

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
		European - From: 1980 To: 1984 This page lists 1193 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Commission v Italy C-21/79; [1980] EUECJ C-21/79 8 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] W. Jordens-Vosters v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Leder- en Lederverwerkende Industrie C-69/79 10 Jan 1980 ECJ European Bellintani and Others v Commission (Judgment) C-116/78 10 Jan 1980 ECJ European Commission v Italy C-267/78; [1980] EUECJ C-267/78 10 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] W. Jordens-Vosters v Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsvereniging Voor De Leder En Lederverwerkende Industrie. R-69/79; [1980] EUECJ R-69/79 10 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Procureur Du Roi v Charles Kefer And Louis Delmelle. R-95/79; [1980] EUECJ R-95/79 17 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pardini v Commission (Rec 1980,P 139) (Order) C-809/79; [1980] EUECJ C-809/79R 17 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Keffer and Delmelle (Rec 1980,P 103) (Gr80-I 0069) (Judgment) C-95/79 17 Jan 1980 ECJ European Siegfried Zelger v Sebastiano Salinitri C-56/79; R-56/79; [1980] EUECJ R-56/79 17 Jan 1980 ECJ European, Jurisdiction The provisions of article 5(1) of the Convention, to the effect that in matters relating to a contract a defendant domiciled in a contracting state may be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, introduce a criterion for jurisdiction, the selection of which is at the option of the plaintiff and which is justified by the existence of a direct link between the dispute and the court called upon to take cognizance of it. By contrast, article 17 of the convention, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court designated by the parties in accordance with the prescribed form, puts aside both the rule of general jurisdiction - provided for in article 2 - and the rules of special jurisdiction - provided for in article 5 - and dispenses with any objective connexion between the legal relationship in dispute and the court designated. It thus appears that the jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance and that of the selected court are two distinct concepts and only agreements selecting a court are subject to the requirements of form prescribed by article 17 of the convention. if the place of performance of a contractual obligation has been specified by the parties in a clause which is valid according to the national law applicable to the contract, the court for that place has jurisdiction to take cognizance of disputes relating to that obligation under article 5(1) of the convention , irrespective of whether the formal conditions provided for under article 17 have been observed. Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Camera Care v Commission (Rec 1980,P 119) (Gr80-I 0073) (Order) C-792/79; [1980] EUECJ C-792/79R 17 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Land De Berlin v Firma Wigei, Wild-Gefluegel-Eier-Import Gmbh and Co. Kg. R-30/79; [1980] EUECJ R-30/79 22 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Land Berlin v Wigei (Rec 1980,P 151) (Gr80-I 0087) (Judgment) C-30/79 22 Jan 1980 ECJ European Spa Grosoli And Others v Ministry Of Foreign Trade And Others. R-35/79; [1980] EUECJ R-35/79 23 Jan 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Mencarelli v Commission (Rec 1980,P 201) (Gr80-I 0119) (Judgment) C-43/79; [1980] EUECJ C-43/79 7 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Marie-Louise Damas v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles. R-77/79; [1980] EUECJ R-77/79 13 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Misenta v Commission C-256/78; [1980] EUECJ C-256/78 13 Feb 1980 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Office De Commercialisation Et D'Exportation (Oce) v Sa Mediterraneenne Et Atlantique Des Vins, Samavins. R-74/79; [1980] EUECJ R-74/79 13 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Damas v Forma (Rec 1980,P 247) (Gr80-I 0127) (Judgment) C-77/79 13 Feb 1980 ECJ European Office National Des Pensions Des Travailleurs Salaries (Onpts) v Fioravante Damiani. R-53/79; [1980] EUECJ R-53/79 14 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Richard Meyer-Uetze Kg v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall. R-84/79; [1980] EUECJ R-84/79 14 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Meyer-Uetze v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall (Rec 1980,P 291) (Gr80-I 0151) (Judgment) C-84/79 14 Feb 1980 ECJ European Damiani (Rec 1980,P 273) (Gr80-I 0147) (Judgment) C-53/79 14 Feb 1980 ECJ European Hako-Schuh v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt/Main-Ost (Rec 1980,P 311) (Gr80-I 0165) (Judgment) C-54/79 26 Feb 1980 ECJ European Vriend (Rec 1980,P 327) (Gr80-I 0167) (Judgment) 26 Feb 1980 ECJ European Commission v Ireland (Rec 1980,P 481) (Gr80-I 0249) (Judgment) C-55/79; [1980] EUECJ C-55/79 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Denmark (Rec 1980,P 447) (Gr80-I 0225) (Judgment) C-171/78; [1980] EUECJ C-171/78 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Just (Rec 1980,P 501) (Gr80-I 0253 Sv80-31 Fi80-31) (Judgment) C-68/79 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-170/78; [1980] EUECJ C-170/78; [1983] EUECJ C-170/78 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1980,P 385) (Gr80-I 0185) (Judgment) C-169/78; [1980] EUECJ C-169/78 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1980,P 347) (Gr80-I 0181 Sv80-1 Fi80-1) (Judgment) C-168/78; [1980] EUECJ C-168/78 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Just I/S v Danish Ministry For Fiscal Affairs R-68/79; [1980] EUECJ R-68/79; C-68/79; [1980] ECR 501 27 Feb 1980 ECJ European ECJ Whilst the treaty does not exclude, in principle, a difference in the taxation of various alcoholic products, such a distinction may not be used for the purposes of tax discrimination or in such a manner as to afford protection, even indirect, to domestic production. A system which consists in conferring a tax advantage on a single product which represents the major proportion of domestic production to the exclusion of all other similar or competing imported products is incompatible with community law. Where a national system of taxation at different rates is found to be incompatible with community law, the member state in question must apply to imported products a rate of tax which eliminates the margin of discrimination or protection pro- hibited by the treaty. Article 95 accords such treatment only to products which are imported from other member states. In application of the principle of co-operation laid down in article 5 of the treaty, it is the courts of the member states which are entrusted with ensuring the legal protection which subjects derive from the direct effect of the provisions of community law. In the absence of community rules concerning the refunding of national charges which have been levied in breach of article 95 of the eec treaty, it is for the member states to arrange for the reimbursement of such charges in accordance with the requirements of their domestic legal system ; it is for them to designate to this intent the courts having jurisdiction and to determine the procedural conditions governing actions at law. Such conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature and must not make it impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred on individuals by the community legal system. Community law does not require an order for the recovery of charges improperly made to be granted in conditions which would involve the unjust enrichment of those entitled. Thus it does not prevent account being taken of the fact that it has been possible for the burden of such charges to be passed on to other traders or to consumers. It is equally compatible with the principles of community law for account to be taken in accordance with the national law of the state concerned of the damage which an importer may have suffered because the effect of the discriminatory or protective tax provisions was to restrict the volume of imports from other member states. