunctural policies, does not relate to those areas already subject to common rules such as the organization of agricultural markets. The only way compatible with community law of enabling member states to attain, in a sector covered by a common organization of the market, the objectives sought by national legislation and intended to combat a rise in prices, is for those states to take, at the community level, the necessary action for the purpose of prompting the competent community authority to institute or authorize measures which are consistent with the single market. The price system established by regulations nos 120/67 and 136/66 is applicable solely at the production and wholesale stage, with the result that these provisions leave member states free - without prejudice to other provisions of the treaty - to take the appropriate measures relating to price formation at the retail and consumption stages, on condition that they do not jeopardize the aims or functioning of the common organization of the market in question. Â Filippo Galli. (Agriculture ) R-31/74; [1975] EUECJ R-31/74 23 Jan 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Der Hulst v Produktschap Voor Siergewassen (Judgment) C-51/74 23 Jan 1975 ECJ European Â De Dapper v Parliament (Judgment) C-29/74; [1975] EUECJ C-29/74 23 Jan 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â M. Angelo Alaimo v Prefet Du Rhone. R-68/74; [1975] EUECJ R-68/74 29 Jan 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alaimo v Prefet Du Rhone (Judgment) C-68/74 29 Jan 1975 ECJ European Â Compagnie Continentale France v Council C-169/73; [1975] EUECJ C-169/73 4 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Auditeur Du Travail v Cagnon and Taquet C-69/74 18 Feb 1975 ECJ European Â Auditeur Du Travail v Jean-Pierre Cagnon And Jean-Paul Taquet. R-69/74; [1975] EUECJ R-69/74 18 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alfonso Farrauto v BauBerufsgenossenschaft. R-66/74; [1975] EUECJ R-66/74 18 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Farrauto v BauBerufsgenossenschaft C-66/74 18 Feb 1975 ECJ European Â Reich v Hauptzollamt Landau C-64/74 20 Feb 1975 ECJ European Â Geerlings v Commission C-38/74; [1975] EUECJ C-38/74 20 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Den Broeck v Commission C-37/74; [1975] EUECJ C-37/74 20 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Adolf Reich v Hauptzollamt Landau R-64/74; [1975] EUECJ R-64/74 20 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Airola v Commission C-21/74; [1975] EUECJ C-21/74 20 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany C-12/74; [1975] EUECJ C-12/74 20 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuster v Parliament C-22/75; [1975] EUECJ C-22/75R; [1975] EUECJ C-22/75 25 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â W. Cadsky Spa v Istituto Nazionale Per Il Commercio Estero. (Customs Duties ) R-63/74; [1975] EUECJ R-63/74 26 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Carmelo Angelo Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor Der Stadt Koln. R-67/74; [1975] EUECJ R-67/74 26 Feb 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cadsky S P A v Istituto Nazionale Per Il Commercio Estero C-63/74 26 Feb 1975 ECJ European Â Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor Der Stadt Koln C-67/74 26 Feb 1975 ECJ European Â Porrini and Others v EAEC and Others C-65/74 11 Mar 1975 ECJ European Â Porrini And Others v European Atomic Energy Community And Comont Spa And Bellintani And Others v European Atomic Energy Community And Cemi Spa. (Officials ) R-65/74; [1975] EUECJ R-65/74 11 Mar 1975 ECJ European Article 152 of the EAEC treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only to persons who have the status of officials or of servants other than local staff but also to persons claiming that status. The basis of the service relationship between the community and officials or servants other than local staff cannot reside in a decision of a national court. [ Bailii ] Â Gigante v Commission C-31/71 12 Mar 1975 ECJ European Â Kuster v Parliament (Judgment) C-23/74 12 Mar 1975 ECJ European Â Acton and Others v Commission C-44/74 18 Mar 1975 ECJ European Europa 1. In the context of the right of action made available by article 91 of the staff regulations and in the case of a measure of a general nature designed to be implemented by means of a series of individual decisions affecting all or a large proportion of the officials of an institution, an official taken individually cannot be deprived of his right to invoke the illegality of that measure in order to attack the individual decision which alone allows him certain knowledge of the manner in which and the extent to which his individual interests are affected. 2. According to a principle recognized in the labour law of the member states, wages and other benefits pertaining to days on strike are not due to persons who have taken part in that strike. This principle is applicable to relations between the institutions of the communities and their officials. That statement in no way implies any decision in relation to the existence of an official's right to strike or in relation to the detailed rules which may govern the exercise of such a right. An institution's decision not to pay for days on strike cannot be invalidated by the fact that the other institutions have chosen not to take measures which they could lawfully have adopted. Â Union Syndicale and Others v Council C-72/74; [1975] EUECJ C-72/74 18 Mar 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deuka v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-78/74 18 Mar 1975 ECJ European Â Deuka, Deutsche Kraftfutter Gmbh, B. J. Stolp v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Acts Of An Institution ) R-78/74; [1975] EUECJ R-78/74 18 Mar 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Maric-Louise Acton And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-49/74; [1975] EUECJ C-49/74 18 Mar 1975 ECJ European Europa 1. In the context of the right of action made available by article 91 of the staff regulations and in the case of a measure of a general nature designed to be implemented by means of a series of individual decisions affecting all or a large proportion of the officials of an institution, an official taken individually cannot be deprived of his right to invoke the illegality of that measure in order to attack the individual decision which alone allows him certain knowledge of the manner in which and the extent to which his individual interests are affected. 2. According to a principle recognized in the labour law of the member states, wages and other benefits pertaining to days on strike are not due to persons who have taken part in that strike. This principle is applicable to relations between the institutions of the communities and their officials. That statement in no way implies any decision in relation to the existence of an official's right to strike or in relation to the detailed rules which may govern the exercise of such a right. An institution's decision not to pay for days on strike cannot be invalidated by the fact that the other institutions have chosen not to take measures which they could lawfully have adopted. [ Bailii ] Â Gillet v Commission C-28/74; [1975] EUECJ C-28/74 19 Mar 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Reenen v Commission C-189/73; [1975] EUECJ C-189/73 19 Mar 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Santopietro v Commission C-61/74; [1975] EUECJ C-61/74 15 Apr 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Company v Commission C-6/72 18 Apr 1975 ECJ European Â Cam Sa v Commission and Council C-100/74 12 May 1975 ECJ European Â Cnta v Commission C-74/74; [1975] EUECJ C-74/74; [1976] EUECJ C-74/74 14 May 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Kali Und Salz and Kali-Chemie v Commission C-19/74 14 May 1975 ECJ European Â Fruit- En Groentenimporthandel and Frubo v Commission C-71/74 15 May 1975 ECJ European Â Van Den Bergh v Produktschap Voor Zuivel C-92/74 15 May 1975 ECJ European Â Melkproduktenmaatschappij G. Van Den Bergh Bv v Produktschap Voor Zuivel. R-92/74; [1975] EUECJ R-92/74 15 May 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel v Mackprang C-2/75 27 May 1975 ECJ European Â Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel v -c- Mackprang. R-2/75; [1975] EUECJ R-2/75 27 May 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bruns v Commission C-133/73 28 May 1975 ECJ European Â Konecke v Commission C-44/75; [1975] EUECJ C-44/75R 28 May 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus v Hamburger Import-Kompanie. R-91/74; [1975] EUECJ R-91/74 10 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Hamburg Ericus v Hamburger Import Kompagnie C-91/74 10 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Pastificio Triestino v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. (Agriculture ) R-93/74; [1975] EUECJ R-93/74 17 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mr. And Mrs. F. v Belgian State. (Reference For A Preliminary Ruling ) R-7/75; [1975] EUECJ R-7/75 17 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pastificio Triestino v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-93/74 17 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Epoux F v Belgian State C-7/75 17 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Igav v Ente Nazionale Per La Cellulosa C-94/74 18 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Industria Gomma Articoli Vari Igav v Ente Nazionale Per La Cellulosa E Per La Carta Encc R-94/74; [1975] EUECJ R-94/74 18 Jun 1975 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa The prohibition contained in article 13(2) is aimed at any tax demanded at the time or by reason of importation and which, being imposed specifically on an imported product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, results in the same restrictive consequences on the free movement of goods as a customs duty by altering the cost price of that product. This prohibition attaches solely to the effect of such a fiscal charge and not to the manner in which it is imposed; the fact that the duty is levied by an independent institution governed by public law rather than by the state itself has no effect on its definition. A duty falling within a general system of internal taxation applying systematically to domestic and imported products according to the same criteria is subject to the rule of non-discrimination in matters of internal taxation laid down by article 95; it may nevertheless constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports when such duty is intended exclusively to support activities which specifically benefit the taxed domestic product. As from 1 january 1970, the date of expiration of the transitional period, article 13(2) has, by its very nature, produced direct effects in the legal relations between the member states and those subject to their jurisdiction. A due imposed by a member state has not the character of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty by reason solely of the fact that it is utilized for the purpose of financing a system of aid which is recognized as incompatible with the treaty. [ Bailii ] Â Kuster v Parliament C-79/74; [1975] EUECJ C-79/74 19 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie Selestat v Foot-Ball Club D'Andlau C-8/75 24 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie De Selestat v Association Du Foot-Ball Club D'Andlau. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-8/75; [1975] EUECJ R-8/75 24 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deuka Deutsche Kraftfutter Gmbh B. J. Stolp v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Agriculture ) R-5/75; [1975] EUECJ R-5/75 25 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Anselmetti v Caisse De Compensation Des Allocations Familiales C-17/75 25 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Deuka v Einfuhr- Und Vorratsstelle Fur Getreide Und Futtermittel C-5/75 25 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Antonio Anselmetti v Caisse De Compensation Des Allocations Familiales De L'Industrie Charbonniere. R-17/75; [1975] EUECJ R-17/75 25 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ulrich Horst v Bundesknappschaft. R-6/75; [1975] EUECJ R-6/75 26 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Horst v Bundesknappschaft C-6/75 26 Jun 1975 ECJ European Â Commission v Council C-70/74; [1975] EUECJ C-70/74 26 Jun 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Dapper v Parliament (Order) C-54/75; [1975] EUECJ C-54/75R; [1976] EUECJ C-54/75; [1977] EUECJ C-54/75 2 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Henrich v Parliament (Order) C-80/74; [1975] EUECJ C-80/74 4 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rewe Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaftskammer Bonn C-4/75 8 Jul 1975 ECJ European Â Rewe-Zentralfinanz Egmbh v Landwirtschaftskammer. (Quantitative Restrictions ) R-4/75; [1975] EUECJ R-4/75 8 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gaetano D'Amico v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz. (Social Security Of Migrant Workers ) R-20/75; [1975] EUECJ R-20/75 9 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â I. Schroeder Kg v Oberstadtdirektor Der Stadt Koln. (Customs Duties ) R-21/75; [1975] EUECJ R-21/75 9 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vellozzi v Commission C-42/74 9 Jul 1975 ECJ European Â D'Amico v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz C-20/75 9 Jul 1975 ECJ European Europa Community law does not in principle provide for the right of an unemployed worker to claim unemployment benefits under the legislation of a member state other than the state in which he became unemployed. The insurance periods to be aggregated for the acquisition of the right to a retirement pension may include a period of unemployment which is regarded as equivalent to a period of employment by the legislation under which it was completed. On the other hand, when national legislation makes the early acquisition of the right to a retirement pension conditional upon the person concerned having been unemployed for a certain time as well as upon the completion of a period of membership of a social insurance scheme and when therefore the length of the period of unemployment is not intended to be aggregated to obtain the minimum period of membership required or to be used in the calculation of the benefit there are no grounds for taking into account a period of unemployment completed in another member state. Â Schroeder Kg v Stadt Koln C-21/75 9 Jul 1975 ECJ European Â Kuster v Parliament (Judgment) C-77/74; [1975] EUECJ C-77/74 10 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bonaffini v Inps C-27/75 10 Jul 1975 ECJ European Â Giuseppe Scuppa v Commission Of The European Communities. C-30/74; [1975] EUECJ C-30/74 10 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Scuppa v Commission C-4/74 10 Jul 1975 ECJ European Â Gaetano Bonaffini And Others v Istituto Nazionale Della Previdenza Sociale (Inps). R-27/75; [1975] EUECJ R-27/75 10 Jul 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nold Kg v Commission [1977] EUECJ C-4/73; C-4/73 24 Sep 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Baupla Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Koln C-28/75 25 Sep 1975 ECJ European Â Baupla Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Koln. R-28/75; [1975] EUECJ R-28/75 25 Sep 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Procureur De La Republique At The Cour D'Appel Aix-En-Provence And Federation Nationale Des Producteurs De Vins De Table And Vins De Pays v Paul Louis Lahaille And Others. (Agriculture ) R-14/75; [1975] EUECJ R-14/75 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Procureur de la Republique at the Cour d'Appel Aix-en-Provence and Federation Nationale des Producteurs de Vins de Table and Vins de Pays v Paul Louis Lahaille and others C-10/75 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa Table wines, in order to be entitled to that designation and to move freely in the territory of the member states, need not comply with any rules of analysis other than those laid down in regulation no 816/70. A member state may not require in respect of wines from another member state an accompanying certificate other than that governed by community regulations. A member state may in the present state of community law apply as a national measure of control a presumption in law of over-alcoholization which is based on the proportion of alcohol to the dry extract measured by the 100* method, provided that that presumption is capable of being rebutted and that it is applied in such a way as not to place at a disadvantage, in law or in fact, as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction, wines from other member states. Â Christini v S N C F C-32/75 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European Â Procureur General At The Cour D'Appel Bordeaux v Robert Jean Arnaud And Others. R-89/74; [1975] EUECJ R-89/74 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Anita Cristini v Societe Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Francais. R-32/75; [1975] EUECJ R-32/75 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Asmussen and Others v Commission and Others C-50/74; [1975] EUECJ C-50/74 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Arnaud C-89/74 30 Sep 1975 ECJ European Â Van Vliet Kwasten En Ladderfabriek Nv v Fratelli Dalle Crode. R-25/75; [1975] EUECJ R-25/75 1 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Vliet Kwastenfabriek v Dalle Grode C-25/75 1 Oct 1975 ECJ European Â Â X v United Kingdom; ECHR 3-Oct-1975 - 7096/75 Â Deboeck v Commission C-90/74; [1975] EUECJ C-90/74 16 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Petroni v Ontps C-24/75 21 Oct 1975 ECJ European Â Teresa Et Silvana Petroni v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries (Onpts), Bruxelles R-24/75; [1975] EUECJ R-24/75 21 Oct 1975 ECJ European, Benefits Social Security For Migrant Workers [ Bailii ] Â Meyer-Burckhardt v Commission C-9/75; [1975] EUECJ C-9/75 22 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â National Carbonising Company v Commission C-109/75; [1975] EUECJ C-109/75R 22 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Matisa-Maschinen Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. (Preliminary Rulings ) R-35/75; [1975] EUECJ R-35/75 23 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Matisa Maschinen Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof C-35/75 23 Oct 1975 ECJ European Â Rutili v Ministre De L'Interieur C-36/75; R-36/75; [1975] EUECJ R-36/75; [1975] ECR 1219 28 Oct 1975 ECJ European Europa 1. The expression 'subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy' in article 48 concerns not only the legislative provisions adopted by each member state to limit within its territory freedom of movement and residence for nationals of other member states but concerns also individual decisions taken in application of such legislative provisions. 2. The concept of public policy must, in the community context, and where, in particular, it is used as a justification for derogating from the fundamental principles of equality of treatment and freedom of movement for workers, be interpreted strictly, so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each member state without being subject to control by the institutions of the community. 3. Restrictions cannot be imposed on the right of a national of any member state to enter the territory of another member state, to stay there and to move within it unless his presence or conduct constitutes a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy. 4. An appraisal as to whether measures designed to safeguard public policy are justified must have regard to all rules of community law the object of which is, on the one hand, to limit the discretionary power of member states in this respect and, on the other, to ensure that the rights of persons subject thereunder to restrictive measures are protected. These limitations and safeguards arise, in particular, from the duty imposed on member states to base the measures adopted exclusively on the personal conduct of the individuals concerned, to refrain from adopting any measures in this respect which service ends unrelated to the requirements of public policy or which adversely affect the exercise of trade union rights and, finally, unless this is contrary to the interests of the security of the state involved, immediately to inform any person against whom a restrictive measure has been adopted of the grounds on which the decision taken is based to enable him to make effective use of legal remedies. 5. Measures restricting the right of residence which are limited to part only of the national territory may not be imposed by a member state on nationals of other member states who are subject to the provisions of the treaty except in the cases and circumstances in which such measures may be applied to nationals of the state concerned. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kuster v Parliament C-22/75 29 Oct 1975 ECJ European Â Giuliano Marenco And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Officials ) C-88/74; [1975] EUECJ C-88/74 29 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marenco v Commission C-81/74 29 Oct 1975 ECJ European Â Rey Soda v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero C-23/75 30 Oct 1975 ECJ European Â Benito Galati v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben. R-33/75; [1975] EUECJ R-33/75 30 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rey Soda v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero. (Eec ) R-23/75; [1975] EUECJ R-23/75 30 Oct 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bagusat Kg v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-37/75; [1975] EUECJ R-37/75 11 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bagusat v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof C-37/75 11 Nov 1975 ECJ European Â Opinion 1/75 C-1/75; [1975] EUECJ C-1/75 11 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â General Motors NV v Commission C-26/75; [1975] EUECJ C-26/75 13 Nov 1975 ECJ European Europa When combined with the freedom of the manufacturer or its authorized agent appointed by the public authority to fix the price for its service, the delegation by a member state to such person in the form of a legal monopoly of the duty governed by public law which consists in carrying out the technical inspection of vehicles before they are used on the public highway, leads to the creation of a dominant position. The abuse of such a position may be, inter alia, in the imposition of a price which is excessive in relation to the economic value of the service provided, and which has the effect of curbing parallel imports by neutralizing the possibly more favourable price levels applying in other sales areas in the community or by leading to unfair trading in the sense of article 86(2)(a). 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Unil v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-30/75 18 Nov 1975 ECJ European Â Cam Sa v Commission C-100/74; [1975] EUECJ C-100/74 18 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spa Unil-It. v Amministrazione Finanziaria Dello Stato. R-30/75; [1975] EUECJ R-30/75 18 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Douaneagent Der Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen (Judgment) C-38/75 19 Nov 1975 ECJ European Â Douaneagent Der Nv Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-38/75; [1975] EUECJ R-38/75 19 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Camilla Borella v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben. R-49/75; [1975] EUECJ R-49/75 20 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Borella v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben C-49/75 20 Nov 1975 ECJ European Â Caisse Des Pension Des E P v Massonet C-50/75 25 Nov 1975 ECJ European Â Caisse De Pension Des Employes Prives v Helga Massonet. (Social Security For Migrant Workers ) R-50/75; [1975] EUECJ R-50/75 25 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Papiers Peints v Commission (Judgment) C-73/74; [1975] EUECJ C-73/74 26 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Coenen v Sociaal Economische Raad C-39/75 26 Nov 1975 ECJ European Â Robert-Gerardus Coenen And Others v Sociaal-Economische Raad. (Services ) R-39/75; [1975] EUECJ R-39/75 26 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe Des Grands Moulins Des Antilles v Commission (Judgment) C-99/74; [1975] EUECJ C-99/74 26 Nov 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Costacurta v Commission C-31/75; [1975] EUECJ C-31/75 4 Dec 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Plaquevent v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie Du Havre C-57/75 9 Dec 1975 ECJ European Â Fernand Plaquevent v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie Du Havre Et Directeur Regional De La Securite Sociale De Rouen. R-57/75; [1975] EUECJ R-57/75 9 Dec 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Procureur General at the Cour d'Appel Lyon v Henri Mommessin and others; ECJ 9-Dec-1975 - C-64/75; R-64/75; [1975] EUECJ R-64/75 Â Cooperatives Agricoles De Cereales v Commission and Council (Judgment) C-95/74 10 Dec 1975 ECJ European Â Belgian State v Jean Nicolas Vandertaelen And Dirk Leopold Maes. (Common Customs Tariff ) R-53/75; [1975] EUECJ R-53/75 10 Dec 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State v Vandertaelen and Others C-53/75 10 Dec 1975 ECJ European Â Union Nationale Des Cooperatives Agricoles De Cereales And Others v Commission And Council Of The EC C-98/74; [1975] EUECJ C-98/74 10 Dec 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cooperatieve Vereniging 'Suiker Unie' Ua And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. (Competition ) C-114/73; [1975] EUECJ C-114/73 16 Dec 1975 ECJ European, Commercial 1. There is no reason at all why the commission should not make a single decision covering several infringements of articles 85 or 86 of the EEC treaty, even if some of the undertakings to which it is addressed are unconnected with some of these infringements, provided that the decision permits each addressee to obtain a clear picture of the complaints made against it. 2. Community institutions are under a duty to send an undertaking to which a decision is addressed a copy of that decision in the language of the member state to which this undertaking belongs. If this requirement is fulfilled, the fact that the commission also sent an undertaking copies of the decision in other languages is not such as to call into question its validity. 