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Fellinger (Rec 1980,P 535) (Gr80-I 0275) (Judgment) C-67/79 28 Feb 1980 ECJ European Waldemar Fellinger v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit, Nuremberg. R-67/79; [1980] EUECJ R-67/79 28 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bonu v Council (Rec 1980,P 553) (Gr80-I 0291) (Judgment) C-89/79; [1980] EUECJ C-89/79 28 Feb 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Richard Pool v Council of the European Communities (Rec 1980,P 569) (Gr80-I 0295) (Judgment) C-49/79; [1980] EUECJ C-49/79 4 Mar 1980 ECJ European, Contract, Agriculture Europa 1. Non-contractual liability - conditions - illegality - damage - chain of causality (EEC Treaty, art. 215, second paragraph) 2. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - beef and veal - price system - right of producers to precise price levels of community rules - none (regulation no 805/68 of the council) 1. The non-contractual liability of the community under the second paragraph of article 215 of the EEC Treaty depends on the coincidence of a set of conditions as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the institution, the fact of damage, and the existence of a direct link in the chain of causality between the wrongful act and the damage complained of. 2. The price system which is an integral part of the common organization of the market in beef and veal - established by regulation no 805/68 - does not have the effect of guaranteeing to individual traders that their produce will be disposed of at the precise price level determined by community rules. That level, expressed in units of account, does not therefore constitute a value which could be used as a basis for comparison with the prices obtained by a producer on the market with a view to demonstrating that certain damage has been caused. [ Bailii ] Pecastaing v Belgian State (Rec 1980,P 691) (Gr80-I 0367 Sv80-57 Fi80-57) (Judgment) C-98/79 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European Simmenthal v Commission (Rec 1980,P 593) (Gr80-I 0311) (Judgment) C-243/78 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European Nordmark (Rec 1980,P 643) (Gr80-I 0333) (Judgment) C-38/79 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European Josette Pecastaing v Belgian State. R-98/79; [1980] EUECJ R-98/79 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] H. Ferwerda Bv v Produktschap Voor Vee En Vlees. R-265/78; [1980] EUECJ R-265/78 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Butter Und Eier-Zentrale Nordmark Eg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-38/79; [1980] EUECJ R-38/79 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ferwerda (Rec 1980,P 617) (Gr80-I 0313 Sv80-45 Fi80-45) (Judgment) C-265/78 5 Mar 1980 ECJ European De Cavel (Rec 1980,P 731) (Gr80-I 0393) (Judgment) C-120/79 6 Mar 1980 ECJ European Louise De Cavel v Jacques De Cavel. R-120/79; [1980] EUECJ R-120/79 6 Mar 1980 ECJ European 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Pasquale Foglia v Mariella Novello. R-104/79; [1980] EUECJ R-104/79 11 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Foglia v Novello (Rec 1980,P 745) (Gr80-I 0403 Sv80-73 Fi80-73) (Judgment) C-104/79 11 Mar 1980 ECJ European Sonacotra (Rec 1980,P 771) (Order) C-68/80; [1980] EUECJ C-68/80 12 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] B v Parliament (Rec 1980,P 829) (Order) C-731/79 13 Mar 1980 ECJ European J.A. Van Walsum Bv v Produktschap Voor Vee En Vlees. R-124/79; [1980] EUECJ R-124/79 13 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Van Walsum (Rec 1980,P 813) (Gr80-I 0441) (Judgment) C-124/79 13 Mar 1980 ECJ European Sa Caterpillar Overseas v Belgian State. R-111/79; [1980] EUECJ R-111/79 13 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Caterpillar Overseas (Rec 1980,P 773) (Gr80-I 0419) (Judgment) C-111/79 13 Mar 1980 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1980,P 1099) (Gr80-I 0589) (Judgment) C-91/79; [1980] EUECJ C-91/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1980,P 1115) (Gr80-I 0593) (Judgment) C-92/79; [1980] EUECJ C-92/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Valsabbia v Commission (Rec 1980,P 907) (Gr80-I 0489 Sv80-99 Fi80-99) (Judgment) C-154/78 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European Spa Ferriera Valsabbia And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-264/78; [1980] EUECJ C-264/78 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Coditel v Cine Vog Films (Rec 1980,P 881) (Gr80-I 0477 Sv80-89 Fi80-89) (Judgment) C-62/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European Sa Compagnie Generale Pour La Diffusion De La Television, Coditel, And Others v Cine Vog Films And Others. R-62/79; [1980] EUECJ R-62/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Procureur Du Roi v Marc J.V.C. Debauve And Others. R-52/79; [1980] EUECJ R-52/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Procureur Du Roi v Debauve (Rec 1980,P 833) (Gr80-I 0443 Sv80-79 Fi80-79) (Judgment) C-52/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European Forges De Thy-Marcinelle and Monceau v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1083) (Gr80-I 0585) (Judgment) C-26/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European Forges De Thc-Marcinelle Et Monceau Sa v Commission Of The European Communities. C-86/79; [1980] EUECJ C-86/79 18 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Essen v Interatalanta (Rec 1980,P 1125) (Gr80-I 0595) (Judgment) C-100/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European Bagusat v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof (Rec 1980,P 1159) (Gr80-I 0599) (Judgment) C-87/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Essen v Interatalanta Handelsgesellschaft Mbh and Co. Kg. R-100/79; [1980] EUECJ R-100/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gebrueder Bagusat Kg v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof ; Einkaufsgesellschaft Der Deutschen Konservenindustrie Mbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof And Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall. R-113/79; [1980] EUECJ R-113/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Knauf v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-118/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European Vbbb v Eldi Records (Rec 1980,P 1137) (Gr80-I 0597) (Judgment) C-106/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European Vereeniging Ter Bevordering Van De Belangen Des Boekhandels And Others v Eldi Records Bv. R-106/79; [1980] EUECJ R-106/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gebrueder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-118/79; [1980] EUECJ R-118/79 20 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Buttner v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1201) (Order) C-51/79 26 Mar 1980 ECJ European Macarthys Ltd v Smith C-129/79; [1981] QB 180; [1980] 3 WLR 929; [1980] ICR 672; [1981] 1 All ER 111; R-129/79; [1980] EUECJ R-129/79 27 Mar 1980 ECJ European, Discrimination, Employment The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt discrimination which may be identified solely with the aid of the criteria of equal work and equal pay referred to by the article in question. Cases where men and women receive unequal pay for equal work carried out in the same establishment or service are among the forms of discrimination which may be thus judicially identified. In such a situation the decisive test lies in establishing whether there is a difference in treatment between a man and a woman performing 'equal work' within the meaning of article 119. That concept is entirely qualitative in character in that it is exclusively concerned with the nature of the services in question. Its scope may not therefore be restricted by its being confined to situations in which men and women are contemporaneously doing equal work for the same employer. It cannot, however, be ruled out that a difference in pay between two workers occupying the same post but at different periods in time may be explained by the operation of factors which are unconnected with any discrimination on grounds of sex. That is a question of fact which it is for the court or tribunal to decide. In cases of actual discrimination falling within the scope of the direct application of article 119 comparisons are confined to parallels which may be drawn on the basis of concrete appraisals of the work actually performed by employees of different sex within the same establishment or service. The principle of equal pay enshrined in article 119 therefore applies to the case where it is established that, having regard to the nature of her services, a woman has received less pay than a man who was employed prior to the woman ' s period of employment and who did equal work for the employer. Council Directive 75/117/EEC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Sucrimex v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1299) (Gr80-I 0659) (Judgment) C-133/79; [1980] EUECJ C-133/79 27 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Salumi (Rec 1980,P 1237) (Gr80-I 0627 Sv80-163 Fi80-163) (Judgment) C-66/79 27 Mar 1980 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Denkavit Italiana (Rec 1980,P 1205) (Gr80-I 0605 Sv80-149 Fi80-149) (Judgment) C-61/79 27 Mar 1980 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi, Fratelli Vasanelli And Fratelli Ultrocchi R-128/79; [1980] EUECJ R-128/79 27 Mar 1980 ECJ Customs and Excise, Agriculture, European Proceedings were taken to require Mr Salumi and others to pay additional sums as levies on imports of agricultural products, on the basis that the earlier lower levy had been applied in error. Subsequently an EU regulation was enacted and the European Court interpreted the Italian court's question as asking in substance whether that regulation applied to payments of duties made before the date the regulation came into force. HELD: "Although procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, this is not the case with substantive rules. On the contrary, the latter are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before the entry into force only insofar as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such an effect must be given to them. This interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectation, by virtue of which the effect of Community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of those principles . . that in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from the point in time before its publication and that it may be otherwise only exceptionally, where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected." The regulation in question contained both procedural and substantive rules which formed an indivisible whole. The individual provisions should not be considered in isolation with regard to the time at which they take effect. The regulation could not therefore be accorded retroactive effect unless sufficiently clear indications led to such a conclusion. Both the wording and the general scheme of the regulation led to the conclusion that the regulation provided only for the future. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Denkavit Italiana Srl. R-61/79; [1980] EUECJ R-61/79 27 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1980,P 1319) (Gr80-Ii 0001 Sv80-181 Fi80-181) (Order) C-24/80 28 Mar 1980 ECJ European Commission Of The European Communities v French Republic. C-97/80; [1980] EUECJ C-97/80R 28 Mar 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Macarthys Ltd v Smith (No.2) [1980] EWCA Civ 7; [1981] QB 180 17 Apr 1980 CA Lord Denning MR, Lawton, Cummin-Bruce LJJ Employment, European, Costs The parties had disputed a difference in payment between the woman applicant and men doing similar work. After a lengthy dispute the parties now disputed the costs. Held: The company had correctly been ordered to pay the costs. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy C-72/79; [1980] EUECJ C-72/79 24 Apr 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Coonan v Insurance Officer C-110/79 24 Apr 1980 ECJ European Una Coonan v Insurance Officer. R-110/79; [1980] EUECJ R-110/79 24 Apr 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Procureur De La Republique v Rene Chatain. R-65/79; [1980] EUECJ R-65/79 24 Apr 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Chatain (Rec 1980,P 1345) (Gr80-Ii 0017) (Judgment) C-65/79 24 Apr 1980 ECJ European Lee (Rec 1980,P 1495) (Gr80-Ii 0113) (Judgment) C-152/79 6 May 1980 ECJ European Kevin Lee v Minister For Agriculture. R-152/79; [1980] EUECJ R-152/79 6 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Porta-Leasing Gmbh v Prestige International Sa. R-784/79; [1980] EUECJ R-784/79 6 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium C-102/79; [1981] 1 CMLR 282; [1980] EUECJ C-102/79 6 May 1980 ECJ European Europa It is essential that each member state should implement directives in a way which fully meets the requirements of clarity and certainty in legal situations which directives seek for the benefit of traders established in other member states. Mere administrative practices, which by their nature can be changed as and when the authorities please and which are not publicized widely enough, cannot be regarded as a proper fulfilment of the obligation imposed by article 109 of the EEC Treaty on member states to which the directives are addressed. The effect of the third paragraph of article 189 of the EEC Treaty is that community directives must be implemented by appropriate im- plementing measures carried out by the member states. Only in specific circumstances, in particular where a member state has failed to take the implementing measures required or has adopted measures which do not conform to a directive, has the court of justice recognized the right of persons affected thereby to rely in law on a directive as against a defaulting member state. This minimum guarantee arising from the binding nature of the obligation imposed on the member states by the effect of the directives under the third paragraph of article 189 cannot justify a member state's absolving itself from taking in due time implementing measures sufficient to meet the purpose of each directive. A member state cannot rely upon domestic difficulties or provisions of its national legal system, even its constitutional system, for the purpose of justifying a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits contained in community directives. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Porta Leasing Gmbh v Prestige International Sa (Rec 1980,P 1517) (Gr80-Ii 0127) (Judgment) C-784/79 6 May 1980 ECJ European Fournier v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1529) (Order) C-114/79; [1980] EUECJ C-114/79 7 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bernard Denilauler v Snc Couchet Freres. R-125/79; [1980] EUECJ R-125/79 21 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Denilauler v SNC Couchet Freres (Judgment) [1980] ECR 1553; C-125/79 21 May 1980 ECJ European, Jurisdiction The courts of the place or, in any event, of the Contracting State, where the assets subject to the measures sought are located, are those best able to assess the circumstances which may lead to the grant or refusal of the measures sought or to the laying down of procedures and conditions which the plaintiff must observe in order to guarantee the provisional and protective character of the measures ordered. 