3. For the purpose of determining the persons to whom a decision, which finds that there has been an infringement of articles 85 or 86 of the treaty, applies, only the operative part of this decision must be considered, provided that it is not open to more than one interpretation. 4. The concept of a 'concerted practice' refers to a form of coordination between undertakings, which, without having been taken to the stage where an agreement properly so-called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes for the risks of competition, practical cooperation between them which leads to conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market, having regard to the nature of the products, the importance and number of the undertakings as well as the size and nature of the said market. Such practical cooperation amounts to a concerted practice, particularly if it enables the persons concerned to consolidate established positions to the detriment of effective freedom of movement of the products in the common market and of the freedom of consumers to choose their suppliers. These criteria of 'coordination' and 'cooperation' laid down by the case-law of the court, which in no way require the working out of an actual plan, must be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the provisions of the treaty relating to competition that each economic operator must determine independently the policy which he intends to adopt on the common market including the choice of the persons and undertakings to which he makes offers or sells. Although it is correct to say that this requirement of independence does not deprive economic operators of the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing and anticipated conduct of their competitors, it does however strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such operators, the object or effect whereof is either to influence the conduct on the market of an actual or potential competitor or to disclose to such a competitor the course of conduct which they themselves have decided to adopt or contemplate adopting on the market. If an economic operator accepts the complaints made to him by another operator in connexion with the competition to which the products manufactured by the former operator expose the latter, the conduct of the operators concerned amounts to a concerted practice. The fact that a vendor aligns his price on the highest price charged by a competitor is not necessarily evidence of a concerted practice but may be explained by an attempt to obtain the maximum profit. 5. When article 85(1) not only prohibits agreements, decisions or practices having regard to their object but also to their actual effects in the field of competition, it implies that these effects must be considered in the context in which they take place, that is to say in their surrounding economic and legal circumstances within which they may, together with other factors, have a comulative effect on competition. In order to determine whether an agreement is caught by article 85(1) it cannot therefore be severed from this context; in particular, the existence of similar contracts may be taken into consideration to the extent to which these kinds of contracts are in general likely to restrict free trade. 6.(A) the fact that a trade representative contract, which imposes upon the representative a prohibition of competition, complies with the national law governing this contract or that this law even imposes a similar prohibition is not determinative when considering whether such a contract is not caught by article 85 or 86. (B) nevertheless if an agent sells in the name and for the account of a producer or association of producers he may in principle be treated as an auxiliary organ forming an integral part of the latter's undertaking, who must carry out his principal's instructions and thus, like a commercial employee, forms an economic unit with this undertaking. In these circumstances incompatibility with article 85 or article 86 is not simply due to the fact that the principal forbids such an auxiliary to trade without his consent in products which might compete with his own products. (C) as purchases from a 'trade representative' are in fact direct purchases from his principal the fact that the latter forced wholesalers to apply to its representatives and not to itself can neither be an abuse nor evidence thereof. (D) even if an agent is called a 'trade representative' under the terms of the agreement which he has entered into with his principal, he cannot be regarded as an auxiliary organ forming an integral part of his principal's undertaking : 1. If the said agreement confers upon the agent or allows him to perform duties which from an economic point of view are approximately the same as those carried out by an independent dealer, because they provide for the agent accepting the financial risks of the sales or the performance of contracts entered into with third parties, or 2. If the agent is a large business house which at the same time as it distributes products for the account of the principal undertakes as an independent dealer a very considerable amount of business on the market for the product in question. Therefore a clause prohibiting competition entered into between such an agent and his principal may be an agreement between undertakings which is prohibited under article 85. If such a clause is inserted at the insistence of an undertaking occupying a dominant position, it may in the circumstances referred to in 1 above be an abuse under article 86. (E) clauses prohibiting competition imposed by an undertaking occupying a dominant position on trade representatives may constitute an abuse, if foreign competitors find that there are no independent operators who can market the product in question on a sufficiently large scale, and are in practice forced to apply to the said undertaking's trade representatives if they wish to sell this product in the latter's sales territory, or if the said undertaking enlarges the scope of the prohibition of competition to such an extent that it no longer corresponds to the nature of the legal and economic relationship in question. 7. For the purpose of determining whether a specific territory is large enough to amount to 'a substantial part of the common market' within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty the pattern and volume of the production and consumption of the said product as well as the habits and economic opportunities of vendors and purchasers must be considered. Article 86 of the treaty refers in each case to the position occupied by the undertaking concerned on the common market as the time when the latter acted in a way which is alleged to amount to an abuse. In order to determine in the case of a complaint made against an undertaking under this article whether a specific area is a substantial part of the common market it is therefore only necessary to compare the statistical data relating to this area with the corresponding data relating to the common market as it was when the facts giving rise to these proceedings existed; any subsequent enlargement of the common market cannot be taken into consideration. 8. If an economic operator adopts a system of loyalty rebates leading to the application of different net prices to two customers who bought the same amount from the said operator if one of them purchased from another producer as well, such a system amounts to 'applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties' within the meaning of article 86(c). 9. If a producer adopts a system of loyalty rebates which gives producers having their places of business in other member states no chance or restricts their opportunities of competing with goods sold by the said producer, such a system amounts to 'limiting markets to the prejudice of consumers' within the meaning of article 86(b). 10. There is no reason why the commission and the court should not accept as evidence of an undertaking's conduct correspondence exchanged between third parties, provided that the content thereof is credible to the extent to which it refers to the said conduct. 11. For the purpose of fixing the amount of the fine under article 15(2) of regulation no 17 regard shall be had to the gravity and duration of the infringement, so that particular account has to be taken of the legislative background and economic context of the conduct to which exception is taken, the nature of the restrictions of competition as well as the number and size of the undertakings concerned. 12. If a producer, acting independently, may be justified in endeavouring to prevent the sugar, which he has sold at a relatively low price for denaturing, from being sold at too low a price on the market for human consumption, the objectives of article 39 of the treaty do not however in any way require that he pursues this aim by means of concerted practices. Nevertheless, if he does so, the concerted practices cannot come within the scope of the second exception specified in the first sentence of article 2(1) of regulation no 26. 13. There is nothing in regulation no 1009/67 to justify the assertion that this price is also 'guaranteed' to producers for sugar which they supply to other producers other than the intervention agencies referred to in article 9 of the said regulation. 14. It follows from the wording of article 17(1) of regulation no 1009/67 that community institutions are not required to introduce a system of export refunds and still less to fix the amount thereof in such a way that if sugar producers export they obtain this intervention price. [ Bailii ] Â Suiker Unie and Others v Commission C-40/73 16 Dec 1975 ECJ European 1 Citers Â Adlerblum v Caisse Nationale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries C-93/75 17 Dec 1975 ECJ European Â Jacob Adlerblum v Caisse Nationale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries. R-93/75; [1975] EUECJ R-93/75 17 Dec 1975 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Handelswerkerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace SA; ECJ 1976 - [1978] QB 708; [1976] ECR 1735 Â Produits Bertrand v Commission C-40/75; [1976] EUECJ C-40/75 21 Jan 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Russo v Aima C-60/75 22 Jan 1976 ECJ European Â Balkan-Import Export Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. R-55/75; [1976] EUECJ R-55/75 22 Jan 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Balkan Import Export Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof (Judgment) C-55/75 22 Jan 1976 ECJ European Â Carmine Antonio Russo v Azienda Di Stato Per Gli Interventi Sul Mercato Agricolo (Aima). R-60/75; [1976] EUECJ R-60/75 22 Jan 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â IBC v Commission; ECJ 27-Jan-1976 - C-46/75; [1976] EUECJ C-46/75 Â Fonderies Roubaix v Fonderies Roux C-63/75 3 Feb 1976 ECJ European Â Pubblico Ministero v Flavia Manghera And Others. R-59/75; [1976] EUECJ R-59/75 3 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Manghera and Others C-59/75 3 Feb 1976 ECJ European Â Suddeutsche Zucker Ag v Hauptzollamt Mannheim C-94/75 5 Feb 1976 ECJ European Â Bresciani v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-87/75 5 Feb 1976 ECJ European Â Sueddeutsche Zucker-Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Mannheim. R-94/75; [1976] EUECJ R-94/75 5 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Conceria Daniele Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana Delle Finanze R-87/75; [1976] EUECJ R-87/75 5 Feb 1976 ECJ European, Customs and Excise ECJ 1. Whatever its designation and mode of application, a pecuniary charge which is imposed unilaterally on goods imported from another member state when they cross a frontier constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty. Nor, in determining the effects of the duty on the free movement of goods, is it of any importance that a duty is proportionate to the costs of a compulsory public health inspection carried out on entry of the goods, since the activity of the administration of the state intended to maintain a public health inspection system imposed in the general interest cannot be regarded as a service rendered to the importer such as to justify the imposition of a pecuniary charge. 2. The direct effect of article 13(2) of the Treaty can only be invoked with effect from 1 January 1970. 3. Article 2(1) of the convention signed at Yaounde on 20 July 1963 confers, with effect from 1 January 1970, on those subject to community law the right, which the national courts of the community must protect, not to pay to a member state a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties. 4. The obligations imposed upon the member states by the Yaounde Convention of 1963 continued to exist without interruption until the entry into force of the Convention signed at Yaounde on 29 July 1969. [ Bailii ] Â Delvaux v Commission C-42/75; [1976] EUECJ C-42/75 17 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rewe-Zentrale Des Lebensmittel-Grosshandels Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Landau/Pfalz. R-45/75; [1976] EUECJ R-45/75 17 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Gottingen Et Bundesfinanzminister v Wolfgang Miritz Gmbh and Co. R-91/75; [1976] EUECJ R-91/75 17 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Gottingen v Miritz Gmbh and Co C-91/75 17 Feb 1976 ECJ European Â Carstens Keramik Gmbh and Others v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/Main C-98/75 18 Feb 1976 ECJ European Â Carstens Keramik Gmbh Et August Hoff v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt Am Main. R-99/75; [1976] EUECJ R-99/75 18 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-52/75; [1976] EUECJ C-52/75 26 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kurrer v Council C-101/74; [1976] EUECJ C-101/74 26 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van De Roy v Commission C-92/75; [1976] EUECJ C-92/75 26 Feb 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Effem Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Luneburg C-95/75 9 Mar 1976 ECJ European Â Effem Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Lueneburg. R-95/75; [1976] EUECJ R-95/75 9 Mar 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giovanni Balsamo v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite. R-108/75; [1976] EUECJ R-108/75 9 Mar 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Balsamo v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite C-108/75 9 Mar 1976 ECJ European Â Lesieur v Commission C-67/75 17 Mar 1976 ECJ European Â Lesieur Cotelle Et Associes Sa And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-85/75; [1976] EUECJ C-85/75 17 Mar 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Riemer v Hauptzollamt Lubeck West C-120/75 22 Mar 1976 ECJ European Â United Brands v Commission C-27/76; [1976] EUECJ C-27/76R 5 Apr 1976 ECJ European 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Directeur Regional De La Securite Sociale De Nancy v Auguste Hirardin And Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie Du Nord-Est. R-112/75; [1976] EUECJ R-112/75 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European ECJ 1. References for a preliminary ruling - jurisdiction of the court - limits (EEC Treaty, article 177) 2. Social security - migrant workers - old age (pensions) insurance - algeria - insurance periods completed before 19 january 1965 - taking into consideration by french institutions - national of a member state other than france - recipient (EEC treaty, articles 48 to 51. Regulation no 109/65 of the Council, article 16 (2)) 1. Although the court, when giving a ruling under Article 177, has no jurisdiction to apply community rules to a specific case or, consequently, to pronounce upon a provision of national law, it may however provide the national court with the factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of such provision. 2. The principle of the equal treatment of workers laid down by articles 48 to 51 of the eec treaty implies that provisions of national law cannot be applied as against a worker who, whilst residing in france, is a national of another member state, where their effect is to deprive such a worker of a benefit awarded to french workers as regards the taking into account, in calculating the old-age pension, of insurance periods completed in algeria. [ Bailii ] Â Royer v Belgium R-48/75; [1976] EUECJ R-48/75; [1976] ECR 497; [1977] ICR 314; [1976] 2 CMLR 619 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European ECJ The right of nationals of a member state to enter the territory of another member state and reside there is a right conferred directly, on any person falling within the scope of community law, by the Treaty, especially articles 48, 52 and 59 or where appropriate, by the provisions adopted. For its implementation, independently of any residence permit issued by the host state. The exception concerning the safeguard of public policy, public security and public health contained in articles 48(3) and 56(1) of the treaty must be regarded not as a condition precedent to the acquisition of the right of entry and residence but as providing the possibility, in individual cases where there is sufficient justification, of imposing restrictions on the exercise of a right derived directly from the treaty. Article 4 of directive no 78/360 entails an obligation for member states to issue a residence permit to any person who provides proof, by means of the appropriate documents, that he belongs to one of the categories set out in article 1 of the directive. The mere failure by a national of a member state to comply with the formalities concerning the entry, movement and residence of aliens is not of such a nature as to constitute in itself conduct threatening public policy, and public security and cannot therefore, by itself, justify a measure ordering expulsion or temporary imprisonment for that purpose. A decision ordering expulsion cannot be executed, save in cases of urgency which have been properly justified, against a person protected by community law until the party concerned has been able to exhaust the remedies guaranteed by articles 8 and 9 of directive no 64/221. Articles 53 and 62 of the treaty prohibit the introduction by a member state of new restrictions on the establishment of nationals of other member states and the freedom to provide services which has in fact been attained and prevent the member states from reverting to less liberal provisions or practices in so far as the liberalization measures already adopted constitute the implementation of obligations arising from the provisions and objectives of the treaty. The freedom left to the member states by article 189 as to the choice of forms and methods of implemen- tation of directives does not affect their obligation to choose the most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the effectiveness of the directives. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jean Noel Royer C-48/75 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European The right to stay in a Member State and public policy. Â Merkur Aussenhandel Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg Jonas C-106/75 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European Â Securite Sociale Nancy v Hirardin C-112/75 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European Â Kaufhof Ag v Commission C-29/75; [1976] EUECJ C-29/75 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Merkur Aussenhandel Gmbh and Co Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas R-106/75; [1976] EUECJ R-106/75 8 Apr 1976 ECJ European, Agriculture [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Commission C-47/75; [1976] EUECJ C-47/75 4 May 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Adriaan De Peijper, Managing Director of Centrafarm Bv R-104/75; [1976] EUECJ R-104/75 20 May 1976 ECJ European ECJ 1. National rules or practices which result in imports being channelled in such a way that only certain traders can effect these imports, whereas others are prevented from doing so, constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative re- striction within the meaning of article 30 of the treaty. 2. National rules or practices which do restrict imports of pharmaceutical products or are capable of doing so are only compatible with the treaty to the extent to which they are necessary for the effective protection of health and life of humans. National rules or practices do not fall within the exception specified in article 36 if the health and life of humans can be as effectively protected by measures which do not restrict intra-community trade so much. In particular article 36 cannot be relied on to justify rules or practices which, even though they are beneficial, contain restrictions which are explained primarily by a concern to lighten the administration's burden or reduce public expenditure, unless, in the absence of the said rules or practices, this burden or expenditure clearly would exceed the limits of what can reasonably be required. Where - a pharmaceutical product prepared in accordance with a uniform method of preparation and quali- tative and quantitative compo- sition is lawfully in circulation in several member states, in the sense that, in pursuance of the national systems of legislation of these states, the requisite authorizations have been granted in relation to that product to the manufacturer or the person responsible for putting the product on the market in the member state in question ; - the fact that such authorizations have been granted in each of the member states is made known by general notice being given by official publication or in some other way ; - this product is in every respect similar to a product in respect of which the public health1 - language of the case : dutch. Authorities of the member state into which the first product has been imported altready possess the documents relating to the method of preparation and also to the quantitative and qualitative com- position, since these documents were produced to them previously by the manufacturer or his duly appointed importer in support of an application for authorization to place them on the market; national rules or practices which make it possible for a manufacturer of the pharmaceutical product in question and his duly appointed representative, simply by refusing to produce the documents relating to the medicinal preparation in general or to a specific batch of that preparation, to enjoy a monopoly of the importing and marketing of the product, must be regarded as being unnecessarily restrictive and cannot therefore come within the exception specified in article 36 of the treaty, unless it is clearly proved that any other rules or practices would obviously be beyond the means which can be reasonably expected of an administration operating in a normal manner. It is only if the information or documents to be produced by the manufacturer or his duly appointed importer show that there are several variants of the medicinal preparation and that the differences between these variants have a therapeutic effect that there would be any justification for trating the variants as different medicinal preparations, for the purpose of authorizing them to be placed on the market and as regards producing the relevant documents, it being understood that the answer to the first question remains valid as regards each of the authorization procedures which have become necessary. [ Bailii ] Â Impresa Costruzioni Comm. Quirino Mazzalai v Ferrovia Del Renon R-111/75; [1976] EUECJ R-111/75 20 May 1976 ECJ European 1. Under article 177, the court of justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of acts of the ins- titutions of the community, regardless of whether they are directly applicable. It is not for the court to appraise the relevance of questions referred under article 177, which is based on a clear separation of jurisdictions and leaves to the national courts the task of deciding whether the procedure of a reference for a preliminary ruling is helpful for the purposes of the decision in the proceedings pending before them. 2. Article 6 (4) of the second council directive of 11 april 1967 cannot be interpreted as permitting the moment when the service is provided to be identified with that when the invoice is issued or a payment on account is made if these transactions take place after the service has been carried out. [ Bailii ] Â Mazzalai v Ferrovia Del Renon C-111/75 20 May 1976 ECJ European Â Â Macevicius v Parliament; ECJ 20-May-1976 - C-66/75; [1976] EUECJ C-66/75 Â De Peijper C-104/75 20 May 1976 ECJ European Â Roquette Freres v Commission C-26/74; [1976] EUECJ C-26/74 21 May 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Walter Th. Aulich v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fuer Angestellte. R-103/75; [1976] EUECJ R-103/75 26 May 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Aulich v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte C-103/75 26 May 1976 ECJ European Â Milch-, Fett Und Eierkontor Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-125/75; [1976] EUECJ R-125/75 2 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kurt Kampffmeyer Muehlenvereinigung Kg And Others v Commission And Council Of The Ec. C-60/74; [1976] EUECJ C-60/74 2 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Milch-, Fett- Und Eierkontor v Hauptzollamt Hamburg C-125/75 2 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Kampffmeyer v Council and Commission C-56/74 2 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Cnta v Commission C-74/74 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Jansch v Commission C-5/76; [1976] EUECJ C-5/76; [1977] EUECJ C-5/76 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wack v Commission C-1/76; [1976] EUECJ C-1/76 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mills v EIB (Judgment) C-110/75; [1976] EUECJ C-110/75; [1976] EUECJ C-110/75 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European, Employment Europa By its use of the words 'any dispute between the community and its servants' article 179 is not restricted exclusively to the institutions of the community and their staff but also includes the bank as a community institution established and with legal personality conferred by the treaty. Under this article the court thus has jurisdiction in any dispute between the bank and its servants. The system adopted for the relations between the bank and its employees is contractual. The contract may be repudiated and terminated by either of the parties on the conditions laid down both in the regulations and in the contract itself. If the contract is terminated contrary to the provisions of the individual contract or of the staff regulations of the european investment bank which are deemed to be an integral part thereof the party having illegally terminated the contract must be ordered to compensate the other party for the material and non-material damage occasioned to the latter by such illegality. Both the provisions of the contract and the general principles of the law of master and servant impose limits on the intention of the parties. Termination of a contract which exceeds those limits may be void and it will be for the court having jurisdiction, in this case the court of justice, to make a declaration to that effect. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Walter J. Riemer v Hauptzollamt Luebeck-West. R-120/75; [1976] EUECJ R-120/75 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â EMI Records Limited v CBS Schallplatten Gmbh C-96/75; R-96/75; [1976] EUECJ R-96/75 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European, Intellectual Property ECJ 1. Neither the rules of the treaty on the free movement of goods nor those on the putting into free circulation of products coming from third countries nor, finally, the principles governing the common commercial policy, prohibit the proprietor of a mark in all the member states of the community from exercising his right in order to prevent the importation of similar products bearing the same mark and coming from a third country. 2. A trade-mark right, as a legal entity, does not possess those elements of contract or concerted practice referred to in article 85(1). Nevertheless the exercise of that right might fall within the ambit of the treaty if it were to manifest itself as the subject, the means, or the consequence of a restrictive practice. 3. A restrictive agreement between traders within the common market and competitors in third countries that would bring about an isolation of the common market as a whole which, in the territory of the community, would reduce the supply of products originating in third countries and similar to those protected by a mark within the community, might be of such a nature as to affect adversely the conditions of competition within the common market. In particular if the proprietor of the mark in dispute in the third country has within the community various subsidiaries established in differend member states which are in a position to market the products at issue within the common market such isolation may affect trade between member states. 4. For article 85 to apply to cases of agreements which are no longer in force it is sufficient that such agreements continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force. Europa An agreement is only regarded as continuing to produce its effects if from the behaviour of the persons concerned there may be inferred the existence of elements of concerted practice and of coordination peculiar to the agreement and producing the same result as that envisaged by the agreement. This is not so when the said effects do not exceed those flowing from the mere exercise of the national trade-mark rights. And in particular when a foreign trader can obtain access to the common market without availing himself of the mark in dispute. 5. Although the trade-mark right confers upon its proprietor a special position within the protected territory this, however, does not imply the existence of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 in particular where several undertakings whose economic strength is comparable to that of a proprietor of the mark operate in the market for the products in question and are in a position to compete with the said proprietor. Furthermore, in so far as the exercise of a trade-mark right is intended to prevent the importation into the protected territory of products bearing an identical mark, it does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty. 6. In so far as the proprietor of a mark in the member states of the community may prevent the sale by a third party within the community of products bearing the same mark held in a third country, the requirement that such third party must, for the purposes of his exports to the community, obliterate the mark on the products concerned and perhaps apply a different mark forms part of the permissible consequences of the protection which the national laws of each member state afford to the proprietor of the mark against the importation of products from third countries bearing a similar or identical mark. [ Bailii ] Â Giordano Frecasseti v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-113/75; [1976] EUECJ R-113/75 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Frecasseti v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-113/75 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Â EMI Records v CBS United Kingdom; ECJ 15-Jun-1976 - [1976] ECR 811; C-51/75; R-51/75; [1976] EUECJ R-51/75 Â Riemer v Hauptzollamt Lubeck West C-120/75 15 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Â EMI Records v CBS Grammofon; ECJ 15-Jun-1976 - C-86/75; R-86/75; [1976] EUECJ R-86/75 Â Societe Terrapin (Overseas) Ltd. v Societe Terranova Industrie Ca Kapferer and Co R-119/75; [1976] EUECJ R-119/75; [1976] 2 ECR 1039 22 Jun 1976 ECJ European, Intellectual Property, Commercial The court discussed the doctrine of exhaustion of rights: ". . . the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the law of a member state cannot rely on that law to prevent the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another member state by the proprietor himself or with his consent." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bobie Getrankevertrieb v Hauptzollamt Aachen Nord C-127/75 22 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Bobie Getrankevertrieb Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Nord. R-127/75; [1976] EUECJ R-127/75 22 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Terrapin v Terranova C-119/75 22 Jun 1976 ECJ European Â Elz v Commission C-56/75; [1976] EUECJ C-56/75; [1977] EUECJ C-56/75 24 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Crijns v Commission C-97/75; [1976] EUECJ C-97/75 24 Jun 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sergy v Commission C-58/75; [1976] EUECJ C-58/75 1 Jul 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Wind v Commission (Judgment) C-62/75; [1976] EUECJ C-62/75 1 Jul 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Irca v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-7/76 7 Jul 1976 ECJ European Â Watson v Belmann C-118/75; R-118/75; [1976] EUECJ R-118/75 7 Jul 1976 ECJ European ECJ 1. Articles 48 to 66 of the treaty and the measures adopted by the community in application thereof implement a fundamental principle of the treaty, confer on persons whom they concern individual rights which the national courts must protect and take precedence over any national rule which might conflict with them. 2. National regulations which require nationals of other member states who benefit from the provisions of articles 48 to 66 of the eec treaty to report to the authorities of that state and prescribe that residents who provide accommodation for foreign nationals must inform the said authorites of the identity of such foreign nationals are in principle compatible with the provisions in question provided, first, that the period fixed for the discharge of the said obligations is reasonable and, secondly, that the penalties attaching to a failure to discharge them are not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and do not include deportation. In so far as such rules do not entail restrictions on freedom of movement for persons they do not constitute discrimination prohibited under article 7 of the treaty. [ Bailii ] Â Societe IRCA (Industria Romana Carni E Affini Spa) v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-7/76; [1976] EUECJ R-7/76 7 Jul 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Triches v Caisse Liegeoise Pour Allocations Familiales (Judgment) C-19/76 13 Jul 1976 ECJ European Â Pietro Triches v Caisse De Compensation Pour Allocations Familiales De La Region Liegeoise. R-19/76; [1976] EUECJ R-19/76 13 Jul 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cornelis Kramer and Others (Judgment) C-3/76 14 Jul 1976 ECJ European Â Nemirovcky v Commission C-129/75; [1976] EUECJ C-129/75 14 Jul 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gaetano Dona v Mario Mantero C-13/76; R-13/76; [1976] EUECJ R-13/76; [1976] ECR 1333 14 Jul 1976 ECJ European Europa Discrimination based upon nationality - prohibition - matches between professional sportsmen - exclusion - infringement of articles 48 to 51 or 59 to 66 of the EEC treaty - restrictions in the case of matches for reasons which are not of an economic nature - permissibility - jurisdiction of the national court. Workers - freedom of movement - services - freedom to provide - discrimination - abolition - direct effect - individual rights - protection by national courts. The court considered the rules of the Italian Football Federation, the controlling body for football clubs in Italy. By its rules its membership was, with limited exceptions, confined to those of Italian nationality who were resident in Italy and only those who were members might take part in games in Italy as professionals or semi-professionals. It was objected that these rules were incompatible with Articles 39 (ex 48) and 49 (ex 59). Held: The court reaffirmed the principle and its limits and pointed out that it was for the national court to determine the nature of the activity in issue: "rules or a national practice, even adopted by a sporting organization, which limit the right to take part in football matches as professional or semi-professional players solely to the nationals of the state in question, are incompatible with article 7 and, as the case may be, with articles 48 to 51 or 59 to 66 of the treaty unless such rules or practice exclude foreign players from participation in certain matches for reasons which are not of an economic nature, which relate to the particular nature and context of such matches and are thus of sporting interest only." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Geist v Commission C-61/76; [1976] EUECJ C-61/76R; [1976] EUECJ C-61/76R 15 Jul 1976 ECJ European 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Metro v Commission C-26/76; [1976] EUECJ C-26/76R; [1977] EUECJ C-26/76 23 Jul 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-10/76; [1976] EUECJ C-10/76 22 Sep 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Import Gadgets Sarl v Lamp Spa (Judgment) C-22/76 22 Sep 1976 ECJ European Â Import Gadgets Sarl v Lamp Spa. R-22/76; [1976] EUECJ R-22/76 22 Sep 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â M.L.E. Brack, Widow Of R.J. Brack, v Insurance Officer. R-17/76; [1976] EUECJ R-17/76 29 Sep 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giuffrida v Council C-105/75; [1976] EUECJ C-105/75 29 Sep 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Morello v Commission C-9/76; [1976] EUECJ C-9/76 29 Sep 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Brack v Insurance Officer C-17/76 29 Sep 1976 ECJ European, Benefits, Employment Europa The provision in paragraph 1 of point I (United Kingdom) of annex V to Regulation no 1408/71, far from restricting the definition of the term 'worker' as it emerges from clarify the scope of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph vis-a-vis British legislation. A person who:- was compulsorily insured against the contingency of ' sickness ' successively as an employed person and as a self-employed person under a social security scheme for the whole working population; - was a self-employed person when this contingency occurred; - at the said time and under the provisions of the said scheme, nevertheless could have claimed sickness benefits in cash at the full rate only if there were taken into account both the contributions paid by him or on his behalf when he was an employed person and those which he made as a self-employed person; constitutes, as regards british legislation, a 'worker' within the meaning of article 1(a)(ii) of regulation no 1408/71 for the purposes of the application of the first sentence of article 22(1)(ii) of that regulation. Â De Dapper v Parliament C-54/75 29 Sep 1976 ECJ European Â Industrie Tessili Italiana Como v Dunlop Ag. R-12/76; [1976] EUECJ R-12/76; [1976] ECR 1473 6 Oct 1976 ECJ European Europa The new member states are entitled to submit observations in the context of proceedings relating to the interpretation of one of the conventions, for which provision is made in article 220 of the Treaty, to which they are required by article 3(2) of the act of accession to become parties. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. As regards the question whether the words and concepts used in the convention must be regarded as having their own independent meaning and as being thus common to all the member states or as referring to substantive rules of the law applicable in each case under the rules of conflict of laws of the court before which the matter is first brought , the appropriate choice can only be made in respect of each of the provisions of the convention to ensure that it is fully effective having regard to the objectives of article 220 of the treaty. The 'place of performance of the obligation in question' within the meaning of article 5(1) of the convention of 27 september 1968 is to be determined in accordance with the law which governs the obligation in question according to the rules of conflict of laws of the court before which the matter is brought. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A. De Bloos, Sprl v Societe En Commandite Par Actions Bouyer. R-14/76; [1976] EUECJ R-14/76 6 Oct 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Bloos v Bouyer C-14/76 6 Oct 1976 ECJ European Â Gigante v Commission C-31/71 6 Oct 1976 ECJ European Â Industrie Tessili Italiana v Dunlop Ag C-12/76 6 Oct 1976 ECJ European Â Saieva v Caisse Allocations Familiales C-32/76 13 Oct 1976 ECJ European Â Alfonsa Saieva v Caisse De Compensation Des Allocations Familiales For The Mining Industry Of The Charleroi And Basse-Sambre Coal-Fields. R-32/76; [1976] EUECJ R-32/76 13 Oct 1976 ECJ European Europa The court is not required to rule, within the context of a request for a preliminary ruling under article 177 of the Treaty, on the meaning and scope of national legislative provisions but must restrict itself to the interpretation of the provisions of community law in question. Article 42(5) of regulation no 3 must be interpreted as determining the legislation applicable to the payment of family allowances to the children of a worker who has died as a result of an accident at work and as meaning that the right of the children of the deceased to family allowances is not linked to the award of an orphan's pension. Since the aim of article 94(5) of regulation no 1408/71 is to give to a person to whom benefits were awarded under the old regulation the right to request the review, in his favour, of such benefits, it must be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a member state is not entitled to substitute itself for an insured person with regard to the review of the rights which that person acquired before the regulation came into force. [ Bailii ] Â Ltu Lufttransportunternehmen Gmbh and Co. Kg v Eurocontrol. R-29/76; [1976] EUECJ R-29/76 14 Oct 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ltu v Eurocontrol C-29/76 14 Oct 1976 ECJ European Â De Lacroix v Court Of Justice [1977] EUECJ C-91/76; C-91/76; [1976] EUECJ C-91/76R 15 Oct 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â N v Commission C-128/75; [1976] EUECJ C-128/75 18 Oct 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Exportation Des Sucres v Commission C-88/76; [1976] EUECJ C-88/76R; [1977] EUECJ C-88/76 19 Oct 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Prais v Council C-130/75; [1976] EUECJ C-130/75 27 Oct 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mills v Eib C-110/75 17 Nov 1976 ECJ European Â Milac v Hauptzollamt Freiburg C-28/76 23 Nov 1976 ECJ European Â Milac Gmbh Gross Und Aussenhandel v Hauptzollamt Freiburg. R-28/76; [1976] EUECJ R-28/76 23 Nov 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Slavica Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit. R-40/76; [1976] EUECJ R-40/76 23 Nov 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt Fur Arbeit C-40/76 23 Nov 1976 ECJ European Â Kuster v Parliament C-122/75; [1976] EUECJ C-122/75 25 Nov 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuster v Parliament C-123/75; [1976] EUECJ C-123/75 25 Nov 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuster v Parliament C-30/76; [1976] EUECJ C-30/76 25 Nov 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier Bv v Mines De Potasse D'Alsace Sa R-21/76; [1976] EUECJ R-21/76; [1978] QB 708 30 Nov 1976 ECJ European, Jurisdiction Europa Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred', in article 5(3) of the convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage. Brussels Convention 1968 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jozef De Wolf v Harry Cox Bv. R-42/76; [1976] EUECJ R-42/76 30 Nov 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potasse d'Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1375; C-21/76 30 Nov 1976 ECJ European, Jurisdiction Europa A discharge into the French part of the Rhine of saline waste caused alleged damage to the horticultural business of the first plaintiff, and to the waters of the Rhine in general in the Netherlands. Held: Both the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred constituted a significant connecting factor from the point of view of jurisdiction, and each of them could be particularly helpful from the point of view of evidence and the conduct of proceedings. Accordingly the plaintiff had an option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it. Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred', in article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage. 1 Citers Â De Wolf v Cox (Judgment) C-42/76 30 Nov 1976 ECJ European Â Petersen v Commission C-102/75; [1976] EUECJ C-102/75 2 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pellegrini and Others v Commission and Others C-23/76; [1976] EUECJ C-23/76 7 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Estasis Salotti Di Colzani Aimo Et Gianmario Colzani v Ruewa Polstereimaschinen Gmbh C-24/76; R-24/76; [1976] EUECJ R-24/76; [1976] ECR 1831 14 Dec 1976 ECJ European, Jurisdiction Europa The way in which article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 is to be applied must be interpreted in the light of the effect of the conferment of jurisdiction by consent, which is to exclude both the jurisdiction determined by the general principle laid down in article 2 and the special jurisdictions provided for in articles 5 and 6 of that convention. In view of the consequences that such an option may have on the position of the parties to the action, the requirements set out in article 17 governing the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction must be strictly construed. By making the validity of clauses conferring jurisdiction subject to the existence of an ' agreement ' between the parties, article 17 imposes on the court before which the matter is brought the duty of examining, first, whether the clause conferring jurisdiction upon it was in fact the subject of a consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated, for the purpose of the formal requirements imposed by article 17 is to ensure that the consensus between the parties is in fact established. In the case of a clause conferring jurisdiction, which is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of the contract, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is only fulfilled if the contract signed by the two parties includes an express reference to those general conditions. In the case of a contract concluded by reference to earlier offers, which were themselves made with reference to the general conditions of one of the parties including a clause conferring jurisdiction, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of article 17 of the convention of 27 september 1968 is satisfied only if the reference is express and can therefore be checked by a party exercising reasonable care. Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Galeries Segoura Sprl v Societe Rahim Bonakdarian. R-25/76; [1976] EUECJ R-25/76 14 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Segoura v Bonakdarian (Judgment) C-25/76 14 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Donckerwolke and Others v Procureur De La Republique and Others C-41/76 15 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Bedrijfsvereniging Voor De Metaalnijverheid v Mouthaan C-39/76 15 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Simmenthal Spa v Ministero Delle Finanze C-35/76 15 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Simmenthal Spa v Ministere Des Finances Italien R-35/76; [1976] EUECJ R-35/76 15 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Suzanne Criel, Nee Donckerwolcke And Henri Schou v Procureur De La Republique Au Tribunal De Grande Instance De Lille And Director General Of Customs. R-41/76; [1976] EUECJ R-41/76 15 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bestuur Der Bedrijfsvereniging Voor De Metallnijverheid v LJ Mouthaan R-39/76; [1976] EUECJ R-39/76 15 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mascetti v Commission C-2/76; [1976] EUECJ C-2/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Perinciolo v Council C-124/75; [1976] EUECJ C-124/75 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vito Inzirillo v Caisse D'Allocations Familiales De L'Arrondissement De Lyon. R-63/76; [1976] EUECJ R-63/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v S.R.L. Foral And D. and -c- S.P.A. R-37/76; [1976] EUECJ R-37/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rewe-Zentralfinanz Eg Et Rewe-Zentral Ag v Landwirtschaftskammer Fuer Das Saarland. R-33/76; [1976] EUECJ R-33/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Foral C-36/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Industriemetall Luma Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Duisburg C-38/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Industriemetall Luma Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Duisburg R-38/76; [1976] EUECJ R-38/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Comet Bv v Produktschap Voor Siergewassen. R-45/76; [1976] EUECJ R-45/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Comet Bv /Produktschap Voor Siergewassen (Judgment) C-45/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fur das Saarland (Judgment) C-33/76; [1976] ECR 1989 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European "the right of individuals to rely on the directly effective provisions of the Treaty before national courts is only a minimum guarantee and is not sufficient in itself to ensure the full and complete implementation of the Treaty" 1 Citers Â Inzirillo v Caisse Allocations Familiales Lyon C-63/76 16 Dec 1976 ECJ European Â Geist v Commission C-61/76 21 Dec 1976 ECJ European 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ulster-Swift v Taunton Meat Haulage [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep 346; [1997] 1 WLR 625 1977 CA Transport, European A carrier who contracts with the sender is the first carrier, even if he does not undertake any stage of the carriage himself. The court noted the sometimes grat difficulty in finding consistent interpretations of European Law Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 31.1 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Nold Kg v Commission C-4/73 11 Jan 1977 ECJ European Â W. J. G. Bauhuis v The Netherlands State. R-46/76; [1977] EUECJ R-46/76 25 Jan 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Verbond Van Nederlandse Ondernemingen v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen C-51/76; R-51/76; [1977] EUECJ R-51/76 1 Feb 1977 ECJ European ECJ Capital goods. [ Bailii ] Â Alexis De Norre And His Wife Martine, Nee De Clercq v Nv Brouwerij Concordia. R-47/76; [1977] EUECJ R-47/76 1 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Norre v Brouwerij Concordia C-47/76 1 Feb 1977 ECJ European Â Amsterdam Bulb Bv v Produktschap Voor Siergewassen. C-50/76; R-50/76; [1977] EUECJ R-50/76 2 Feb 1977 ECJ European ECJ 1. The direct application of a community regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law. 2. The member states may neither adopt nor allow national organizations having legislative power to adopt any measure which would conceal the community nature and effects of any legal provision from the persons to whom it applies. They may not, either directly or through the intermediary of organizations created or recognized by them, allow or tolerate an exemption from community law or in any way affect it adversely. 3. The lowest minimum export price fixed for the product in question by regulation no 369/75 is also applicable to products which are larger than the minimum size but smaller than the sizes expressly listed in the annex to that regulation. 4. A national provision which fixes minimum prices for exports to third countries of certain varieties of bulbs other than those for which the commission has fixed minimum prices in regulation no 369/75, which does not create exemptions from the community system, does not limit its scope and seeks to achieve the same aim, that is, the stabilization of prices in trade with third countries , cannot be regarded as incompatible with community law. 5. In the absence of any provision in the community rules providing for specific sanctions to be imposed on individuals for a failure to observe those rules, the member states are competent to adopt such sanctions as appear to them to be appropriate. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jozef Strehl v Nationaal Pensioenfonds Voor Mijnwerkers. R-62/76; [1977] EUECJ R-62/76 3 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Strehl v Pensioenfonds Mijnwerkers C-62/76 3 Feb 1977 ECJ European Â De Lacroix v Court Of Justice C-91/76 3 Feb 1977 ECJ European Â Luigi Benedetti v Munari F.Lli S.A.S. R-52/76; [1977] EUECJ R-52/76 3 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Procureur de la Republique de Besancon v Les Sieurs Bouhelier and others; ECJ 3-Feb-1977 - R-53/76; [1977] EUECJ R-53/76; C-53/76 Â Benedetti v Munari C-52/76 3 Feb 1977 ECJ European Â Rolf H Dittmeyer v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof C-69/76; R-70/76; [1977] EUECJ R-70/76 15 Feb 1977 ECJ Customs and Excise, European ECJ 1. The opinions of the committee on common customs tariff nomen- clature constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the common customs tariff by the customs authorities of the member states and as such they may be considered as a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff. Nevertheless such opinions do not have legally binding force so that, where appropriate, it is necessary to consider whether their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and whether they alter the meaning of such provisions. 