1 Citers Commission v Italy C-73/79 C-73/79; [1980] EUECJ C-73/79; [1980] ECR 1533 21 May 1980 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) A measure carried out by means of discriminatory taxation, which may be considered at the same time as forming part of an aid within the meaning of article 92 of the EEC treaty, is governed both by the provisions of the first paragraph of article 95 and by those applicable to aids granted by states. It follows that discriminatory tax practices are not exempted from the application of article 95 by reason of the fact that they may at the same time be described as a means of financing a state aid. 2. If the Commission charges a member state with practices which constitute an infringement of article 95 of the EEC treaty and if on that basis it has initiated the procedure under article 169 that procedure does not lose its purpose because the commission takes the view that the same practices form part of a system of aids incompatible with the common market and initiates the procedure provided for in article 93. 3. Authorization under article 38 of regulation ( EEC ) no 3330/74 to grant the aids provided for therein cannot be taken to mean that any method of financing such aids, whatever its character or conditions, is compatible with community law. On the contrary, the financing of the aid granted, the national authorities remain in particular subject to the obligations arising under the EEC treaty. 4. In an interpretation of the concept "internal taxation" for the purposes of article 95 of the EEC treaty it may be necessary to take into account the purpose to which the revenue from the charge is put. In fact, if the revenue from such a charge is intended to finance activities for the special advantage of the taxed domestic products it may follow that the charge imposed on the basis of the same criteria on domestic and imported products nevertheless constitutes discriminatory taxation in so far as the fiscal burden on domestic products is neutralized by the advantages which the charge is used to finance whilst the charge on the imported products constitutes a net burden. It follows that internal taxation is of such a nature as indirectly to impose a heavier burden on products from other member states than on domestic products if it is used exclusively or principally to finance aids for the sole benefit of domestic products. 5. The fact that the financial burdens arising from the imposition of a charge are passed on to the consumers does not alter the legal nature of the charge in question as regards article 95 of the EEC treaty. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Fonti v Parliament (Rec 1980,P 1617) (Gr80-Ii 0195) (Judgment) C-142/79; [1980] EUECJ C-142/79 22 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Walsh v National Insurance Officer; ECJ 22-May-1980 - C-143/79; R-143/79; [1980] EUECJ R-143/79 Regina v Secretary Of State For Home Affairs, Ex Parte Santillo (Rec 1980,P 1585) (Gr80-Ii 0171 Sv80-207 Fi80-207) (Judgment) C-131/79 22 May 1980 ECJ European Regina v Secretary of State For Home Affairs, Ex Parte Mario Santillo. R-131/79; [1980] EUECJ R-131/79 22 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Albini v Council and Commission (Rec 1980,P 1671) (Order) C-33/80 22 May 1980 ECJ European Kuhner v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1677) (Gr80-Ii 0221) (Judgment) C-33/79; [1980] EUECJ C-33/79 28 May 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gedelfi Grosseinkauf Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Hambourg-Jonas. R-135/79; [1980] EUECJ R-135/79 3 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gedelfi v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1980,P 1713) (Gr80-Ii 0225) (Judgment) C-135/79 3 Jun 1980 ECJ European Oberthur v Commission C-24/79; [1980] EUECJ C-24/79 5 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Belfiore v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1769) (Gr80-Ii 0233) (Judgment) C-108/79; [1980] EUECJ C-108/79 5 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] B v Parliament C-123/80; [1980] EUECJ C-123/80; [1980] EUECJ C-123/80R 9 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] B v Parliament (Rec 1980,P 1793) (Order) C-123/80 9 Jun 1980 ECJ European M v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1797) (Gr80-Ii 0237) (Judgment) C-155/78; [1980] EUECJ C-155/78 10 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs (Fnrom) v Yvon Salmon C-1/80; R-1/80; [1980] EUECJ R-1/80 12 Jun 1980 ECJ European Europa In connection with the task entrusted to it by article 177 of the EEC treaty the court has no jurisdiction to review the application of the provisions of community law to a given case or to criticize the way in which a national court applies community law. However, the need to arrive at a serviceable interpretation of community law permits the court to extract from the details of the dispute in the main action the information necessary for an understanding of the question referred to it and for the formulation of an appropriate answer. The aggregation of insurance periods and the apportionment of benefits provided for by articles 27 and 28 of regulation no 3 have no relevance in the case of a state in which the result sought by article 51 of the treaty is already attained by virtue of national legislation alone. They cannot therefore be effected, without being incompatible with article 51 of the treaty, if their effect is to reduce the benefits which the person concerned may claim by virtue of the laws of a single member state on the basis solely of the periods of insurance completed under those laws provided, however, that that method does not lead to an overlapping of benefits for one and the same period. The overlapping of a benefit, acquired under national law alone on the basis of national contribution periods with a benefit acquired in another state by means of aggregation in a case where, as required by article 27, the periods of insurance ' ' do not overlap ' ', does not constitute an advantage which is contrary to community law. The advantage of aggregation is the acquisition of a right to a pension which would not otherwise arise, the pension acquired in this way being calculated in proportion only to the insurance period completed in the member state in question, to the exclusion of any period completed elsewhere. The competent institution of a member state may not rely on the provisions of regulation no 3 or in particular in article 28 (4) in order to refuse the grant to a worker of benefits calculated pursuant to articles 27 and 28 of that regulation or to reduce them on the ground that that worker is receiving a pension provided by the institution of another member state pursuant to the legislation of that state alone. [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Siegfried Grunert. R-88/79; [1980] EUECJ R-88/79 12 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Caisse De Compensation Des Allocations Familiales Des Regions De Charleroi Et De Namur v Cosimo Laterza R-733/79; [1980] EUECJ R-733/79 12 Jun 1980 ECJ European ECJ 1. The regulations on social security for migrant workers did not set up a common scheme of social security, but allowed different schemes to exist, creating different claims on different institutions against which the claimant possesses direct rights by virtue either of national law alone or of national law supplemented, where necessary, by community law. The community rules cannot, therefore, in the absence of an express exception consistent with the aims of the treaty, be applied in such a way as to deprive a migrant worker or his dependants of the benefit of a part of the legislation of a member state, nor may they bring about a reduction in the benefits awarded by virtue of that legislation supplemented by community law. 2. Article 77 (2) (b) (i) of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to family benefits from the state in whose territory the recipient of an invalidity pension resides does not take away the right to higher benefits awarded previously by another member state. If the amount of family benefits actually received by the worker in the member state in which he resides is less than the amount of the benefits provided for by the legislation of the other member state, he is entitled to a supplement to the benefits from the competent institution of the latter state equal to the difference between the two amounts. [ Bailii ] Calpak v Commission (Rec 1980,P 1949) (Gr80-Ii 0311) (Judgment) C-789/79 17 Jun 1980 ECJ European Calpak Spa Et Societa Emiliana Lavorazione Frutta Spa v Commission Of The European Communities. C-790/79; [1980] EUECJ C-790/79 17 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Jules Borker. R-138/80; [1980] EUECJ R-138/80 18 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Borker (Rec 1980,P 1975) (Gr80-Ii 0315 Sv80-237 Fi80-237) (Order) C-138/80 18 Jun 1980 ECJ European Vittorio Testa, Salvino Maggio And Carmine Vitale v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit. R-41/79; [1980] EUECJ R-41/79 19 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Gerard Roudolff. R-803/79; [1980] EUECJ R-803/79 19 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Herbert Gilli And Paul Andres. R-788/79; [1980] EUECJ R-788/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fratelli Pardini SpA C-808/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European, Commercial Europa The reference to "loss" of the export document in article 17 (7) of regulation no 193/75 includes a theft which takes place before or after the performance of the import or export transaction. Therefore the aforesaid provision must be interpreted as meaning that an exporter who has suffered the theft of an export licence or advance fixing certificate may not obtain a new licence or certificate or equivalent document permitting him to carry out the export transactions on the conditions laid down in the stolen document. It is clear from the wording of article 12 (2) of regulation no 2727/75 that the council conferred wide powers upon the commission for the purpose of implementing the system of import and export licences introduced by that provision and that the period of validity of licences or certificates is only one example of the detailed rules which may be adopted by the commission under the procedure known as the management committee procedure. Since , moreover , the function given to licences does not enable a distinction to be made between the right to carry out the transaction and the document which allegedly serves only as a manifestation of that right , there is no reason to suppose that the commission is not empowered to lay down rules in connexion with that right or to prescribe that the loss of the document shall entail the extinction of the right. It is necessary for the authorities entrusted with the management of the common organization of the markets to have available precise forecasts on future imports and exports. Whilst that objective requires that the performance of the undertaking to export or import in accordance with the licences or certificates issued be ensured by appropriate means , it also makes it necessary to ensure that the documents are used only for the transactions covered thereby. In the case of advance fixing certificates , that need is all the more imperative since the use of such certificates twice over may confer unjustified benefits upon traders and thus impose heavy financial burdens upon the community. Alastair Menzies v Bundesversicherungsanstalt fur Angestellte C-793/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European, Benefits Europa Social security for migrant workers - invalidity insurance - calculation of benefits - application by analogy with provisions on insurance for old age and death - calculation of the theoretical and actual amount - supplementary period ('zurechnungszeit') - inclusion in the calculation of the theoretical amount - exclusion in the calculation of the actual amount (regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 46 (2) (a) and (b)). Although the calculation to be carried out under article 46 (2) (a) of regulation no 1408/71 is intended to give a worker the maximum theoretical amount which he could claim if all periods of insurance had been completed in the state in question, the purpose of the calculation under article 46 (2) (b) is solely to apportion the respective burdens of the benefit between the institutions of the member states concerned in the ratio of the length of the periods of insurance completed in each of the said member states before the risk materialized. It follows that if, in order to evaluate the benefit awarded in the event of premature invalidity or death of the insured person, the legislation of a member state provides that the benefit must be calculated in relation to not only periods of insurance completed by the insured person but also in relation to a supplementary period ('zurechnungszeit') equivalent to the interval of the time between the age of the insured person at the time at which the risk materialized and the time at which he reached the age of 55, that supplementary period must also be taken into account in the calculation of the theoretical amount referred to in article 46 (2) (a) but not in the calculation of the actual amount referred to in article 46 (2) (b) of regulation no 1408/71. Criminal proceedings against Herbert Gilli and Paul Andres C-788/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European In the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of a product it is for member states to regulate all matters relating to its production, distribution and consumption on their own territory subject, however, to the condition that those rules do not present an obstacle, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, to intra-community trade. It is only where national rules, which apply without discrimination to both domestic and imported products, may be justified as being necessary in order to satisfy imperative requirements relating in particular to the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer that they may constitute an exception to the requirements arising under article 30 of the EEC treaty. The concept of "measures having equivalent effect" to "quantitative restrictions on imports", occurring in article 30 of the eec treaty, is to be understood as meaning that a prohibition imposed by a member state on importing or marketing vinegar containing acetic acid not derived from the acetic fermentation of wine comes within that provision where the vinegar involved is lawfully produced and marketed in another member state. Alastair Menzies v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fuer Angestellte. R-793/79; [1980] EUECJ R-793/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fratelli Pardini Spa. R-808/79; [1980] EUECJ R-808/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] National Panasonic v Commission C-136/79; [1980] EUECJ C-136/79 26 Jun 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Turner v Commission