2. Heading 23.06 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted to mean that it may include products consisting of parts of fruit, which however are almost entirely lacking in any of those features which determine the nature of fruit, in particular products consisting of oranges which initially entered the juice in the course of pressing the oranges and which have subsequently been strained off even if they contain scarcely any constituent parts of the flesh of the fruit or fruit juice and instead constitute principally cell membrane and albedo. [ Bailii ] Â Schoettle and Sohne Ohg v Finanzamt De Freudenstadt. R-20/76; [1977] EUECJ R-20/76 16 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz v Henriette Topfer, Nee Dontenwill, Jean-Pierre Weber And 'Le Phenix' Insurance Company R-72/76; [1977] EUECJ R-72/76 16 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cfdt v Council [1977] EUECJ C-66/76; C-66/76 17 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Silvana Di Paolo v Office national de l'emploi R-76/76; [1977] EUECJ R-76/76; C-76/76 17 Feb 1977 ECJ European ECJ The concept of the member state in which the worker resides, appearing in article 71(1)(b)(ii) of regulation no 1408/71, must be limited to the state where the worker, although occupied in another member state, continues habitually to reside and where the habitual centre of his interests is also situated. The addition of the words 'or who returns to that territory' implies merely that the concept of residence in a state does not necessarily exclude non-habitual residence in another member state. For the purposes of applying article 71(1)(b)(ii), account should be taken of the length and continuity of residence before the person concerned moved, the length and purpose of his absence, the nature of the occupation found in the other member state and the intention of the person concerned as it appears from all the circumstances. [ Bailii ] Â Reinarz v Commission and Council [1977] EUECJ C-48/76; C-48/76 17 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Farbwerke Hoechst Ag v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt Am Main R-82/76; [1977] EUECJ R-82/76 17 Feb 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hoechst Ag v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt-Main C-82/76 17 Feb 1977 ECJ European Â Goulen Collic v Fonds d'orientation et de regularisation des marches agricoles C-84/76 1 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Goulen Collic v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles. R-84/76; [1977] EUECJ R-84/76 1 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Eier-Kontor v Council and Commission C-44/76; [1977] EUECJ C-44/76 2 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â National Carbonising Company Limited v Commission Of The European Communities. C-114/75; [1977] EUECJ C-114/75 2 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â National Carbonising Company v Commission C-109/75 2 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â North Kerry Milk Products v Minister For Agriculture R-80/76; [1977] EUECJ R-80/76 3 Mar 1977 ECJ European ECJ 1. Community law - linguistic discrepancies - elimination - interpretation 2. Agriculture - common organization of the market - skimmed milk - processing into casein before 7 October 1974 - marketing after that date - aid - calculation - rate of conversion [ Bailii ] Â Societe Anonyme Generale Sucriere And Others v Commission Of The European Communities And Others. C-44/73; [1977] EUECJ C-44/73 9 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe Anonyme Generale Sucriere and Others v Commission C-41/73 9 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â De Dapper v Parliament C-54/75 9 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Silvana Kaucic and Anna Maria Kaucic v Institut national d'assurances maladie invalidite C-75/76 10 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Silvana Kaucic And Anna Maria Kaucic v Institut National D'Assurances Maladie Invalidite. R-75/76; [1977] EUECJ R-75/76 10 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fernand Liegeois v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries. R-93/76; [1977] EUECJ R-93/76 16 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France [1977] EUECJ C-68/76; C-68/76 16 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fernand Liegeois v Office national des pensions pour travailleurs salaries C-93/76 16 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Steinike and Weinlig v Federal Republic Of Germany C-78/76; R-78/76; [1977] EUECJ R-78/76; [1977] ECR 595 22 Mar 1977 ECJ European A customs charge may be regarded as levied solely or exclusively by reason of its crossing a frontier, although it is applied at a later stage, such as marketing or processing of the product: "the prohibition [of a CEE] is aimed at any tax demanded at the time of or by reason of importation and which, being imposed specifically on an imported product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, results in the same restrictive consequences on the free movement of goods as a customs duty by altering the cost price of that product. The essential characteristic of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty, which distinguishes it from internal taxation, is that the first is imposed exclusively on the imported product whilst the second is imposed on both imported and domestic products. A charge affecting both imported products and similar products could however constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty if such a duty, which is limited to particular products, had the sole purpose of financing activities for the specific advantage of the taxed domestic products, so as to make good, wholly or in part, the fiscal charge imposed upon them"." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Iannelli and Volpi Spa v Ditta Paolo Meroni. R-74/76; [1977] EUECJ R-74/76 22 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ianelli v Meroni C-74/76 22 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Gervais-Danone Ag v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Mitte. R-86/76; [1977] EUECJ R-86/76 23 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gervais-Danone Ag v Hauptzollamr Munchen-Mitte C-86/76 23 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Walter Bozzone v Office de Securite sociale d'outre-mer C-87/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Walter Bozzone v Office De Securite Sociale D'Outre-Mer. R-87/76; [1977] EUECJ R-87/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Carlo Fossi v Bundesknappschaft. R-79/76; [1977] EUECJ R-79/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Industrielle Du Comte De Loheac v Council and Commission C-54/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Exportation Des Sucres v Commission C-88/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European Â Compagnie Industrielle Et Agricole Du Comte De Lohaec And Others v Council And Commission Of The European Communities. C-60/76; [1977] EUECJ C-60/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Carlo Fossi v Bundesknappschaft C-79/76 31 Mar 1977 ECJ European Europa Legislation which confers on the beneficiaries a legally defined position which involves no indivudual and discretionary assessment of need or personal circumstances comes in principle within the field of social security within the meaning of article 51 of the treaty and of regulations nos 3 and 1408/71. Where the competent insurance institutions to which the persons referred to by german legislation had been affiliated before 1945 no longer exist or are situated outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany and the purpose of such legislation is to alleviate certain situations which arose out of events connected with the national socialist regime and the second world war and where the payment of the benefits in question to nationals is of a discretionary nature where such nationals are residing abroad, those benefits are not to be regarded as in the nature of social security. Â Opinion Given Pursuant To Article 228(1) Of The EEC Treaty. OP-1/76; [1977] EUECJ OP-1/76 26 Apr 1977 ECJ European, Transport ECJ 1. Whenever community law has created for the institutions of the community powers within its internal system for the purpose of attaining a specific objective, the community has authority to enter into the international commitments necessary for the attainment of that objective even in the absence of an express provision in that connexion. This is particularly so in all cases in which internal power has already been used in order to adopt measures which come within the attainment of common policies. It is, however, not limited to that eventuality. Although the internal community measures are only adopted when the international agreement is concluded and made enforceable, the power to bind the community vis-a-vis third countries nevertheless flows by implication from the provisions of the treaty creating the internal power and in so far as the participation of the community in the international agreement is necessary for the attainment of one of the objectives of the community. 2. The participation of specific member states, together with the community, in the conclusion of an agreement concerning inland navigation is justified, as regards navigation on the rhine, by the existence of certain international conventions which preceded the eec treaty and are capable of forming an obstacle to the attainment of the scheme laid down by the agreement. The participation of these states must however be considered as being for the sole purpose of carrying out the undertaking to make the amendments necessitated by the implementation of the scheme concerned. Within these limits, that participation is justified by the second paragraph of article 234 of the treaty and cannot therefore be regarded as encroaching on the external power of the community. 3. The legal effect with regard to the member states of an agreement concluded by the community within its sphere of jurisdiction results, in accordance with article 228 (2) of the treaty, exclusively from the conclusion thereof by the community. 4. In order to attain a common policy, such as the common transport policy governed by articles 74 and 75 of the treaty, the community is not only entitled to enter into contractual relations with a third country but also has the power, while observing the provisions of the treaty, to cooperate in setting up an international organism, to give the latter appropriate powers of decision and to define, in a manner appropriate to the objectives pursued, the nature, elaboration, implementation and effects of the provisions to be adopted within such a framework. 5. The conclusion of an international agreement by the community cannot have the effect of surrendering the independence of action of the community in its external relations and changing its internal constitution by the alteration of essential elements of the community structure as regards the prerogatives of the institutions, the decision-making procedure within the latter and the position of the member states vis-a-vis one another. More particularly, the substitution, in the structure of the organs of the proposed fund, of several member states in place of the community and its institutions, the alteration of the relationship between member states as laid down by the treaty, in particular by the exclusion or non-participation of certain states in the activities provided for and the grant of special prerogatives to certain other states in the decision-making procedure are incompatible with the constitution of the community and more especially with the concepts which may be deduced from the recitals of the preamble to and from articles 3 and 4 of the treaty. An international agreement the effect of which is also to contribute to the weakening of the institutions of the community and to the surrender of the bases of a common policy and to the undoing of the work of the community is incompatible with the provisions of the treaty. 6. The question whether the grant to a public international organ separate from the community of the power to adopt decisions which are directly applicable in the member states comes with the powers of the institution does not need to be solved, since the provisions of the agreement concerned define and limit the powers in question so clearly and precisely that they are only executive powers. 7. An international agreement concluded by the community is, so far as the latter is concerned, an act of one of the institutions within the meaning of subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of article 177 of the treaty and therefore the court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of such an agreement. Since it is possible that a conflict may arise between the provisions concerning jurisdiction set out in the treaty and those laid down within the context of the proposed agreement according to the interpretation which might be attached to the provisions of the latter, the fund tribunal could only be established within the terms concerned on condition that judges belonging to the court of justice, who are under an obligation to give a completely impartial ruling on the contentious questions which may be brought before the court, are not called upon to serve on it. [ Bailii ] Â Thieffry v Conseil De L'Ordre Des Avocats A La Cour De Paris R-71/76; [1977] EUECJ R-71/76 28 Apr 1977 ECJ European ECJ 1. Freedom of establishment, subject to observance of professional rules justified by the general good, is one of the objectives of the treaty. In so far as community law makes no special provision, these objectives may be attained by measures enacted, pursuant to article 5 of the treaty, by the member states. If freedom of establishment can be ensured in a member state either under the provisions of the laws and regulations in force, or by virtue of the practices of the public service or of professional bodies, a person subject to community law cannot be denied the practical benefit of that freedom solely by virtue of the fact that, for a particular profession, the directives provided for by article 57 of the treaty have not yet been adopted. Since the practical enjoyment of freedom of establishment can thus in certain circumstances depend upon national practice or legislation, it is incumbent upon the competent public authorities - including legally recognized professional bodies - to ensure that such practices or legislation are applied in accordance with the objective defined by the provisions of the treaty relating to freedom of establishment. 2. With regard to the distinction between the academic effect and the civil effect of the recognition of equivalence of foreign diplomas, it is for the competent national authorities, taking account of the requirements of community law in relation to freedom of establishment, to make such assessments of the facts as will enable them to judge whether a recognition granted by a university authority can, in addition to its academic effect, constitute valid evidence of a professional qualification. The fact that a national legislation provides for recognition of equivalence only for university purposes does not of itself justify the refusal to recognize such equivalence as evidence of a professional qualification. This is particularly so when a diploma recognized for university purposes is supplemented by a professional qualifying certificate obtained according to the legislation of the country of establishment. 3. When a national of one member state desirous of exercising a professional activity such as the profession of advocate in another member state has obtained a diploma in his country of origin which has been recognized as an equivalent qualification by the competent authority under the legislation of the country of establishment and which has thus enabled him to sit and pass the special qualifying examination for the profession in question, the act of demanding the national diploma prescribed by the legislation of the country of establishment constitutes, even in the absence of the directives provided for in article 57, a restriction incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed by article 52 of the treaty. [ Bailii ] Â Jean Thieffry v Conseil de l'ordre des avocats a la cour de Paris C-71/76 28 Apr 1977 ECJ European, Legal Professions Europa Freedom of establishment, subject to observance of professional rules justified by the general good, is one of the objectives of the treaty. In so far as community law makes no special provision, these objectives may be attained by measures enacted, pursuant to article 5 of the treaty, by the member states. If freedom of establishment can be ensured in a member state either under the provisions of the laws and regulations in force, or by virtue of the practices of the public service or of professional bodies, a person subject to community law cannot be denied the practical benefit of that freedom solely by virtue of the fact that, for a particular profession, the directives provided for by article 57 of the treaty have not yet been adopted. Since the practical enjoyment of freedom of establishment can thus in certain circumstances depend upon national practice or legislation, it is incumbent upon the competent public authorities - including legally recognized professional bodies - to ensure that such practices or legislation are applied in accordance with the objective defined by the provisions of the treaty relating to freedom of establishment. With regard to the distinction between the academic effect and the civil effect of the recognition of equivalence of foreign diplomas, it is for the competent national authorities, taking account of the requirements of community law in relation to freedom of establishment, to make such assessments of the facts as will enable them to judge whether a recognition granted by a university authority can, in addition to its academic effect, constitute valid evidence of a professional qualification. The fact that a national legislation provides for recognition of equivalence only for university purposes does not of itself justify the refusal to recognize such equivalence as evidence of a professional qualification. This is particularly so when a diploma recognized for university purposes is supplemented by a professional qualifying certificate obtained according to the legislation of the country of establishment. When a national of one member state desirous of exercising a professional activity such as the profession of advocate in another member state has obtained a diploma in his country of origin which has been recognized as an equivalent qualification by the competent authority under the legislation of the country of establishment and which has thus enabled him to sit and pass the special qualifying examination for the profession in question, the act of demanding the national diploma prescribed by the legislation of the country of establishment constitutes, even in the absence of the directives provided for in article 57, a restriction incompatible with the freedom of establishment guaranteed by article 52 of the treaty. 1 Citers Â Gerda Jansen v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz. R-104/76; [1977] EUECJ R-104/76 5 May 1977 ECJ European Europa Article 2 of regulation no 3 and article 4 of regulation no 1408/71, which lay down the matters covered by those regulations, deal with the various national social security schemes in their entirety. The reimbursement of social security contributions therefore forms part of the matters covered by those regulations. Since regulation no 3 does not contain any specific provision relating to the reimbursement of contributions the general rules affirmed by that regulation and by the provisions of the treaty to which it gives effect, such as the rule on equality of treatment and that on the waiving of residence clauses, are applicable. Article 10 (2) of regulation no 1408/71, which constitutes a specific provision and introduces a new rule in respect of the reimbursement of contributions, cannot, however, be extended to facts which occurred outside the period covered by that regulation. Although the provisions of article 51 of the eec treaty and of the regulations adopted to give it effect ensure that, for the purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit, migrant workers enjoy aggregation of all periods taken into account under the laws of the several countries, they cannot however be interpreted, in the absence of express provisions, as preventing persons so favoured from exercising the legal options open to them under the legislation of one or other of the member states, such as the right of applying in certain circumstances for the reimbursement of social security contributions. Therefore, community law, as it stood at the time of the adoption of regulation no 3, cannot be interpreted as excluding an option available under a national legislation with regard to the reimbursement of social security contributions. [ Bailii ] Â H.O.A.G.M. Perenboom v Inspecteur Der Directe Belastingen Of Nijmegen. R-102/76; [1977] EUECJ R-102/76 5 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pretore Di Cento v X R-110/76; [1977] EUECJ R-110/76 5 May 1977 ECJ European ECJ In the present state of community law only the member states and their authorities are empowered to take proceedings before national courts for the purpose of claiming payment of community revenue constituting own resources. [ Bailii ] Â HOAGM Perenboom v Inspecteur der directe belastingen of Nijmegen C-102/76 5 May 1977 ECJ European, Benefits Europa Both article 12 of regulation no 3 and article 13 of regulation no 1408/71 prevent the state of residence from requiring payment, under its social legislation, of contributions on the remuneration received by a worker in respect of work performed in another member state and therefore subject to the social legislation of that state. Â Koniklijke Scholten Honig v Council and Commission C-101/76; [1977] EUECJ C-101/76 5 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pretore Di Cento v X C-110/76 5 May 1977 ECJ European Â Nv Roomboterfabriek 'De Beste Boter' And Josef Hoche, Butterschmelzwerk v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-100/76; [1977] EUECJ R-100/76 11 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Beste Boter and Others v Balm C-99/76 11 May 1977 ECJ European, Commercial Article 18 of regulation no 1259/72 as amended by regulation no 1237/73 must be interpreted as meaning that even where the successful tenderer does not himself carry out processing it is necessary to establish that the processed products comply with the conditions laid down in article 6(1)(c) of the regulation and that they have been produced within the period prescribed before the deposit may be released. The system regarding the processing deposit laid down by regulation no 1259/72 rests on a proper legal basis and was adopted in accordance with the opinion of the management committee concerned; as the forfeiture of the deposit is not in the nature of a penalty for non-fulfilment of an independent obligation, the system does not exceed what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective desired. Â Macevicius v Parliament C-31/76; [1977] EUECJ C-31/76 12 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Officier Van Justitie v Beert Van Den Hazel. R-111/76; [1977] EUECJ R-111/76 18 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Officier Van Justitie v Beert Van Den Hazel C-111/76 18 May 1977 ECJ European Â Commission v United Kingdom (Order) C-31/77; [1977] EUECJ C-31/77R 21 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland C-61/77; [1977] EUECJ C-61/77R; [1977] EUECJ C-61/77R; [1978] EUECJ C-61/77 22 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Hoffmann La Roche Ag v Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse Mbh C-107/76; R-107/76; [1977] EUECJ R-107/76; [1978] 2 ECR 1139 24 May 1977 ECJ European, Intellectual Property The court considered the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of rights in the context of trade marks. The exercise of trade mark rights had to take account of and might be restricted by the prohibitions contained in the Treaty of Rome intended to promote the free movement of goods. The court dealt specifically with the question whether, where a product marketed under a trade mark had been re-packaged by a third party, the third party could be prevented from applying the trade mark to the re-packaged product. As to that, the court concluded that the answer would depend upon the nature of the product and the circumstances and method of the re-packaging and that the application of the mark to the re-packaged product should be allowed where it could be shown that the re-packaging could not adversely affect the condition of the product (pp 1164 and 1165). The court said also that the re-packager should give the proprietor of the mark prior notice and state on the new packaging that the product had been re-packaged. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Entreprise F.Lli Cucchi v Avez S.P.A. R-77/76; [1977] EUECJ R-77/76 25 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cucchi v Avez C-77/76 25 May 1977 ECJ European Â Interzuccheri S.P.A. v Societa Rezzano E Cavassa. R-105/76; [1977] EUECJ R-105/76 25 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Interzuccheri S.p.A. v Societa Rezzano e Cavassa C-105/76 25 May 1977 ECJ European Â Klockner-Ferromatik Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Muenchen. R-108/76; [1977] EUECJ R-108/76 26 May 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Klockner Ferromatik Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen C-108/76 26 May 1977 ECJ European Â Merkur v Commission C-97/76; [1977] EUECJ C-97/76 8 Jun 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â S.R.L. Ufficio Henry Van Ameyde v S.R.L. Ufficio Centrale Italiano Di Assistenza Assicurativa Automobilisti In Circolazione Internazionale (Uci). R-90/76; [1977] EUECJ R-90/76 9 Jun 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â M Blottner v Het Bestuur Der Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging R-109/76; [1977] EUECJ R-109/76 9 Jun 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Ameyde v UCI C-90/76 9 Jun 1977 ECJ European Â M. Blottner v Het Bestuur der Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging C-109/76 9 Jun 1977 ECJ European Â Costacurta v Commission C-73/76; [1977] EUECJ C-73/76 14 Jun 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Richard Hugh Patrick v Ministre Des Affaires Culturelles. R-11/77; [1977] EUECJ R-11/77 28 Jun 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Balkan Import Export v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof (Judgment) C-118/76 28 Jun 1977 ECJ European Â Balkan-Import-Export Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. R-118/76; [1977] EUECJ R-118/76 28 Jun 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Patrick v Ministre Des Affaires Culturelles C-11/77 28 Jun 1977 ECJ European Â Granaria Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-116/76; [1977] EUECJ R-116/76 5 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Olmuehle Hambourg Ag v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof Et Kurt A. Becher v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Nord. R-120/76; [1977] EUECJ R-120/76 5 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Olmuhle Hamburg and Others v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof and Others (Judgment) C-119/76 5 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Granaria BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten C-116/76 5 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Bela-Muehle Josef Bergmann Kg v Grows-Farm Gmbh and Co. Kg. R-114/76; [1977] EUECJ R-114/76 5 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bela Muhle v Grows Farm C-114/76 5 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â N.G.J. Schouten BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten C-6/77 6 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â N.G.J. Schouten Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-6/77; [1977] EUECJ R-6/77 6 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Guillot v Commission C-43/74; [1977] EUECJ C-43/74 7 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hoffmann's Starkefabriken Ag v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld. R-2/77; [1977] EUECJ R-2/77 12 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands State C-89/76; [1977] EUECJ C-89/76 12 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hoffmann'S Starkefabriken v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld C-2/77 12 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Commission v Ireland C-61/77 13 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Geist v Commission C-61/76; [1977] EUECJ C-61/76 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Bosch Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim C-1/77 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy C-123/76; [1977] EUECJ C-123/76 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bavaria Fluggesellschaft Schwabe and Co. Kg And Germanair Bedarfsluftfahrt Gmbh and Co. Kg v Eurocontrol. R-10/77; [1977] EUECJ R-10/77 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Robert Bosch Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim. R-1/77; [1977] EUECJ R-1/77 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bavaria Fluggesellschaft and Others v Eurocontrol C-9/77 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Concetta Sagulo, Gennaro Brenca et Addelmadjid Bakhouche C-8/77 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European Â Concetta Sagulo, Gennaro Brenca Et Addelmadjid Bakhouche. R-8/77; [1977] EUECJ R-8/77 14 Jul 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Cargill v Office National Interprofessionnel Des Cereales (Onic). C-27/77; R-27/77; [1977] EUECJ R-27/77 29 Sep 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Tedeschi v Denkavit Commerciale SRL R-5/77; [1977] EUECJ R-5/77 5 Oct 1977 ECJ European ECJ 1. Article 177 is based on a distinct separation of functions between national courts and tribunals on the one hand and the court of justice on the other, and it does not give the court jurisdiction to take cognizance of the facts of the case, or to criticize the reasons for the reference. Therefore, when a national court or tribunal refers a provision of community law for interpretation, it is to be supposed that the said court or tribunal considers this interpretation necessary to enable it to give judgment in the action. Thus the court cannot require the national court or tribunal to state expressly that the provision which appears to that court or tribunal to call for an interpretation is applicable. The court may however provide the national court with the factors of interpretation depending on community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of the provision which is the subject-matter of the questions which have been referred to it. 2. Directive no 70/524 (additives) and directive no 74/63 (undesirable substances) although both relating to the composition of feeding-stuffs make, as regards their respective fields of application, a distinction between certain substances which are inten- tionally added to those feeding-stuffs so as to produce a favourable effect on their characteristics and, on the other, undesirable substances which are inevitably present in those feed- ing-stuffs either in the natural state or as residues from processing previously undergone by those feeding-stuffs or by the constituents of those feeding-stuffs. In these circumstances a substance which, because of a previous admixture, independent of the use for animal feeding, is necessarily present in one of the constituents of the feeding-stuff as a residue from the previous manufacture of another product may not be considered as an additive. The control of the presence of such substances comes within directive no 74/63 (undesirable substances) and not within directive no 70/524 (additives). 3. Article 36 is not designed to reserve certain matters to the exclusive jurisdiction of member states but permits national laws to derogate from the principle of the free movement of goods to the extent to which such derogation is and continues to be justified for the attainment of the objectives referred to in that article. Where, in application of article 100 of the treaty, community directives provide for the harmonization of the measures necessary to ensure the protection of animal and human health and establish community procedures to check that they are observed, recourse to article 36 is no longer justified and the appropriate checks must be carried out and the measures of protection adopted within the framework outlined by the harmonizing directive. 4. (A) even after the entry into force of harmonizing directive no 74/63, the member states have, within the context of article 5 of that directive and subject to the material and procedural require- ments laid down therein, the power provisionally to consider as undesirable certain substances which, although known and recognized when that directive was adopted, do not appear in the list annexed thereto, provided that the measures adopted apply on identical terms to both national products and to products imported from other member states. (B) subject to the obligation not to discriminate between imported products and national products, article 5 of directive no 74/63 enables a member state to fix, on a provisional basis, the maximum permitted level of a substance con- tained in imported feeding-stuffs made from powdered milk even though no maximum level has ever been fixed in the past either in the exporting member state or in the importing member state. (C) article 5 of directive no 74/63 enables a member state to prohibit the marketing of the products which have been found to infringe the temporary national provisions which it is empowered to adopt. For products coming from other member states such prohibition on marketing may take the form of a prohibition on importation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Fernando Greco v Fonds national de retraite des ouvriers mineurs C-37/77 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Fonds national de retraite des ouvriers mineurs v Giovanni Mura C-22/77 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Van Den Branden v Commission C-14/77; [1977] EUECJ C-14/77 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Elz v Commission C-56/75 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Renato Manzoni v Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs R-112/76; [1977] EUECJ R-112/76 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal du travail de Charleroi - Belgium. [ Bailii ] Â Deboeck v Commission C-106/76; [1977] EUECJ C-106/76 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Manzoni v Fonds national de retraite des ouvriers mineurs C-112/76 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Greco v Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs. R-37/77; [1977] EUECJ R-37/77 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs v Giovanni Mura. R-22/77; [1977] EUECJ R-22/77 13 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ntn Toyo Bearing v Council C-113/77; [1977] EUECJ C-113/77R; [1979] EUECJ C-113/77 14 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Schertzer v Parliament C-25/68; [1977] EUECJ C-25/68 18 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ruckdeschel and Others v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen C-117/76; R-117/76; [1977] EUECJ R-117/76 19 Oct 1977 ECJ European Europa The wording of the second subparagraph of article 40(3) of the Treaty does not refer in clear terms to the relationship between different industrial or trade sectors in the sphere of processed agricultural products . This does not alter the fact that the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the aforesaid provision is merely a specific enunciation of a general principle of equality which is one of the fundamental principles of community law. This principle requires that similar situations shall not be treated differently unless differentiation is objectively justified. The provisions of article 11 of regulation no 120/67/eec of the council of 13 june 1967, as worded with effect from 1 august 1974 following the amendment made by article 5 of regulation ( eec ) no 1125/74 of the council of 29 april 1974, and repeated in subsequent regulations, are incompatible with the principle of equality in so far as they provide for quellmehl and pre-gelatinized starch to receive different treatment in respect of production refunds for maize used in the manufacture of these two products. In the particular circumstances of the case, this finding of illegality does not inevitably involve a declaration that a provision of regulation (eec) no 1125/74 is invalid. The illegality of article 5 of regulation ( eec ) no 1125/74 cannot be removed merely by the fact that the court , in proceedings under article 177, rules that the contested provision was in part or in whole invalid . As the situation created, in law, by article 5 of regulation (eec) no 1125/74 is incompatible with the principle of equality, it is for the competent institutions of the community to adopt the measures necessary to correct this incompatibility. [ Bailii ] Â Moulins Pont-A-Mousson v Onic C-124/76 19 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Sa Moulins and Huileries De Pont-A-Mousson And Societe Cooperative Providence Agricole De La Champagne v Office National Interprofessionnel Des Cereales. R-124/76; [1977] EUECJ R-124/76 19 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nippon Seiko v Council and Commission C-119/77; [1977] EUECJ C-119/77R; [1979] EUECJ C-119/77 20 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Antonio Giuliani v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben C-32/77 20 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Roquette v France C-29/77 20 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Antonio Giuliani v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben. R-32/77; [1977] EUECJ R-32/77 20 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jansch v Commission C-5/76 20 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Sa Roquette Freres v French State Administration Des Douanes R-29/77; [1977] EUECJ R-29/77 20 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Metro v Commission C-26/76 25 Oct 1977 ECJ European Â Westfalischer Kunstverein v Hauptzollamt Munster (Judgment) C-23/77; R-23/77 27 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giry v Commission C-126/75; [1977] EUECJ C-126/75 27 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Moli v Commission C-121/76; [1977] EUECJ C-121/76 27 Oct 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Pierre Bouchereau; ECJ 27-Oct-1977 - C-30/77; [1977] ECR 1999; R-30/77; [1977] EUECJ R-30/77; [1987] QB 732 Â Â Regina v Pierre Bouchereau; ECJ 27-Oct-1977 - C-30/77; [1977] ECR 1999; R-30/77; [1977] EUECJ R-30/77; [1987] QB 732 Â Aima v Greco C-36/77 8 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Balkan v Hauptzollamt Berlin Packhof C-26/77 8 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Balkan-Import-Export Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof. R-26/77; [1977] EUECJ R-26/77 8 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Azienda Di Stato Per Gli Interventi Sul Mercato Agricolo (Aima) v Rocco Michele Greco. R-36/77; [1977] EUECJ R-36/77 8 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v A National Insurance Commissioner, Ex Parte Warry R-41/77; [1977] EUECJ R-41/77 9 Nov 1977 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ Social security for migrant workers - invalidity insurance - benefits - right - acquisition - receipt of sickness benefit as a condition imposed by the legislation of a member state - insurance periods completed - aggregation - claim for benefit - submission - rules (Regulation No 1408/71 of the council, article 45) Article 45 of regulation no 1408/71 must be understood to mean that where the legislation of a member state makes the acquisition of a right to invalidity benefit conditional upon the person concerned having been entitled to sickness benefit under that legislation for a given period in the immediately proceding period - that condition being subject to so far as material (a) the completion of insurance periods (b) the making of a claim therefor in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed time - (i) the competent institution of the said member state shall take into account insurance periods completed under the legislation of any member state as though they had been completed under the legislation which it administers; (ii) the condition that a claim must be made in a prescribed manner and within a prescribed time shall be regarded as satisfied in so far as such a claim has been duly made in accordance with the legislation of the state of residence. Regulation No 1408/71 45 [ Bailii ] Â Nachi Fujikoshi v Council C-121/77; [1977] EUECJ C-121/77R; [1979] EUECJ C-121/77 9 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Stimming Kg v Commission C-90/77; [1978] EUECJ C-90/77 10 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sa G.B.-Inno-B.M. v Association Des Detaillants En Tabac (Atab). R-13/77; [1977] EUECJ R-13/77 16 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Inno v Atab C-13/77 16 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Industrial Diamond Supplies v Riva C-43/77 22 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Industrial Diamond Supplies v Luigi Riva. R-43/77; [1977] EUECJ R-43/77 22 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Enka Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen C-38/77 23 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Enka Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen Arnhem. R-38/77; [1977] EUECJ R-38/77 23 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jean Razanatsimba C-65/77; R-65/77; [1977] EUECJ R-65/77 24 Nov 1977 ECJ European Europa Article 62 of the ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lome on 28 February 1975 between the African, Caribbean and Pacific states of the one part and the European Economic Community of the other part does not purport to provide equality of treatment between nationals of an ACP state and those of a member state of the EEC; more particularly, it does not oblige either the ACP states or the member states of the EEC to give to the nationals of a state belonging to the other group treatment identical to that reserved to their own nationals. It is not contrary to the rule as to non-discrimination laid down in article 62 for a member state to reserve more favourable treatment to the nationals of one acp state , provided that such treatment results from the provisions of an international agreement comprising reciprocal rights and advantages. Article 62 of the lome convention does not give a national of an ACP state the right to establish himself in the territory of a member state of the EEC without any condition as to nationality, in so far as the right to practise professions reserved by the legislation of that state to its own nationals is concerned. [ Bailii ] Â Elisabeth Beerens v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening C-35/77 29 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Elisabeth Beerens v Rijksdienst Voor Arbeidsvoorziening. R-35/77; [1977] EUECJ R-35/77 29 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cayrol v Rivoira C-52/77 30 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Mario Torri v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries. R-64/77; [1977] EUECJ R-64/77 30 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Leonce Cayrol v Giovanni Rivoira and Figli. R-52/77; [1977] EUECJ R-52/77 30 Nov 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mario Torri v Office national des pensions pour travailleurs salaries C-64/77 30 Nov 1977 ECJ European Â Kuyken v Rijksdienst Voor Arbeidsvoorziening C-66/77 1 Dec 1977 ECJ European Â Petrus Kuyken v Rijksdienst Voor Arbeidsvoorziening. R-66/77; [1977] EUECJ R-66/77 1 Dec 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marguerite Maris, Wife of Roger Reboulet v Rijksdienst Voor Werknemerspensioenen. R-55/77; [1977] EUECJ R-55/77 6 Dec 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marguerite Maris, wife of Roger Reboulet v Rijksdienst voor Werknemerspensioenen C-55/77 6 Dec 1977 ECJ European Â Carlsen Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Koln C-62/77 8 Dec 1977 ECJ European Â Carlsen Verlag Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Koln. R-62/77; [1977] EUECJ R-62/77 8 Dec 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Theodorus Engelbertus Sanders v Ronald van der Putte C-73/77 14 Dec 1977 ECJ European, Landlord and Tenant Europa Convention of 27 September 1968 - exclusive jurisdiction - matters relating to tenancies of immovable property - strict interpretation - business carried on in immovable property rented from a third party by the lessor -agreement to run the business - application of article 16 excluded - dispute as to the existence of such an agreement The assignment, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, of exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of one contracting state in accordance with article 16 of the convention results in depriving the parties of the choice of the forum which would otherwise be theirs and, in certain cases, results in their being brought before a court which is not that of the domicile of any of them. Having regard to that consideration the provisions of article 16 must not be given a wider interpretation than is required by their objective. Therefore, the concept of ' matters relating to... Tenancies of immovable property ' within the context of article 16 of the convention must not be interpreted as including an agreement to rent under a usufructuary lease a retail business (verpachting van een winkelbedrijf) carried on in immovable property rented from a third person by the lessor. The fact that there is a dispute as to the existence of such an agreement does not affect the reply given as regards the applicability of article 16 of the convention. Â Etablissements A. De Bloos Sprl v Societe En Commandite Par Actions Bouyer. R-59/77; [1977] EUECJ R-59/77 14 Dec 1977 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Etablissements A. De Bloos SPRL v Societe en Commandite par Actions Bouyer C-59/77 14 Dec 1977 ECJ European Europa During the period between notification and the date on which the commission takes a decision, courts before which proceedings are brought relating to an old agreement duly notified or exempted from notification must give such an agreement the legal effects attributed thereto under the law applicable to the contract, and those effects cannot be called in question by any objection which may be raised concerning its compatibility with article 85(1). Â Â Dietz v Commission; ECJ 15-Dec-1977 - C-126/76; [1977] EUECJ C-126/76 Â Fritz Fuss Kg, Elektrotechnische Fabrik v Oberfinanzdirektion De Munich R-60/77; [1977] EUECJ R-60/77 15 Dec 1977 ECJ European ECJ Note 2 in conjunction with note 5 to section xvi of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as meaning that individual electrical appliances which are suitable for use solely or principally with an electric sound or visual signalling apparatus within the meaning of tariff heading 85.17 are 'parts' within the meaning of that note and are to be classified accordingly under tariff heading 85.17 even when imported without the cables linking the various parts and without the acoustic or visual alarm signalling device. [ Bailii ] Â Firma Ludwig Poppe v Oberfinanzdirektion De Cologne. R-63/77; [1977] EUECJ R-63/77 15 Dec 1977 ECJ European, Customs and Excise ECJ Tariff heading 48.15 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as meaning that it does not include goods consisting of two sheets of din a 4 format stuck together, one of which is carbon paper and the other flimsy paper, as such goods must be classified under tariff heading 48.18 as 'other stationery of paper'. [ Bailii ] Â Â Bruns v Commission; ECJ 15-Dec-1977 - C-95/76; [1977] EUECJ C-95/76 Â Auditeur Du Travail v Bernard Dufour, Sa Creyfs Interim And Sa Creyfs Industrial R-76/77; [1977] EUECJ R-76/77 15 Dec 1977 ECJ European, Transport It is for the transport undertaking to judge whether an individual control book must be issued to crew members and it is accordingly the duty of that undertaking to ensure that the provisions of article 14(7) and (8) of regulation (eec) no 543/69 are observed. The position would be different only if national legislation adopted in pursuance of article 14(9) of the regulation in the special case of the hiring of labour were to impose that duty on the undertaking providing the tem- porary labour. [ Bailii ] Â Salerno and Others v Commission C-4/78; [1978] EUECJ C-4/78R 13 Jan 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jaquemart v Commission C-114/77; [1978] EUECJ C-114/77 18 Jan 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie D'Eure-Et-Loir v Alicia Tessier, Nee Recq. R-1408/71; [1978] EUECJ R-1408/71 19 Jan 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie d'Eure-et-Loir v Alicia Tessier, nee Recq C-84/77 19 Jan 1978 ECJ European Europa A national of a member state who, in another member state, has been subject to a social security scheme which is applicable to all residents can benefit from the provisions of regulation no 1408/71 of the council of 14 june 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the community only if he can be identified as an employed person within the meaning of article 1(a)(ii) of that regulation. As regards the united kingdom in particular , in the absence of any other criterion , such identification depends by virtue of annex v to that regulation on whether he was required to pay social security contributions as an employed person. Rights acquired by a person who can be identified as a worker within the meaning of article 1(a)(ii) of regulation no 1408/71 during his residence in a member state must be taken into account by any other member state as if they were periods required for the acquisition of a right under its own legislation. Â Â Ministere public du Kingdom of the Netherlands v Jacobus Philippus van Tiggele; ECJ 24-Jan-1978 - C-82/77 Â Ministere Public Du Kingdom Of The Netherlands v Jacobus Philippus Van Tiggele. R-82/77; [1978] EUECJ R-82/77 24 Jan 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union Malt v Commission C-44/77 26 Jan 1978 ECJ European Â Groupement D'Interet Economique 'Union Malt' And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-51/77; [1978] EUECJ C-51/77 26 Jan 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Johann Luehrs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-78/77; [1978] EUECJ R-78/77 1 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Luhrs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-78/77 1 Feb 1978 ECJ European Â Miller v Commission (Judgment) C-19/77; [1978] EUECJ C-19/77 1 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Universiteitskliniek Utrecht v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accinzen C-72/77 2 Feb 1978 ECJ European Â Universiteitskliniek, Utrecht, v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, Utrecht. R-72/77; [1978] EUECJ R-72/77 2 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â IFG v Commission C-68/77; [1978] EUECJ C-68/77 14 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities C-27/76; [1978] EUECJ C-27/76; [1978] ECR 207 14 Feb 1978 ECJ European, Commercial Europa The opportunities for competition under article 86 of the treaty must be considered having regard to the particular features of the product in question and with reference to a clearly defined geographic area in which it is marketed and where the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous for the effect of the economic power of the undertaking concerned to be able to be evaluated. For the product to be regarded as forming a market which is sufficiently differentiated from other fruit markets it must be possible for it to be singled out by such special features distinguishing it from other fruits that it is only to a limited extent interchangeable with them and is only exposed to their competition in a way that is hardly perceptible. The dominant position referred to in article 86 relates to a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers. In general a dominant position derives from a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily determinative. A trader can only be in a dominant position on the market for a product if he has succeeded in winning a large part of this market. However an undertaking does not have to have eliminated all opportunity for competition in order to be in a dominant position. An undertaking's economic strength is not measured by its profitability ; a reduced profit margin or even losses for a time are not incompatible with a dominant position, just as large profits may be compatible with a situation where there is effective competition. The fact that an undertaking's profitability is for a time moderate or non-existent must be considered in the light of the whole of that undertaking's operations. The fact that an undertaking forbids its duly appointed distributors to resell the product in question in certain circumstances is an abuse of the dominant position since it limits markets to the prejudice of consumers and affects trade between member states, in particular by partitioning national markets. Europa An undertaking in a dominant position for the purpose of marketing a product - which cashes in on the reputation of a brand name known to and valued by the consumers - cannot stop supplying a long- standing customer who abides by regular commercial practice, if the orders placed by that customer are in no way out of the ordinary. Such conduct is inconsistent with the objectives laid down in article 3 (f) of the treaty, which are set out in detail in article 86, especially in paragraphs (b) and (c), since the refusal to sell would limit markets to the prejudice of consumers and would amount to discrimination which might in the end eliminate a trading party from the relevant market. If the occupier of a dominant position, established in the common market, aims at eliminating a competitor who is also established in the common market, it is immaterial whether this behaviour relates to trade between member states once it has been shown that such elimination will have repercussions on the patterns of competition in the common market. The policy of differing prices enabling UBC to apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage is an abuse of a dominant position. Charging a price which is excessive because it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product supplied may be an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of subparagraph (a) of article 86 ; this excess could, inter alia, be determined objectively if it were possible for it to be calculated by making a comparison between the selling price of the product in question and its cost of production, which would disclose the amount of the profit margin. Europa "… the charging a price which is excessive because it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product supplied would be an abuse. This excess could, inter alia, be determined objectively if it were possible for it to be calculated by making a comparison between the selling price of the product in question and its cost of production, which would disclose the amount of the profit margin; … The questions therefore to be determined are whether the difference between the costs actually incurred and the price actually charged is excessive, and, if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, whether a price has been imposed which is either unfair in itself or when compared to competing products." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sa Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche And Sarl Francois Delquignies v Administration Francaise Des Douanes. R-96/77; [1978] EUECJ R-96/77 15 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â SA Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche and SARL Francois Delquignies v Administration Francaise des Douanes C-96/77 15 Feb 1978 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa Agriculture - common organization of the markets - sugar - export to non- member countries - assignment of licences - substitution of product - deflection of trade - application of monetary compensatory amounts - commission regulation no 101/77 - validity - Measure adopted by an institution - amendment of an earlier provision - situations arising under the latter - future effects - application of the amending rule. Â Minister For Fisheries v Schonenberg and Others C-88/77 16 Feb 1978 ECJ European Â Commission v Ireland C-61/77 16 Feb 1978 ECJ European Â Minister For Fisheries v C.A. Schonenberg And Others. R-88/77; [1978] EUECJ R-88/77 16 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â An Bord Bainne Co-Operative v Minister For Agriculture. R-92/77; [1978] EUECJ R-92/77 23 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â An Bord Bainne v Minister For Agriculture (Judgment) C-92/77 23 Feb 1978 ECJ European Â Societe Azienda Avicola Sant'Anna v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) and Servizio Contributi Agricoli Unificati (SCAU) C-85/77 28 Feb 1978 ECJ European Â Societe Azienda Avicola Sant'Anna v Istituto Nazionale Della Previdenza Sociale (Inps) And Servizio Contributi Agricoli Unificati (Scau). R-85/77; [1978] EUECJ R-85/77 28 Feb 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Debayser Sa And Others v Commission Of The European Communities.; ECJ 2-Mar-1978 - C-21/77; [1978] EUECJ C-21/77 Â Â Kuehlhaus Zentrum Ag v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg.; ECJ 9-Mar-1978 - R-79/77; [1978] EUECJ R-79/77 Â Â Bleiindustrie Kg, Formerly Jung and Lindig v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof.; ECJ 9-Mar-1978 - R-111/77; [1978] EUECJ R-111/77 Â Â Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (No 2); ECJ 9-Mar-1978 - C-106/77; R-106/77; [1978] EUECJ R-106/77; [1978] ECR 629; [1978] 3 CMLR 263 Â Â Herpels v Commission; ECJ 9-Mar-1978 - C-54/77; [1978] EUECJ C-54/77 Â Â Authie v Commission; ECJ 10-Mar-1978 - C-19/78; [1978] EUECJ C-19/78R Â Â Bestuur Van De Sociale Verzekeringsbank v Mrs Boerboom-Kersjes, A Widow.; ECJ 14-Mar-1978 - R-105/77; [1978] EUECJ R-105/77 Â Â Max Schaap v Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsvereniging Voor Bank En Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel En Vrije Beroepen.; ECJ 14-Mar-1978 - R-98/77; [1978] EUECJ R-98/77 Â Â Giovanni Naselli v Caisse Auxiliaire D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite And L'Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite.; ECJ 14-Mar-1978 - R-83/77; [1978] EUECJ R-83/77 Â Â Maria Frangiamore v Office National De L'Emploi.; ECJ 15-Mar-1978 - R-126/77; [1978] EUECJ R-126/77 Â Â Wolfgang Oehlschlager v Hauptzollamt Emmerich.; ECJ 16-Mar-1978 - R-104/77; [1978] EUECJ R-104/77 Â Â Leonardini v Commission; ECJ 16-Mar-1978 - C-115/76; [1978] EUECJ C-115/76 Â Â Bernhard Diether Ritter von Wullerstorff und Urbair v Commission of the European Communities; ECJ 16-Mar-1978 - C-7/77; [1978] EUECJ C-7/77 Â Â Unicme v Council; ECJ 16-Mar-1978 - C-123/77; [1978] EUECJ C-123/77 Â Â Gert Laumann And Anja Laumann v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz; ECJ 16-Mar-1978 - R-115/77; [1978] EUECJ R-115/77 Â Â Robert Bosch Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim.; ECJ 16-Mar-1978 - R-135/77; [1978] EUECJ R-135/77 Â Commission v Italy C-100/77; [1978] EUECJ C-100/77 11 Apr 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands C-95/77; [1978] EUECJ C-95/77 11 Apr 1978 ECJ European ECJ Member states - failure to apply a directive - effect on the functioning of the common market - absence thereof - justification for failure to fulfil obligations under a directive - not permissible (EEC Treaty, art 169) A member state may not invoke, for the purpose of justifiying a failure to fulfil obligations under a harmonizing directive, the argument that the failure to apply that directive has had no adverse effect on the functioning of the common market. [ Bailii ] Â Amylum v Council and Commission C-116/77 12 Apr 1978 ECJ European Â Mollet v Commission C-75/77; [1978] EUECJ C-75/77 13 Apr 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ganzini v Commission C-101/77; [1978] EUECJ C-101/77 13 Apr 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Silvio Ragazzoni v Caisse De Compensation Pour Allocations Familiales &Quot;Assubel&Quot;. R-134/77; [1978] EUECJ R-134/77 20 Apr 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Silvio Ragazzoni v Caisse de compensation pour allocations familiales "Assubel". C-134/77 20 Apr 1978 ECJ European Â Societe Les Commissionnaires Reunis Sarl v Receveur Des Douanes ; Sarl Les Fils De Henri Ramel v Receveur Des Douanes. R-81/77; [1978] EUECJ R-81/77 20 Apr 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe Les Commissionnaires Reunis SARL v Receveur des douanes; SARL Les fils de Henri Ramel v Receveur des douanes C-80/77 20 Apr 1978 ECJ European Â Allgayer v Parliament [1978] EUECJ C-74/77; C-74/77 25 Apr 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Stimming Kg v Commission C-90/77 27 Apr 1978 ECJ European Â Topfer v Commission C-112/77; [1978] EUECJ C-112/77 3 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Milac v Hauptzollamt Saarbrucken C-131/77 3 May 1978 ECJ European Â Firma Milac, Gross Und Aussenhandel Arnold Noll v Hauptzollamt Saarbruecken R-131/77; [1978] EUECJ R-131/77 3 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe Pour L'Exportation Des Sucres v Commission C-132/77; [1978] EUECJ C-132/77 10 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Oslizlok v Commission C-34/77; [1978] EUECJ C-34/77 11 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Roubaix v Commission C-25/77; [1978] EUECJ C-25/77 11 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Simmenthal v Commission C-92/78; [1978] EUECJ C-92/78R; [1979] EUECJ C-92/78 22 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Hoffman-La Roche v Centrafarm; ECJ 23-May-1978 - [1978] ECR 1139; [1978] 3 CMLR 217; [1978] FSR 598; [1978] ECR I-1139; C-102/77; R-102/77; [1978] EUECJ R-102/77 Â Wagner v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-108/77 24 May 1978 ECJ European Â Hans-Otto Wagner Gmbh, Agrarhandel Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-108/77; [1978] EUECJ R-108/77 24 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bayerische Hnl Vermehrungsbetriebe Gmbh and Co. Kg And Others v Council And Commission Of The European Communities. C-94/76; [1978] EUECJ C-94/76 25 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hnl v Council and Commission C-83/76 25 May 1978 ECJ European Â A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz. R-136/77; [1978] EUECJ R-136/77 25 May 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz (Judgment) C-136/77 25 May 1978 ECJ European Â D'Auria v Commission C-99/77; [1978] EUECJ C-99/77 1 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mulcahy v Commission C-110/77; [1978] EUECJ C-110/77 1 Jun 1978 ECJ European, Employment Europa Officials - recruitment - consideration of applications - professional experience - equivalence to university degree - appraisal (staff regulations, article 5) in the matter of promotion it is for the appointing authority to appraise whether professional experience is equivalent to university education evidenced by a degree. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-147/77 [1978] EUECJ C-147/77 6 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â British Beef Company Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce R-146/77; [1978] EUECJ R-146/77 13 Jun 1978 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ 1. The actual right to receive a monetary compensatory amount and the charge resulting from the levying of such an amount are only created by the performance of the import or export transaction as the case may be and only from the moment when that transaction takes place. It follows that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary the amounts to be paid or levied are those fixed by the rules in force at the moment of the import or export whatever may be the date on which the contract relating to the transaction in question was concluded. 2. Having regard to the recitals to and the provisions of regulation no 2405/76 and to the special circumstances existing at the time of its adoption it could not arouse in the minds of persons concerned a legitimate expectation, which the commission was required to protect, of its maintenance for the whole of the week in question. [ Bailii ] Â Denkavit Futtermittel Gmbh v Finanzamt Warendorf R-139/77; [1978] EUECJ R-139/77 13 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â British Beef Company Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce C-146/77 13 Jun 1978 ECJ European, Agriculture Â Defrenne v Sabena Airlines [1979] ECR 1365; C-149/77; R-149/77; [1978] EUECJ R-149/77 15 Jun 1978 ECJ European, Employment, Discrimination LMA Ms Defrenne was an air hostess employed by SABENA, a Belgian airline company. She brought an action against the airline based on Art.119 [now141] EC. Ms Defrenne claimed that in paying their male stewards more than their air hostesses, when they performed identical tasks, Sabena were in breach of Art.119EC. The question to the ECJ was whether, and in what context, Art.199EC was directly effective. The ECJ held "the prohibition on discrimination between men and women applies not only to the action of public authorities but also extends to all agreements which are intended to regulate paid labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals" Europa Article 119 of the EEC Treaty, which is limited to the question of pay discrimination between men and women workers, constitutes a special rule, whose application is linked to precise factors. It cannot be interpreted as prescribing, in addition to equal pay, equality in respect of the other working conditions applicable to men and women. The fact that the fixing of certain conditions of employment - such as a special age-limit - may have pecuniary consequences is not sufficient to bring such conditions within the field of application of article 119, which is based on the close connection which exists between the nature of the services provided and the amount of remuneration. Fundamental personal human rights form part of the general principles of community law, the observance of which the court has a duty to ensure. The elimination of discrimination based on sex forms part of those fundamental rights. However, it is not for the court to enforce the observance of that rule of non-discrimination in respect of relationships between employer and employee which are a matter exclusively for national law. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Tepea v Commission C-28/77; [1978] EUECJ C-28/77 20 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bertrand v Paul Ott Kg. R-150/77; [1978] EUECJ R-150/77 21 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bertrand v Paul Ott KG C-150/77 21 Jun 1978 ECJ European, Consumer Europa Since the concept of a contract of sale on instalment credit terms varies from one member state to another, in accordance with the objectives pursued by their respective laws, it is necessary, in the context of the convention, to consider that concept as being independent and therefore to give it a uniform substantive content allied to the community order. According to the principles common to the laws of the member states, the sale of goods on instalment credit terms is to be understood as a transaction in which the price is discharged by way of several payments or which is linked to a financing contract. However, a restrictive interpretation of the second paragraph of article 14 of the convention, in conformity with the objectives pursued by section 4, entails the restriction of the jurisdictional advantage for which provision is made by that article to buyers who are in need of protection, their economic position being one of weakness in comparison with sellers by reason of the fact that they are private final consumers and are not engaged, when buying the product acquired on instalment credit terms, in trade or professional activities. Â Patrick Christopher Kenny v Insurance Officer C-1/78 28 Jun 1978 ECJ European, Benefits Â Patrick Christopher Kenny v Insurance Officer. R-1/78; [1978] EUECJ R-1/78 28 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Simmenthal Spa v Amministrazopme Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-70/77; [1978] EUECJ R-70/77 28 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Simmenthal Sa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato C-70/77 28 Jun 1978 ECJ European Â Procureur du Roi v P. Dechmann C-154/77 29 Jun 1978 ECJ European Â Statens Kontrol Med Aedle Metaller v Preben Larsen ; Flemming Kjerulff v Statens Kontrol Med Aedle Metaller R-142/77; [1978] EUECJ R-142/77 29 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Procureur Du Roi v P. Dechmann. R-154/77; [1978] EUECJ R-154/77 29 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â B P v Commission C-77/77; [1978] EUECJ C-77/77 29 Jun 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Milchfutter Gmbh and Co Kg v Hauptzollamt Gronau C-5/78 4 Jul 1978 ECJ European Â Milchfutter Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt De Gronau. R-5/78; [1978] EUECJ R-5/78 4 Jul 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Stadt Frankfurt v Neumann C-137/77 5 Jul 1978 ECJ European Â Firma Hermann Ludwig v Free And Hanseatic City Of Hamburg. R-138/77; [1978] EUECJ R-138/77 5 Jul 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ludwig v Freie Und Hansestadt Hamburg C-138/77 5 Jul 1978 ECJ European Â City Of Frankfout-Am-Main v Firma Max Neumann. R-137/77; [1978] EUECJ R-137/77 5 Jul 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Directeur regional de la Securite sociale de Nancy v Paulin Gillard et Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est, Nancy C-9/78 6 Jul 1978 ECJ European, Benefits Europa The fact that a provision creating benefits for victims of war or its consequences is inserted in national social security legislation is not by itself decisive in determining that the benefit referred to in the above-mentioned provision is a social security benefit within the meaning of regulation no 1408/71, as the distinction between benefits which are excluded from the field of application of that regulation and benefits which come within it rests entirely on the factors relating to each benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions for its grant. Article 4 (4) of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the regulation does not apply to benefits for former prisoners of war consisting in the grant, to workers who prove that they underwent a long period of captivity, of an advanced old-age pension, the essential purpose of such benefits being to provide for former prisoners of war testimony of national gratitude for the hardships endured between 1939 and 1945 on behalf of France and its allies and thus granting them, by the provision of a social benefit, a quid pro quo for the services rendered to those states. Â Directeur Regional De La Securite Sociale De Nancy v Paulin Gillard Et Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie Du Nord-Est, Nancy. R-9/78; [1978] EUECJ R-9/78 6 Jul 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union Francaise De Cereales v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-6/78 11 Jul 1978 ECJ European Â Union Francaise De Cereales v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-6/78; [1978] EUECJ R-6/78 11 Jul 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Milac v Hauptzollamt Freiburg C-8/78 13 Jul 1978 ECJ European Â Jaquemart v Commission C-114/77 13 Jul 1978 ECJ European Â Milac Gmbh, Gross Und Aussenhandel v Hauptzollamt Freiburg. R-8/78; [1978] EUECJ R-8/78 13 Jul 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Council C-166/78; [1978] EUECJ C-166/78R; [1979] EUECJ C-166/78 28 Aug 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-69/77; [1978] EUECJ C-69/77 21 Sep 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â AAmministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v The Rasham undertaking C-27/78 3 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Aamministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v The Rasham Undertaking R-27/78; [1978] EUECJ R-27/78 3 Oct 1978 ECJ European ECJ 1. Council decision no 66/532 of 26 July 1966 concerning the abolition of customs duties, the prohibition of quantitative restrictions as between member states and the application of the common customs tariff duties for products other than those set out in annex ii to the treaty did not bring forward the date of expiry of the transitional period within the meaning of article 8 of the treaty. 2. Although the notification prescribed by the second paragraph of article 115 of the treaty is compulsory, it is not a condition precedent of the entry into force of the protective measures adopted by the member states. [ Bailii ] Â Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidite and Union nationale des federations mutualistes neutres v Antonio Viola C-26/78 5 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite And Union Nationale Des Federations Mutualistes Neutres v Antonio Viola. R-26/78; [1978] EUECJ R-26/78 5 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hansen v Hauptzollamt Flensburg C-148/77 10 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Centrafarm Bv v American Home Products Corporation C-3/78; R-3/78; [1978] EUECJ R-3/78; [1978] ECR 1823 10 Oct 1978 ECJ European, Intellectual Property It is clear from article 36 of the EEC treaty, in particular its second sentence, as well as from the context, that whilst the treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the laws of a member state in matters of industrial and commercial property, the exercise of those rights may nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, be restricted by the prohibitions contained in the treaty. Inasmuch as it contains an exception to one of the fundamental principles of the common market, article 36 in fact admits of exceptions to the rules on the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are justified for the purpose of safeguarding the rights which constitute the specific subject- matter of that property. The proprietor of a trade-mark which is protected in one member state is justified pursuant to the first sentence of article 36 in preventing a product from being marketed by a third party even if previously that product has been lawfully marketed in another member state under another mark held in the latter state by the same proprietor. Nevertheless such prevention may constitute a disguised restriction on trade between member states within the meaning of the second sentence of article 36 of the treaty if it is established that the proprietor of different marks has followed the practice of using such marks for the purpose of artificially partitioning the markets. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â H. Hansen Jun. and O. -c- Balle Gmbh and Co. v Hauptzollamt De Flensburg. R-148/77; [1978] EUECJ R-148/77 10 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Tayeb Belbouab v Bundesknappschaft. R-10/78; [1978] EUECJ R-10/78 12 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Joh. Eggers Sohn and Co. v Freie Hansestadt Bremen C-13/78 12 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Tayeb Belbouab v Bundesknappschaft C-10/78 12 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Ditterich v Commission C-86/77; [1978] EUECJ C-86/77 12 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-156/77; [1978] EUECJ C-156/77 12 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Joh. Eggers Sohn and Co. v Freie Hansestadt Bremen. R-13/78; [1978] EUECJ R-13/78 12 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Koninklijke Scholten-Honig Nv and Others v Hoofdproduktschaap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten C-125/77 25 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Koninklijke Scholten-Honig Nv And De Verenigde Zetmeelbedrijven &Quot;De Bijenkorf&Quot; Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-125/77; [1978] EUECJ R-125/77 25 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce ; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce. R-145/77; [1978] EUECJ R-145/77 25 Oct 1978 ECJ European ECJ 1. Even though the statement of the reasons on which a regulation is based may be laconic, it must nevertheless be examined and assessed in the context of the whole of the rules of which the regulation in question forms an integral part. 2. The prohibition of discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of article 40(3) of the treaty is merely a specific enunciation of the general principle of equality which is one of the fundamental principles of community law. That principle requires that similar situations shall not be treated differently unless the differentiation is objectively justified. 