C-129/80; [1980] EUECJ C-129/80R 2 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Grassi v Council C-6/79; [1980] EUECJ C-6/79 3 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Regina v Stanislaus Pieck C-157/79 3 Jul 1980 ECJ European, Immigration Europa The right of community workers to enter the territory of a member state which community law confers may not be made subject to the issue of a clearance to that effect by the authorities of that member state. The restriction which article 48 of the EEC Treaty lays down concerning freedom of movement in the territory of member states, namely limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, must be regarded not as a condition precedent to the acquisition of the right of entry and residence but as providing the possibility, in individual cases where there is sufficient justification, of imposing restrictions on the exercise of a right derived directly from the treaty. It does not there- fore justify administrative measures requiring in a general way formalities at the frontier other than simply the production of a valid identity card or passport. Article 3(2) of council directive no 68/360 prohibiting member states from demanding an entry visa or equivalent requirement for community workers moving within the community must be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ' entry visa or equivalent requirement ' covers any formality for the purpose of granting leave to enter the territory of a member state which is coupled with a passport or identity card check at the frontier, whatever may be the place or time at which that leave is granted and in whatever form it may be granted. The issue of the special residence document provided for in article 4 of directive no 68/360 has only a declaratory effect and, for aliens to whom article 48 of the eec treaty or parallel provisions give rights, it cannot be assimilated to a residence permit such as is prescribed for aliens in general. A member state may not therefore require from a person enjoying the protection of community law that he should possess a general residence permit instead of the document provided for by the combined provisions of article 4 of and the annex to directive no 68/360, or impose penalties for the failure to obtain such a permit. The failure on the part of a national of a member state of the community, to whom the rules on freedom of movement for workers apply, to obtain the special residence permit prescribed in article 4 of directive no 68/360 may not be punished by a recommendation for deportation or by measures which go as far as imprisonment. Regina v Stanislaus Pieck R-157/79; [1980] EUECJ R-157/79; [1981] Q.B. 571 3 Jul 1980 ECJ European, Benefits Any formality for the purpose of granting leave, coupled with a passport or an identity card check at the frontier, was contrary to article 3(2) of Directive 68/360 E.E.C. which prohibited Member States from demanding an entry visa or equivalent requirement from community workers. It was further held that a general resident's permit could not be required since the right to enter and reside in the territory of another Member State for the purposes intended by the Treaty is a right conferred directly by the Treaty. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Gravina (Rec 1980,P 2205) (Gr80-Ii 0449) (Judgment) C-807/79 9 Jul 1980 ECJ European Giacomo Gravina And Others v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben. R-807/79; [1980] EUECJ R-807/79 9 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1980,P 2299) (Gr80-Ii 0509) (Judgment) C-152/78; [1980] EUECJ C-152/78 10 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Lancome And Cosparfrance Nederland Bv v Etos Bv And Albert Heyn Supermart Bv.; ECJ 10-Jul-1980 - C-99/79; R-99/79; [1980] EUECJ R-99/79 Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Ariete Spa; ECJ 10-Jul-1980 - R-811/79; [1980] EUECJ R-811/79 Distillers v Commission; ECJ 10-Jul-1980 - C-30/78; [1980] EUECJ C-30/78 Anne Marty Sa v Estee Lauder Sa. R-37/79; [1980] EUECJ R-37/79 10 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-32/79; [1980] EUECJ C-32/79 10 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Marty v Lauder (Judgment) C-37/79 10 Jul 1980 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Sas Mediterranea Importazione, Rappresentanze, Esportazione, Commercio (Mireco).; ECJ 10-Jul-1980 - R-826/79; [1980] EUECJ R-826/79 Procureur De La Republique And Others v Bruno Giry And Guerlain Sa And Others; ECJ 10-Jul-1980 - R-253/78; [1980] EUECJ R-253/78 Kohll v Commission (Rec 1980,P 2601) (Gr80-Iii 0003) (Judgment) C-137/79; [1980] EUECJ C-137/79 11 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1980,P 2621) (Gr80-Iii 0005) (Judgment) C-150/79; [1980] EUECJ C-150/79 11 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Koln-Rheinau v Chem-Tec (Rec 1980,P 2639) (Gr80-Iii 0009) (Judgment) C-798/79 11 Jul 1980 ECJ European Moat v Commission (Rec 1980,P 2579) (Gr80-Iii 0001) (Judgment) C-103/79; [1980] EUECJ C-103/79 11 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Koln-Rheinau v Chem-Tec. R-798/79; [1980] EUECJ R-798/79 11 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Carbognani and Others v Commission (Rec 1980,P 2655) (Order) C-161/80 31 Jul 1980 ECJ European Jacobucci v Commission (Order) C-163/80; [1980] EUECJ C-163/80R 31 Jul 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Reichardt v Commission (Order) C-174/80; [1980] EUECJ C-174/80R 21 Aug 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Philip Morris v Commission; ECJ 17-Sep-1980 - C-730/79; [1980] EUECJ C-730/79 Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Mittelfranken v Landesversicherungsanstalt Ober Und Mittelfranken. R-818/79; [1980] EUECJ R-818/79 18 Sep 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Handelsmaatschappij Pesch and Co. Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-795/79; [1980] EUECJ R-795/79 18 Sep 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pesch (Rec 1980,P 2705) (Gr80-Iii 0035) (Judgment) C-795/79 18 Sep 1980 ECJ European Aok Mittelfranken v Lva Ober- Und Mittelfranken (Rec 1980,P 2729) (Gr80-Iii 0039) (Judgment) C-818/79 18 Sep 1980 ECJ European Peter Ueberschar v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fuer Angestellte. R-810/79; [1980] EUECJ R-810/79 8 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Uberschar (Rec 1980,P 2747) (Gr80-Iii 0043) (Judgment) C-810/79 8 Oct 1980 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Giovanni Carciati. R-823/79; [1980] EUECJ R-823/79 9 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Carciato (Rec 1980,P 2773) (Gr80-Iii 0061) (Judgment) C-823/79 9 Oct 1980 ECJ European D'Amico (Rec 1980,P 2951) (Gr80-Iii 0173) (Judgment) C-4/80 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European Remo D'Amico v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries. R-4/80; [1980] EUECJ R-4/80 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Roquette Freres v French State Customs Administration. R-145/79; [1980] EUECJ R-145/79 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sarl Maiseries De Beauce v Office National Interprofessionnel Des Cereales (Onic). R-109/79; [1980] EUECJ R-109/79 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societe Cooperative 'Providence Agricole De La Champagne' v Office National Interprofessionnel Des Cereales (Onic). R-4/79; [1980] EUECJ R-4/79 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Roquette v France (Rec 1980,P 2917) (Gr80-Iii 0153 Sv80-325 Fi80-325) (Judgment) C-145/79 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European Maiseries De Beauce v Onic (Rec 1980,P 2883) (Gr80-Iii 0147) (Judgment) C-109/79 15 Oct 1980 ECJ European Klaus Mecke and Co v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Ost R-816/79; [1980] EUECJ R-816/79 16 Oct 1980 ECJ European, Customs and Excise ECJ 1. When a comparison of the various language versions of any subheadings in the common customs tariff reveals that the difficulties in interpretation raised before a national court result mainly from the peculiarities of one of the language versions , those subheadings are to be considered in all the official language versions simultaneously , using in addition the information to be found in the explanatory notes of the customs co-operation council. 