3. Coucil regulation no 1111/77 offends against the general principle of equality and is invalid to the extent to which articles 8 and 9 thereof impose a production levy on isoglucose of 5 units of account per 100 kg of dry matter for the period corresponding to the sugar marketing year 1977/78. [ Bailii ] Â Royal Scholten-Honig v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce C-103/77 25 Oct 1978 ECJ European Â Agneessens v Commission C-122/77; [1978] EUECJ C-122/77 26 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Landewyck v Commission C-209/78; [1978] EUECJ C-209/78R 30 Oct 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Verhaaf v Commission C-140/77; [1978] EUECJ C-140/77 9 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nikolaus Meeth v Glacetal R-23/78; [1978] EUECJ R-23/78 9 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Meeth v Glacetal C-23/78 9 Nov 1978 ECJ European Europa Although, with regard to an agreement conferring jurisdiction, article 17 of the Brussels Convention, as it is worded, refers to the choice by the parties to a contract of a single court or the courts of a single state, that wording cannot be interpreted as prohibiting an agreement under which the two parties to a contract , who are domiciled in different states, can be sued only in the courts of their respective states. Having regard to the need to respect individuals 'right of independence', upon which article 17 is based, and the need to avoid superfluous procedure, which forms the basis of the convention as a whole, the first paragraph of article 17 cannot be interpreted as preventing a court before which proceedings have been instituted pursuant to a clause of the type described above from taking into account a claim for a set-off connected with the legal relationship in dispute if such court considers that course to be compatible with the letter and spirit of the clause conferring jurisdiction. Â Mattheus v Doego C-93/78 22 Nov 1978 ECJ European Â Lothar Mattheus v Doego Fruchtimport Und Tiefkuehlkost Eg. R-93/78; [1978] EUECJ R-93/78 22 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Agence Europeenne D'Interims v Commission C-56/77; [1978] EUECJ C-56/77 23 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Thompson, Johnson and Woodiwiss (Judgment) C-7/78 23 Nov 1978 ECJ European, Commercial Europa In the system of the EEC treaty means of payment are not to be considered as goods falling within the terms of articles 30 to 37 of the treaty. These provisions do not therefore apply to (a) silver alloy coins which are legal tender in a member state, (b) gold coins such as krugerrands which are produced in a non- member country but which circulate freely within a member state. A ban on the export from a member state of silver alloy coins, which have been but are no longer legal tender in that state and the melting down or destruction whereof on national territory is forbidden, which has been adopted with a view to preventing such melting down or destruction in another member state, is justified on grounds of public policy within the meaning of article 36 of the treaty because it stems from the need to protect the right to mint coinage which is traditionally regarded as involving the fundamental interests of the state. Â Regina v Ernest George Thompson, Brian Albert Johnson And Colin Alex Norman Woodiwiss. R-7/78; [1978] EUECJ R-7/78 23 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fritz Schumalla. R-97/78; [1978] EUECJ R-97/78 28 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Michel Choquet. R-16/78; [1978] EUECJ R-16/78 28 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fritz Schumalla C-97/78 28 Nov 1978 ECJ European, Transport Europa In giving the Council the task of adopting a common transport policy within the meaning of article 74, the Treaty confers wide legislative powers upon it as regards the adoption of appropriate common rules. Regulation no 543/69 of the Council, adopted under article 75 of the treaty and referring mainly to the social sphere, is merely a partial implementation of such a policy. The Council did not exceed its powers by regulating, by this measure, matters which concern the social protection of the driver and road safety in so far as they are not interlinked. Â Criminal proceedings against Michel Choquet C-16/78 28 Nov 1978 ECJ European, Crime Europa It is not in principle incompatible with community law for one member state to require a national of another member state, who is permanently established in its territory, to obtain a domestic driving licence for the purpose of driving motor vehicles, even if he is in possession of a driving licence issued by the authorities in his state of origin. However, such a requirement may be regarded as indirectly prejudicing the exercise of the right of freedom of movement, the right of freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services guaranteed by articles 48, 52 and 59 of the treaty respectively, and consequently as being incompatible with the treaty, if it appears that the conditions imposed by national rules on the holder of a driving licence issued by another member state are not in due proportion to the requirements of road safety. Insistence on a driving test which clearly duplicates a test taken in another member state for the classes of vehicle which the person concerned wishes to drive, or linguistic difficulties arising out of the procedure laid down for the conduct of any checks, or the imposition of exorbitant charges for completing the requisite formalities could all be examples of this. Â Simmenthal v Commission C-243/78; [1978] EUECJ C-243/78R; [1980] EUECJ C-243/78 29 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Knud Oluf Delkvist v Anklagemyndigheden R-21/78; [1978] EUECJ R-21/78 29 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Pigs Marketing Board v Raymond Redmond; ECJ 29-Nov-1978 - R-83/78; [1978] EUECJ R-83/78; [1978] NI 73 Â Delkvist v Anklagemyndigheden C-21/78 29 Nov 1978 ECJ European Â Pigs Marketing Board v Raymond Redmond C-83/78 29 Nov 1978 ECJ European, Agriculture Â Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Hermann Kendermann Ohg. R-88/78; [1978] EUECJ R-88/78 30 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Salerno and Others v Commission C-4/78 30 Nov 1978 ECJ European Â Welding and Co v Hauptzollamt Hambourg-Waltershof R-87/78; [1978] EUECJ R-87/78 30 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Enrico M. Salerno, Xavier Authie And Giuseppe Massangioli v Commission Of The European Communities. C-28/78; [1978] EUECJ C-28/78 30 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Francesco Bussone v Ministere italien de l'agriculture C-31/78 30 Nov 1978 ECJ European Â Francesco Bussone v Ministere Italien De L'Agriculture. R-31/78; [1978] EUECJ R-31/78 30 Nov 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Denkavit v Commission C-14/78; [1978] EUECJ C-14/78 5 Dec 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung v Jacob Hirsch and Sohne Gmbh. R-85/78; [1978] EUECJ R-85/78 12 Dec 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â N. G. J. Schouten Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-35/78; [1978] EUECJ R-35/78 14 Dec 1978 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Henn and Darby v Director of Public Prosecutions [1981] AC 850; [1980] 2 WLR 597 1979 HL Lord Diplock European, Crime The House referred to the ECJ questions concerning the impact of Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome upon a prohibition against the importation of pornographic articles. Lord Diplock said: "The European Court, in contrast to English courts, applies teleological rather than historical methods to the interpretation of the Treaties and other community legislation. It seeks to give effect to what it conceives to be the spirit rather than the letter of the Treaties; sometimes, indeed, to an English judge, it may seem to the exclusion of the letter. It views the communities as living and expanding organisms and the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaties as changing to match their growth." 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Sukkerfabriken Nykobing Limiteret v Ministry Of Agriculture. R-151/78; [1979] EUECJ R-151/78 16 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sukkerfabriken Nykbing Limiteret v Ministry of Agriculture C-151/78 16 Jan 1979 ECJ European, Agriculture Â Societe Des Usines De Beaufort And Others v Council Of The Ec. C-109/78; [1979] EUECJ C-109/78 18 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ministere Public And'Chambre Syndicale Des Agents Artistiques Et Impresarii De Belgique' Asbl v Willy Van Wesemael And Others. R-111/78; [1979] EUECJ R-111/78 18 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe des Usines de Beaufort and others v Council of the European Communities C-103/78 18 Jan 1979 ECJ European Â Ministere Public and Others v Van Wesemael C-110/78 18 Jan 1979 ECJ European Â Weingut Gustav Decker Kg v Hauptzollamt Landau. R-99/78; [1979] EUECJ R-99/78 25 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz. R-98/78; [1979] EUECJ R-98/78 25 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Decker v Hauptzollamt Landau (Judgment) C-99/78 25 Jan 1979 ECJ European Â Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz (Judgment) [1979] ECR 69; C-98/78 25 Jan 1979 ECJ European A fundamental principle in the Community legal order requires that a measure adopted by the public authorities shall not be applicable to those concerned before they have the opportunity to make themselves acquainted with it. 1 Citers Â Yoshida Nederland Bv v Kamer Van Koophandel En Fabrieken Voor Friesland. R-34/78; [1979] EUECJ R-34/78 31 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Yoshida Gmbh v Industrie Und Handelskammer Kassel. R-114/78; [1979] EUECJ R-114/78 31 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hans Spitta and Co. v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt/Main-Ost. R-127/78; [1979] EUECJ R-127/78 31 Jan 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spitta v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt/Main-Ost C-127/78 31 Jan 1979 ECJ European Â Yoshida GmbH v Industrie- und Handelskammer Kassel C-114/78 31 Jan 1979 ECJ European Â Deshormes v Commission C-17/78; [1979] EUECJ C-17/78 1 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giuseppe Bardi v Azienda Agricola Paradiso C-121/78 1 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Giuseppe Bardi v Azienda Agricola Paradiso. R-121/78; [1979] EUECJ R-121/78 1 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Netherlands v Commission C-11/76; [1979] EUECJ C-11/76 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â French Government v Commission Of The European Communities. C-16/76; [1979] EUECJ C-16/76 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Vincent Auer R-136/78; [1979] EUECJ R-136/78 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â J. Knoors v Secretary Of State For Economic Affairs. R-115/78; [1979] EUECJ R-115/78 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-128/78; [1979] EUECJ C-128/78 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European LMA The Uk failed to implement a Community Regulation on the installation of tachographs. The ECJ refused to accept an argument based on political grounds (i.e. trade union) difficulties submitted as justification for a failure to implement the Regulation. [ Bailii ] Â Knoors v Staatssecretaris Van Economische Zaken C-115/78 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Germany v Commission C-18/76; [1979] EUECJ C-18/76 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission C-15/76 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Ministere Public v Auer C-136/78 7 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Martin v Commission (Judgment) C-24/78; [1979] EUECJ C-24/78 13 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Granaria v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten C-101/78 13 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Granaria Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-101/78; [1979] EUECJ R-101/78 13 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission C-85/76; [1979] EUECJ C-85/76; [1979] ECR 461 13 Feb 1979 ECJ European, Commercial, Natural Justice ECJ Observance of the right to be heard is required in all proceedings in which sanctions, in particular fines or penalty payments, may be imposed as a fundamental principle of community law. It must be respected even if the proceedings in question are administrative proceedings. In the matter of competition and in the context of proceedings for a finding of infringements of articles 85 or 86 of the treaty, observance of the right to be heard requires that the undertakings concerned must have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the documents used by the commission in support of its claim that there has been an infringement. The obligation on the commission under article 20 (2) of regulation no 17 to observe professional secrecy must be reconciled with the right to be heard. By providing undertakings from whom information has been obtained with a guarantee that their interests, which are closely connected with observance of professional secrecy, are not jeopardized, that provision enables the commission to collect on the widest possible scale the requisite data for the fulfilment of its task of supervision without the undertakings being able to prevent it from doing so ; the commission may not however use, to the detriment of an undertaking in proceedings for a finding of an infringement of the rules on competition, facts or documents which it cannot in its view disclose if such a refusal of disclosure adversely affects that undertaking's opportunity to make known effectively its views on the truth or implications of those facts or documents or again on the conclusions drawn by the commission from them. Europa If a product could be used for different purposes and if these different uses are in accordance with economic needs, which are themselves also different, there are good grounds for accepting that this product may, according to the circumstances, belong to separate markets which may present specific features which differ from the standpoint both of the structure and of the conditions of competition. However this finding does not justify the conclusion that such a product together with all the other products which can replace it as far as concerns the various uses to which it may be put and with which it may compete, forms one single market. The concept of the relevant market in fact implies that there can be effective competition between the products which form part of it and this presupposes that there is a sufficient degree of interchangeability between all the products forming part of the same market in so far as a specific use of such products is concerned. The dominant position referred to in article 86 of the treaty relates to a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of the consumers. Such a position does not preclude some competition, which it does where there is a monopoly or a quasimonopoly, but enables the undertaking which profits by it, if not to determine, at least to have an appreciable influence on the conditions under which that competition will develop, and in any case to act largely in disregard of it so long as such conduct does not operate to its detriment. Very large market shares are highly significant evidence of the existence of a dominant position. Other relevant factors are the relationship between the market shares of the undertaking concerned and of its competitors, especially those of the next largest, the technological lead of the undertaking over its competitors, the existence of a highly developed sales network and the absence of potential competition. Europa The concept of abuse is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a dominant position which is such as to influence the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking in question, the degree of competition is weakened and which, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators, has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth of that competition. An undertaking which is in a dominant position on a market and ties purchasers - even if it does so at their request - by an obligation or promise on their part to obtain all or most of their requirements exclusively from the said undertaking abuses its dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty, whether the obligation in question is stipulated without further qualification or whether it is undertaken in consideration of the grant of a rebate. The same applies if the said undertaking, without tying the purchasers by a formal obligation, applies, either under the terms of agreements concluded with these purchasers or unilaterally, a system of fidelity rebates, that is to say discounts conditional on the customer's obtaining all or most of its requirements from the undertaking in a dominant position. Obligations of this kind to obtain supplies exclusively from a particular undertaking, whether or not they are in consideration of rebates or of the granting of fidelity rebates intended to give the purchaser an incentive to obtain his supplies exclusively from the undertaking in a dominant position, are incompatible with the objective of undistorted competition within the common market, because they are not based on an economic transaction which justifies this burden or benefit but are designed to deprive the purchaser of or restrict his possible choices of sources of supply and to deny other producers access to the market. Europa The abuse of a dominant position and the restriction of competition as attributes of the contracts in question are not avoided by the so-called'' english'' clause contained in them whereby the purchasers undertake to notify the undertaking in a dominant position of any more favourable offer made to them by competitors and are free, if that undertaking does not adjust its prices to the said offer, to obtain their supplies from competitors. In these circumstances a clause of this kind is such as to enable the undertaking in a dominant position to realize an abuse of that dominant position. The effect of fidelity rebates is to apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties in that two purchasers pay a different price for the same quantity of the same product depending on whether they obtain their supplies exclusively from the undertaking in a dominant position or have several sources of supply. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Rewe-Zentral Ag v Bundesmonopolverwaltung Fuer Branntwein; ECJ 20-Feb-1979 - C-120/78; R-120/78; [1979] EUECJ R-120/78; [1979] ECR 649; [1979] EUECJ R-120/78 Â SA Buitoni v Fonds d'orientation et de regularisation des marches agricoles C-122/78 20 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Sa Buitoni v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles. R-122/78; [1979] EUECJ R-122/78 20 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â N.G.J. Schouten BV v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten C-113/78 21 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Stolting v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt-Jonas C-138/78 21 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Hans-Markus Stolting v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-138/78; [1979] EUECJ R-138/78 21 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â N.G.J. Schouten Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-113/78; [1979] EUECJ R-113/78 21 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Renzo Tinelli v Berufsgenossenschaft der Chemischen Industrie C-144/78 22 Feb 1979 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy C-163/78; [1979] EUECJ C-163/78 22 Feb 1979 ECJ European A member state may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits under community directives. [ Bailii ] Â Gourdain v Nadler R-133/78; [1979] EUECJ R-133/78 22 Feb 1979 ECJ European, Insolvency Brussels Convention. Bankruptcy and proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons. Action for making good the deficiency. - "it is necessary, if decisions relating to bankruptcy and winding-up are to be excluded from the scope of the Convention, that they must derive directly from the bankruptcy or winding-up" Europa 1. The concepts used in article 1 of the Convention which serve to indicate its scope must be regarded as independent concepts which must be interpreted by reference, first, to the objectives and scheme of the convention and, secondly, to the general principles which stem from the corpus of the national legal systems. 2. Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings are proceedings founded, according to the various laws of the contracting parties relating to debtors who have declared themselves unable to meet their liabilities, insolvency or the collapse of the debtor's creditworthiness, which involve the intervention of the courts culminating in the compulsory "liquidation des biens" in the interest of the general body of creditors of the person, firm or company or at least in supervision by the courts. If decisions relating to bankruptcy and winding-up are to be excluded from the scope of the convention they must derive directly from bankruptcy or winding-up and be closely connected with proceedings for the "liquidation des biens" or the "reglement judiciaire". 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Renzo Tinelli v Berufsgenossenschaft Der Chemischen Industrie. R-144/78; [1979] EUECJ R-144/78 22 Feb 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Simmenthal v Commission C-92/78 6 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Claudino Rossi v Caisse De Compensation Pour Allocations Familiales Des Regions De Charleroi Et Namur. R-100/78; [1979] EUECJ R-100/78 6 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Claudino Rossi v Caisse de compensation pour allocations familiales des regions de Charleroi et Namur C-100/78 6 Mar 1979 ECJ European, Employment Â Salumificio Di Cornuda Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato R-130/78; [1979] EUECJ R-130/78 8 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bestuur Van De Sociale Verzekeringsbank D'Amsterdam v A.E. Lohmann. R-129/78; [1979] EUECJ R-129/78 8 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank d'Amsterdam v A.E. Lohmann C-129/78 8 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Sa Des Grandes Distilleries Peureux v Directeur Des Services Fiscaux De La Haute-Saone Et Du Territoire De Belfort. R-119/78; [1979] EUECJ R-119/78 13 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â SA des grandes distilleries Peureux v Directeur des Services fiscaux de la Haute-Saone et du territoire de Belfort C-119/78 13 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Hansen GmbH and Co. v Hauptzollamt de Flensburg C-91/78 13 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Hansen Gmbh and Co. v Hauptzollamt De Flensburg. R-91/78; [1979] EUECJ R-91/78 13 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sa Des Grandes Distilleries Peureux v Directeur Des Services Fiscaux De La Haute-Saone Et Du Territoire De Belfort. R-86/78; [1979] EUECJ R-86/78 13 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Giovanni Coccioli v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit C-139/78 20 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Giovanni Coccioli v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit. R-139/78; [1979] EUECJ R-139/78 20 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â A.P. Augustijn v Staatssecretaris Van Verkeer En Waterstaat. R-145/78; [1979] EUECJ R-145/78 22 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Augustijn v Staatssecretaris Van Verkeer En Waterstaat C-145/78 22 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Wattenberg v Staatssecretaris Van Verkeer En Waterstaa C-146/78 22 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Danhuber v Balm C-134/78 22 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â A.J. Wattenberg v Staatssecretaris Van Verkeer En Waterstaat. R-146/78; [1979] EUECJ R-146/78 22 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â E. Danhuber v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-134/78; [1979] EUECJ R-134/78 22 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jacques de Cavel v Louise de Cavel C-143/78 27 Mar 1979 ECJ European, Family The term 'rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship' within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 1 of the Convention, includes not only property arrangements specifically and exclusively envisaged by certain national legal systems in the case of marriage but also any proprietary relationships resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof. Judicial decisions authorizing provisional protective measures - such as the placing under seal or the freezing of the assets of the spouses - in the course of proceedings for divorce do not fall within the scope of the convention as defined in article 1 thereof if those measures concern or are closely connected with either questions of the status of the persons involved in the divorce proceedings or proprietary legal relations resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof. In relation to the matters covered by the convention, no legal basis is to be found therein for drawing a distinction between provisional and definitive measures. Convention Of 27 September 1968 On Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments 1 Citers Â Societe Des Acieries De Montereau v Commission C-31/79; [1979] EUECJ C-31/79R 27 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jacques De Cavel v Louise De Cavel R-143/78; [1979] EUECJ R-143/78 27 Mar 1979 ECJ European Europa The term "rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship" within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 1 of the Convention, includes not only property arrangements specifically and exclusively envisaged by certain national legal systems in the case of marriage but also any proprietary relationships resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof. Judicial decisions authorizing provisional protective measures - such as the placing under seal or the freezing of the assets of the spouses - in the course of proceedings for divorce do not fall within the scope of the convention as defined in article 1 thereof if those measures concern or are closely connected with either questions of the status of the persons involved in the divorce proceedings or proprietary legal relations resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof. In relation to the matters covered by the convention, no legal basis is to be found therein for drawing a distinction between provisional and definitive measures. [ Bailii ] Â Granaria v Council and Commission C-90/78; [1979] EUECJ C-90/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Icap v Beneventi C-222/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Procureur De La Republique v Michelangelo Rivoira And Others. R-179/78; [1979] EUECJ R-179/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Icap v Walter Beneventi. R-222/78; [1979] EUECJ R-222/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â La Reine v Vera Ann Saunders R-175/78; [1979] EUECJ R-175/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Biegi v Hauptzollamt Bochum C-158/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â P. Biegi v Hauptzollamt Bochum. R-158/78; [1979] EUECJ R-158/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Saunders (Judgment) C-175/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Procureur de la Republique v Michelangelo Rivoira and others C-179/78 28 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Nippon Seiko v Council C-119/77 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Nachi Fujikoshi v Council C-121/77 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-231/78; [1979] EUECJ C-231/78 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Becher v Balm C-131/78 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â Iso v Council C-118/77; [1979] EUECJ C-118/77 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ntn Toyo Bearing v Council C-113/77 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European Â C.J. Meijer Bv v Department Of Trade, Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Food And Commissioners Of Customs And Excise. R-118/78; [1979] EUECJ R-118/78 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kurt A. Becher v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-150/78; [1979] EUECJ R-150/78 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission C-120/77; [1979] EUECJ C-120/77 29 Mar 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Peiser v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus C-151/77 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European Â Gilbeau v Commission C-157/77; [1979] EUECJ C-157/77 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Commission C-11/78; [1979] EUECJ C-11/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Trawigo Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Nord. R-157/78; [1979] EUECJ R-157/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kobor v Commission C-112/78; [1979] EUECJ C-112/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bellintani and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-116/78; [1979] EUECJ C-116/78; [1980] EUECJ C-116/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Orlandi v Commission C-117/78; [1979] EUECJ C-117/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dulciora Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-95/78; [1979] EUECJ R-95/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Max Schaap v Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsvereniging Voor Bank En Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel En Vrije Beroepen. R-176/78; [1979] EUECJ R-176/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Peiser and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus. R-151/77; [1979] EUECJ R-151/77 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Trawigo v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Nord C-157/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European Â Dulciora SpA v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato C-95/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European Â Criminal Proceedings Against Tullio Ratti. R-148/78; [1979] EUECJ R-148/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Pubblico Ministero v Ratti; ECJ 5-Apr-1979 - 1979 1 CMLR 96; C-148/78 Â Max Schaap v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen C-176/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European Â Ala and Alfer v Commission C-220/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European Â Azienda Laminazione Acciaio Ala Spa And Azienda Laminazione Ferro Alfer Spa v Commission Of The European Communities. C-221/78; [1979] EUECJ C-221/78 5 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ooms v Commission C-48/79; [1979] EUECJ C-48/79R; [1979] EUECJ C-48/79 6 Apr 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Henningsen Food Inc. And Others v Produktschap Voor Pluimvee En Eieren. R-137/78; [1979] EUECJ R-137/78 2 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Henningsen Food (Judgment) C-137/78 2 May 1979 ECJ European Â Buttner v Commission C-51/79; [1979] EUECJ C-51/79R; [1979] EUECJ C-51/79R; [1980] EUECJ C-51/79 3 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Commission C-12/78; [1979] EUECJ C-12/78 10 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ditta Angelo Tomadini Snc v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-84/78; [1979] EUECJ R-84/78 16 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-2/78; [1979] EUECJ C-2/78 16 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs (Fnrom) v Giovanni Mura. R-236/78; [1979] EUECJ R-236/78 16 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fonds national de retraite des ouvriers mineurs (FNROM) v Giovanni Mura C-236/78 16 May 1979 ECJ European Â Alberto Villano v Nordwestliche Eisen- und Stahl-Berufsgenossenschaft; Pasquale Barion v TiefbauBerufsgenossenschaft C-173/78 29 May 1979 ECJ European Â Imco v Oberfinanzdirektion Berlin C-165/78 29 May 1979 ECJ European Â Alberto Villano v Nordwestliche Eisen Und Stahl-Berufsgenossenschaft ; Pasquale Barion v TiefbauBerufsgenossenschaft. R-174/78; [1979] EUECJ R-174/78 29 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Imco J. Michaelis Gmbh and Co. v Oberfinanzdirektion De Berlin. R-165/78; [1979] EUECJ R-165/78 29 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Firma Hans Peter Galster v Hauptzollamt Hambourg-Jonas. R-183/78; [1979] EUECJ R-183/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ministere Public v Even C-207/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European Â Hugin v Commission C-22/78; [1979] EUECJ C-22/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Gilbert Even Et Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries (Onpts). R-207/78; [1979] EUECJ R-207/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â SARL Denkavit Loire v Etat Francais, administration des douanes C-132/78; R-132/78; [1979] EUECJ R-132/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European ECJ Any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having an equivalent effect within the meaning of articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the treaty. Such a charge however escapes that classification if it constitutes the consideration for a benefit provided in fact for the importer or exporter representing an amount proportionate to the said benefit. It also escapes that classification if it relates to a general system of internal dues supplied systematically and in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported and exported products alike, in which case it does not come within the scope of articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 but within that of article 95 of the treaty. In order to relate to a general system of internal dues and thus not come within the application of the provisions prohibiting charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties, the charge to which an imported product is subject must impose the same duty on national products and identical imported products at the same marketing stage and the chargeable event giving rise to the duty must also be identical in the case of both products. It is therefore not sufficient that the objective of the charge imposed on imported products is to compensate for a charge imposed on similar domestic products - or which has been imposed on those products or a product from which they are derived - at a production or marketing stage prior to that at which the imported products are taxed. A charge which is imposed on meat, whether or not prepared, when it is imported, and in particular on consignments of lard, even though no charge is imposed on similar domestic products, or a charge is imposed on them according to different criteria, in particular by reason of a different chargeable event giving rise to the duty, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of articles 9, 12 and 13 of the treaty. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Galster v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-183/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European Â Bestuur van het Algemeen Ziekenfonds Drenthe-Platteland v G. Pierik C-182/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European Â Newth v Commission C-156/78; [1979] EUECJ C-156/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Woehrling v Commission C-164/78; [1979] EUECJ C-164/78 31 May 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ketelhandel P. van Paassen BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien / Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen; Minister van Financien v Denkavit Dienstbetoon BV C-181/78 12 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Ketelhandel P Van Paassen Bv v Staatssecretaris Van Financien / Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen R-229/78; [1979] EUECJ R-229/78 12 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nv Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Staatssecretaris Van Financien R-126/78; [1979] EUECJ R-126/78 12 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Staatssecretaris Voor Financien C-126/78 12 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â V v Commission C-18/78; [1979] EUECJ C-18/78 14 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mme Brouwer-Kaune v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor het Kledingbedrijf C-180/78 19 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Mme Brouwer-Kaune v Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsvereniging Voor Het Kledingbedrijf. R-180/78; [1979] EUECJ R-180/78 19 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Atalanta Amsterdam Bv v Produktschap Voor Vee En Vlees. R-240/78; [1979] EUECJ R-240/78 21 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dietz v Commission C-126/76 21 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Atalanta Amsterdam BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees C-240/78 21 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Pigs and Bacon Commission (Judgment) C-177/78 26 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Pigs And Bacon Commission v Mc Carren And Company Limited. R-177/78; [1979] EUECJ R-177/78 26 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Acting Judge at the Tribunal d'Instanace, Hayange - Godard (Order) C-105/79; [1979] EUECJ C-105/79 27 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Beljatzky v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Sud C-216/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Benedikt Lentes and others v Federal Republic of Germany C-233/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Anselme and Others v Commission C-255/78; [1979] EUECJ C-255/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Benedikt Lentes And Others v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-235/78; [1979] EUECJ R-235/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Corman v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Sud C-217/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European Â Nicolai Beljatzky v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Sued. R-216/78; [1979] EUECJ R-216/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sa Nicolas Corman and Fils v Hauptzollamt Aachen-Sued. R-217/78; [1979] EUECJ R-217/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Intercontinentale Fleischhandelsgesellschaft Mbh and Co Kg v Hauptzollamt Munchen-West R-160/78; [1979] EUECJ R-160/78 28 Jun 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against J. Van Dam En Zonen And Others. R-185/78; [1979] EUECJ R-185/78 3 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against J. van Dam en Zonen and others C-185/78 3 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Gallet v Ministre De L'Agriculture. R-7/79; [1979] EUECJ R-7/79 4 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gallet v Ministre de l'agriculture C-7/79 4 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Buttner v Commission C-51/79 10 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Jean-Louis Pennartz v Caisse primaire d'assurance maladie des Alpes-Maritimes. C-268/78 11 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Jean-Louis Pennartz v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie Des Alpes-Maritimes. R-268/78; [1979] EUECJ R-268/78 11 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Producteurs De Vins De Table and Vins De Pays v Commission C-60/79; [1979] EUECJ C-60/79 11 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Producteurs De Vins De Table and Vins De Pays v Commission C-59/79; [1979] EUECJ C-59/79 11 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Broe v Commission C-252/78; [1979] EUECJ C-252/78 11 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union Laitiere Normande, A Group Of Agricultural Co-Operatives v French Dairy Farmers Limited. R-244/78; [1979] EUECJ R-244/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marianne Worsdorfer, Nee Koschniske, v Raad Van Arbeid. R-9/79; [1979] EUECJ R-9/79 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Council C-166/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â List v Commission C-124/78; [1979] EUECJ C-124/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Maladie De Lille (Cram) v Diamante Palermo, Nee Toia. R-237/78; [1979] EUECJ R-237/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â BMW Belgium v Commission C-32/78; [1979] EUECJ C-32/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Maggi Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Muenster. R-260/78; [1979] EUECJ R-260/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany C-153/78; [1979] EUECJ C-153/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Adriano Grosoli. R-223/78; [1979] EUECJ R-223/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bruno Brunori v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz. R-266/78; [1979] EUECJ R-266/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rumi v Commission C-149/78; [1979] EUECJ C-149/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie de Lille (CRAM) v Diamante Palermo, nee Toia C-237/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Union Laitiere Normande v French Dairy Farmers C-244/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European, Agriculture Â Bruno Brunori v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz C-266/78 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Koschniske v Raad Van Arbeid C-9/79 12 Jul 1979 ECJ European Â Commission v France C-232/78; [1979] EUECJ C-232/78 25 Sep 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spa Eridania-Zuccherifici Nazionali And Spa Societa Italiana Per L'Industria Degli Zuccheri v Minister Of Agriculture And Forestry, Minister For Industry, Trade And Craft Trades, And Spa Zuccherifici Meridionali. R-230/78; [1979] EUECJ R-230/78 27 Sep 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Szemerey v Commission C-178/78; [1979] EUECJ C-178/78 2 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â B v Commission C-152/77; [1979] EUECJ C-152/77 2 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Interquell Starke-Chemie v Council and Commission C-261/78; [1982] EUECJ C-261/78 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European False [ Bailii ] Â J. Cleton En Co. Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, Rotterdam. R-11/79; [1979] EUECJ R-11/79 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â DGV, Deutsche Getreideverwertung Und Rheinische Kraftfutterwerke Gmbh And Others v Council And Commission Of The European Communities C-250/78; [1979] EUECJ C-250/78 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â P v Commission C-40/79; [1981] EUECJ C-40/79 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Opinion Given Pursuant To The Second Subparagraph Of Article 228(1) Of The Eec Treaty. OP-1/78; [1979] EUECJ OP-1/78 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â P. Dumortier Freres Sa And Others v Council Of The Ec. C-113/76; [1979] EUECJ C-113/76; [1982] EUECJ C-113/76 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â DGV v Council and Commission C-241/78 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European Â Interquell Starkc-Chemie Gmbh and Co. Kg And Diamalt Ag v Council And Commission Of The European Communities. C-262/78; [1979] EUECJ C-262/78; [1982] EUECJ C-262/78 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â France v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-141/78; [1979] EUECJ C-141/78 4 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Berghmans v Commission C-142/78; [1979] EUECJ C-142/78 11 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Procureur De La Republique De Besancon v Bouhelier And Others. R-225/78; [1979] EUECJ R-225/78 11 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Procureur de la Republique de Besancon v Bouhelier and others; ECJ 11-Oct-1979 - C-225/78 Â Procureur General v Hans Buys, Han Pesch And Yves Dullieux And Denkavit France Sarl. R-5/79; [1979] EUECJ R-5/79 18 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gema v Commission C-125/78; [1979] EUECJ C-125/78 18 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sirena v Eda C-40/70 18 Oct 1979 ECJ European Â Procureur general v Hans Buys, Han Pesch and Yves Dullieux and Denkavit France SARL. C-5/79 18 Oct 1979 ECJ European, Agriculture Agricultural price freeze. Â Greenwich Film Production v Societe Des Auteurs, Compositeurs Et Editeurs De Musique (Sacem) And Societe Des Editions Labrador R-22/79; [1979] EUECJ R-22/79 25 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Greenwich Film v Sacem (Judgment) C-22/79 25 Oct 1979 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy C-159/78; [1979] EUECJ C-159/78 25 Oct 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Joseph Danis And Others. R-20/79; [1979] EUECJ R-20/79 6 Nov 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Joseph Danis and others C-16/79 6 Nov 1979 ECJ European, Agriculture, Crime Agricultural price freeze. Â Gaetano Toffoli And Others v Region De Venetie. R-10/79; [1979] EUECJ R-10/79 6 Nov 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gaetano Toffoli and others v Region de Venetie C-10/79 6 Nov 1979 ECJ European, Agriculture Â Michaelis v Commission C-219/78; [1979] EUECJ C-219/78 8 Nov 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â P.B. Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees C-15/79; R-15/79; [1979] EUECJ R-15/79; [1979] ECR 3409 8 Nov 1979 ECJ European, Rating A prohibited restriction on exports involved a national measure having discriminatory effect: "provision [i.e. Article 29 EC; now Article 35 TFEU] concerns the national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question at the expense of the production or of the trade of other Member States. This is not so in the case of a prohibition like that in question which is applied objectively to the production of goods of a certain kind without drawing a distinction depending on whether such goods are intended for the national market or for export." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Firma Denkavit Futtermittel Gmbh v Minister Fuer Ernahung, Landwirtschaft Und Forsten Des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. R-251/78; [1979] EUECJ R-251/78 8 Nov 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sanicentral Sa v Collin C-25/79 13 Nov 1979 ECJ European Â Sanicentral Gmbh v Rene Collin. R-25/79; [1979] EUECJ R-25/79 13 Nov 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Denkavit Futtermittel Gmbh v Finanzamt Warendorf. R-36/79; [1979] EUECJ R-36/79 15 Nov 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH v Finanzamt Warendorf C-36/79 15 Nov 1979 ECJ European Â B v Parliament C-731/79; [1979] EUECJ C-731/79R; [1980] EUECJ C-731/79R; [1981] EUECJ C-731/79 5 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Amylum v Council and Commission C-116/77 5 Dec 1979 ECJ European Â B v Parliament C-794/79; [1979] EUECJ C-794/79R 5 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â G. R. Amylum Nv And Tunnel Refineries Limited v Council And Commission Of The European Communities. C-124/77; [1979] EUECJ C-124/77 5 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Firma Stadtereinigung K. Nehlsen KG v Freie Hansestadt Bremen C-47/79; [1979] ECR 3639 6 Dec 1979 ECJ European, Road Traffic Transport - common policy - social provisions - regulation no 543/69 of the council - material scope - vehicles of public authorities - exclusion - vehicles of a private undertaking used to perform a public service - inclusion (regulation no 543/69 of the council, art. 4 (4), as amended by regulation no 2827/77) Pursuant to article 4 (4) of regulation no 543/69 of the council on the har- monization of certain social legis- lation relating to road transport, as amended by regulation no 2827/77, that regulation does not apply to carriage by ".. Vehicles which are used by other public authorities for public services. " That expression must be understood as covering only vehicles which are owned by or under the control of the public authority and does not extend to vehicles belonging to a private undertaking and used by the latter to perform a public service or a service in the public interest which it has undertaken to provide under a contract governed by private law. 1 Citers Â Firma Stadtereinigung K. Nehlsen Kg v Freie Hansestadt Bremen. R-47/79; [1979] EUECJ R-47/79 6 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz C-44/79 13 Dec 1979 ECJ European Â Loebisch v Council C-14/79; [1979] EUECJ C-14/79 13 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Firma Milch-, Fett Und Eierkontor Gmbh v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-42/79; [1979] EUECJ R-42/79 13 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Liselotte Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pfalz R-44/79; [1979] EUECJ R-44/79 13 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Milch-, Fett- Und Eierkontor v Balm C-42/79 13 Dec 1979 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy C-93/79; [1979] EUECJ C-93/79 14 Dec 1979 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Maurice Donald Henn and John Frederick Ernest Darby C-34/79 14 Dec 1979 ECJ European, Crime, Commercial Europa Article 30 of the EEC treaty applies also to prohibitions on imports inasmuch as they are the most extreme form of restriction. The expression used in article 30 must therefore be understood as being the equivalent of the expression ' ' prohibitions or restrictions on imports ' ' occurring in article 36. Hence a law of a member state prohibiting any importation of pornographic articles into that state constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of article 30 of the treaty. Under the first sentence of article 36 of the EEC treaty it is in principle for each member state to determine in accordance with its own scale of values and in the form selected by it the requirements of public morality in its territory. Each member state is entitled to impose prohibitions on imports justified on grounds of public morality for the whole of its territory, as defined in article 227 of the treaty, whatever the structure of its constitution may be and however the powers of legislating in regard to the subject in question may be distributed. The fact that certain differences exist between the laws enforced in the different constituent parts of a member state does not thereby prevent that state from applying a unitary concept in regard to prohibitions on imports imposed, on grounds of public morality, on trade with other member states. The first sentence of article 36 upon its true construction thus means that a member state may, in principle, lawfully impose prohibitions on the importation from any other member state of articles which are of an indecent or obscene character as understood by its domestic laws. Such prohibitions may lawfully be applied to the whole of its national territory even if, in regard to the field in question, variations exist between the laws in force in the different constituent parts of the member state concerned. The second sentence of article 36 of the EEC treaty is designed to prevent restrictions on trade based on the grounds mentioned in the first sentence of that article from being diverted from their proper purpose and used in such a way as either to create discrimination in respect of goods originating in other member states or indirectly to protect certain national products. If a prohibition on the importation of goods is justifiable on grounds of public morality and if it is imposed with that purpose the enforcement of that prohibition cannot, in the absence within the member state concerned of a lawful trade in the same goods, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade contrary to article 36 of the EEC treaty. In so far as a member state avails itself of the reservation relating to the protection of public morality provided for in article 36 of the EEC treaty, the provisions of article 234 of that treaty do not preclude that state from fulfilling the obligations arising from the Geneva convention, 1923, for the suppression of traffic in obscene publications and from the universal postal convention (renewed at Lausanne in 1974, which came into force on 1 January 1976). 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Regina v Maurice Donald Henn And John Frederick Ernest Darby. R-34/79; [1979] EUECJ R-34/79 14 Dec 1979 ECJ European, Crime Europa Article 30 of the EEC Treaty applies also to prohibitions on imports inasmuch as they are the most extreme form of restriction. The expression used in article 30 must therefore be understood as being the equivalent of the expression " prohibitions or restrictions on imports " occurring in article 36. Hence a law of a member state prohibiting any importation of pornographic articles into that state constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of article 30 of the Treaty. Under the first sentence of article 36 of the eec treaty it is in principle for each member state to determine in accordance with its own scale of values and in the form selected by it the requirements of public morality in its territory. Each member state is entitled to impose prohibitions on imports justified on grounds of public morality for the whole of its territory, as defined in article 227 of the treaty, whatever the structure of its constitution may be and however the powers of legislating in regard to the subject in question may be distributed. The fact that certain differences exist between the laws enforced in the different constituent parts of a member state does not thereby prevent that state from applying a unitary concept in regard to prohibitions on imports imposed, on grounds of public morality, on trade with other member states. The first sentence of article 36 upon its true construction thus means that a member state may, in principle, lawfully impose prohibitions on the importation from any other member state of articles which are of an indecent or obscene character as understood by its domestic laws. Such prohibitions may lawfully be applied to the whole of its national territory even if, in regard to the field in question, variations exist between the laws in force in the different constituent parts of the member state concerned. The second sentence of article 36 of the eec treaty is designed to prevent restrictions on trade based on the grounds mentioned in the first sentence of that article from being diverted from their proper purpose and used in such a way as either to create discrimination in respect of goods originating in other member states or indirectly to protect certain national products. If a prohibition on the importation of goods is justifiable on grounds of public morality and if it is imposed with that purpose the enforcement of that prohibition cannot, in the absence within the member state concerned of a lawful trade in the same goods, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade contrary to article 36 of the EEC Treaty. In so far as a member state avails itself of the reservation relating to the protection of public morality provided for in article 36 of the eec treaty, the provisions of article 234 of that treaty do not preclude that state from fulfilling the obligations arising from the geneva convention, 1923, for the suppression of traffic in obscene publications and from the universal postal convention (renewed at lausanne in 1974, which came into force on 1 January 1976). [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1970 To: 1979