2. A general consideration of all the official language versions of the common customs tariff shows clearly that subheading 56.01 a represents an open-ended category including all types of fibre irrespective of their method of manufacture and their subsequent use. Consequently an interpretation of that subheading which has the effect of arbitrarily restricting its scope by excluding from it all fibres which are not suitable for use later in spinning is unacceptable. 3. It is apparent from the explanatory notes of the customs co-operation council that the scope of heading 59.01 of the common customs tariff cannot be restricted to waste produced by shearing and that there cannot be a requirement that in every case the product has the appearance of dust. The notes make it clear that subheading 59.01 b I can apply equally to textile cuttings of a regular length. 4. Cuttings of synthetic textile fibres having a length of between 6 and 7 mm fall within subheading 59.01 b I of the common customs tariff as flock and dust of man-made fibres. [ Bailii ] Herber v Commission; ECJ 16-Oct-1980 - C-63/79; [1980] EUECJ C-63/79 Sas Prodotti Alimentari Folci v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato R-824/79; [1980] EUECJ R-824/79 16 Oct 1980 ECJ European, Customs and Excise ECJ Common customs tariff - scheme of generalized preferences in favour of developing countries - cut mushrooms coming under sub-heading 07.04 B - exclusion (regulations nos 3055/74 and 3011/75 of the council, annex A) Tariff heading 07.04 "ex b. Other" set out in annex a to regulations (eec) no 3055/74 and (eec) no 3011/75 of the council establishing in respect of certain products falling within chapters 1 to 24 of the common customs tariff a scheme of generalized preferences in favour of developing countries for the years 1975 and 1976 must be interpreted as meaning that the reduced rate does not apply to cut or sliced mushrooms even if all the parts are present. [ Bailii ] Hochstrass v Court Of Justice (Rec 1980,P 3005) (Gr80-Iii 0191) (Judgment) C-147/79; [1980] EUECJ C-147/79 16 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Vecchioli v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3069) (Gr80-Iii 0201) (Judgment) C-101/79; [1980] EUECJ C-101/79 21 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Dautzenberg v Court Of Justice (Rec 1980,P 3107) (Gr80-Iii 0205) (Judgment) C-2/80; [1980] EUECJ C-2/80 28 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Heintz Van Landewyck Sarl And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-218/78; [1980] EUECJ C-218/78 29 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Maizena v Council (Rec 1980,P 3393) (Gr80-Iii 0359) (Judgment) C-139/79; [1980] EUECJ C-139/79 29 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Boussac Saint-Freres Sa v Brigitte Gerstenmeier. R-22/80; [1980] EUECJ R-22/80 29 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Van Landewyck v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3125) (Gr80-Iii 0207 Sv80-345 Fi80-345) (Judgment) C-209/78 29 Oct 1980 ECJ European Roquette v Council (Judgment) C-138/79; [1980] EUECJ C-138/79 29 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Boussac v Gerstenmeier (Rec 1980,P 3427) (Gr80-Iii 0375 Sv80-419 Fi80-419) (Judgment) C-22/80 29 Oct 1980 ECJ European Schneider-Import v Hautzollamt Mainz (Rec 1980,P 3469) (Gr80-Iii 0395) (Judgment) C-26/80 30 Oct 1980 ECJ European Milchfutter Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Gronau. R-3/80; [1980] EUECJ R-3/80 30 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schneider-Import Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Mainz. R-26/80; [1980] EUECJ R-26/80 30 Oct 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Milchfutter Gmbh and Co v Hauptzollamt Gronau (Rec 1980,P 3449) (Gr80-Iii 0393) (Judgment) C-3/80 30 Oct 1980 ECJ European Suss v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3501) (Order) C-186/80 3 Nov 1980 ECJ European Macevicius v Parliament (Rec 1980,P 3509) (Order) C-141/80; [1980] EUECJ C-141/80 18 Nov 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gerin v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3515) (Gr80-Iii 0399) (Judgment) C-806/79; [1980] EUECJ C-806/79 20 Nov 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Belgium v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3537) (Gr80-Iii 0403) (Judgment) C-820/79; [1980] EUECJ C-820/79 25 Nov 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sorasio-Allo and Others v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3557) (Gr80-Iii 0407) (Judgment) C-81/79; [1980] EUECJ C-81/79 27 Nov 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1980,P 3643) (Gr80-Iii 0443) (Judgment) C-43/80; [1980] EUECJ C-43/80 2 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Cremoni and Vrankovich (Judgment) C-815/79 2 Dec 1980 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Gaetano Cremonini And Maria Luisa Vrankovich. R-815/79; [1980] EUECJ R-815/79 2 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1980,P 3635) (Gr80-Iii 0441) (Judgment) C-42/80; [1980] EUECJ C-42/80 2 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Wilner (Rec 1980,P 3673) (Gr80-Iii 0447) (Judgment) C-54/80 4 Dec 1980 ECJ European Procureur De La Republique v Samuel Wilner. R-54/80; [1980] EUECJ R-54/80 4 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Geeraerd v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3651) (Gr80-Iii 0445) (Judgment) C-782/79; [1980] EUECJ C-782/79 4 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Grasselli v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3709) (Gr80-Iii 0451) (Judgment) C-23/80; [1980] EUECJ C-23/80 10 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1980,P 3687) (Gr80-Iii 0449) (Judgment) C-140/78; [1980] EUECJ C-140/78 10 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ciro Acampora (Rec 1980,P 3731) (Gr80-Iii 0455) (Judgment) C-827/79 11 Dec 1980 ECJ European Nv L'Oreal And Sa L'Oreal v Pvba De Nieuwe Amck R-31/80; [1980] EUECJ R-31/80; [1980] ECR 3775 11 Dec 1980 ECJ European, Commercial ECJ The agreements laying down a selective distribution system based on criteria for admission which go beyond a mere objective selection of a qualitative nature exhibit features making them incompatible with article 85(1) of the EEC treaty where such agreements, either individually or together with others, may, in the economic and legal context in which they occur and on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact, affect trade between member states and have either as their objective or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. It is for the commission alone, subject to review by the court, to grant an exemption in respect of such agreements under article 85(3). A letter signed by an official of the commission indicating that there is no reason for the commission to take action pursuant to article 85(1) of the EEC treaty against a distribution system which has been notified to it, may not be relied upon as against third parties and is not binding on the national courts. It merely constitutes an element of fact of which the national courts may take account in considering the compatibility of the system in question with community law. Decisions to grant exemption under articles 85(3) of the EEC treaty give rise to rights in the sense that the parties to an agreement which has been the subject of such a decision may rely on that decision as against third parties who claim that the agreement is void on the basis of article 85(2). The behaviour of an undertaking may be considered as an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty where the undertaking enjoys in a particular market the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and the consumers and where its behaviour on that market, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition on the basis of the transactions of traders, hinders the maintenance or development of competition and may effect trade between member states. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Administration Des Finances v Entreprise Ciro Acampora. R-827/79; [1980] EUECJ R-827/79 11 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Lucchini v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3753) (Gr80-Iii 0467) (Judgment) C-1252/79; [1980] EUECJ C-1252/79 11 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] L'Oreal v De Nieuwe Amck (Rec 1980,P 3775) (Gr80-Iii 0471) (Judgment) C-31/80 11 Dec 1980 ECJ European Rumi v Commission (Rec 1980,P 3867) (Order) C-258/80 16 Dec 1980 ECJ European Netherlands State (Rec 1980,P 3807) (Gr80-Iii 0493) (Judgment) C-814/79 16 Dec 1980 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Anton Adriaan Fietje. R-27/80; [1980] EUECJ R-27/80 16 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Netherlands State v Reinhold Rueffer. R-814/79; [1980] EUECJ R-814/79 16 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fietje (Rec 1980,P 3839) (Gr80-Iii 0517) (Judgment) C-27/80 16 Dec 1980 ECJ European Commission v Belgium (Rec 1980,P 3881) (Gr80-Iii 0537 Sv80-427 Fi80-427) (Judgment) C-149/79; [1980] EUECJ C-149/79; [1982] EUECJ C-149/79 17 Dec 1980 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Anne-Marie Tiberghien, Nee Peuteman, v Commission of The European Communities; ECJ 18-Dec-1980 - C-797/79; C-797/79; [1980] EUECJ C-797/79 Pierre Gratreau v Commission Of The European Communities (Rec 1980,P 3943) (Gr80-Iii 0567) (Judgment) C-156/79 and 51/80; C-156/79; [1980] EUECJ C-156/79; [1981] EUECJ C-156/79 18 Dec 1980 ECJ European Europa 1. Officials - periodic reports - compilation - duty of the administration - breach - justification based on internal organization - not permissible (staff regulations of officials, art. 43) 2. Officials - promotion - consideration of comparative merits - conditions for its legality - the taking into consideration of periodic reports - documents capable of taking the place of a non-existent report - permissibility - limits (staff regulations of officials, art. 45 (1)) 1. One of the bounden duties of the administration is to ensure that reports are drawn up periodically on the dates laid down by the staff regulations of officials and that they are drawn up in a proper form. Consequently, the administration may not put forward its internal administrative organization as a justification for failure to observe the obligations owed by it towards its officials in this regard. 2. Although it is true that in exceptional circumstances the absence of periodic reports may be compensated for at the time when the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion are considered, by the existence of other information on the merits of the official concerned, such is not, however, the case with a report irregularly included in a personal file after it has been challenged by the official or a proposal for promotion, even in eulogistic terms, or a list of the official ' s publications, drawn up by him and containing no objective assessment of their scientific value. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Spa Vinal v Spa Orbat R-46/80; [1981] EUECJ R-46/80; C-46/80 14 Jan 1981 ECJ European, Taxes Management, Constitutional ECJ 1. In its present stage of development community law does not restrict the freedom of each member state to lay down tax arrangements which differentiate between certain products on the basis of objective criteria, such as the nature of the raw materials used or the production processes employed. Such differentiation is compatible with community law if it pursues objectives of economic policy which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the treaty and its secondary law and if the detailed rules are such as to avoid any form of discrimination, direct or indirect in regard to imports from other member states or any form of protection of competing domestic products. 2. Tax arrangements which impose heavier charges on denatured synthetic alcohol than on denatured alcohol obtained by fermentation on the basis of the raw materials and the manufacturing processes employed for the two products are not at variance with the first paragraph of article 95 of the eec treaty if they are applied identically to the two categories of alcohol originating in other member states. Such tax arrangements are justified even though the products in question, whilst derived from different raw materials, are capable of being put to the same uses and have the same practical application. Where by reason of the taxation of synthetic alcohol, it has been impossible to develop profitable production of that type of alcohol on national territory, the application of such tax arrangements cannot be considered as constituting indirect protection of national production of alcohol obtained by fermentation within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 95 of the eec treaty on the sole ground that their consequence is that the product subject to the heavier taxation is in fact a product which is exclusively imported from other member states of the community. [ Bailii ] Chamial Farmaceutici (Rec 1981,P 1) (Judgment) C-140/79 14 Jan 1981 ECJ European Chemial Farmaceutici Spa v Daf Spa. R-140/79; [1981] EUECJ R-140/79 14 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Denkavit Nederland Bv v Produktschap Voor Zuivel. R-35/80; [1981] EUECJ R-35/80 14 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Germany v Commission (Rec 1981,P 21) (Judgment) C-819/79; [1981] EUECJ C-819/79 14 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Denkavit Nederland (Rec 1981,P 45) (Judgment) C-35/80 14 Jan 1981 ECJ European B v Parliament (Rec 1981,P 107) (Judgment) C-731/79 15 Jan 1981 ECJ European Vutera v Commission (Rec 1981,P 127) (Judgment) C-1322/79; [1981] EUECJ C-1322/79 15 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Maria Grazia Carbognani And Marisa Coda Zabetta v Commission of The European Communities. C-162/80; [1981] EUECJ C-162/80R 15 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Carbognani and Others v Commission (Rec 1981,P 145) (Order) C-161/80 15 Jan 1981 ECJ European Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd; HL 19-Jan-1981 - [1983] 2 AC 751; [1982] 2 WLR 918; [1982] ICR 420; [1982] 2 All ER 402 Musik-Vertrieb Membran Gmbh Et K-Tel International v Gema Gesellschaft Fuer Musikalische Auffuehrungs Und Mechanische Vervielfaltigungsrechte. R-55/80; [1981] EUECJ R-55/80 20 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Musik-Vertrieb Membran Gmbh v Gema (Rec 1981,P 147) (Sv81-1 Fi81-1) (Judgment) C-55/80 20 Jan 1981 ECJ European Dansk Supermarked (Rec 1981,P 181) (Sv81-13 Fi81-13) (Judgment) C-58/80 22 Jan 1981 ECJ European Dansk Supermarked A/S v A/S Imerco. R-58/80; [1981] EUECJ R-58/80 22 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Italy v Commission (Rec 1981,P 205) (Judgment) C-1251/79; [1981] EUECJ C-1251/79 27 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Vigier (Rec 1981,P 229) (Judgment) C-70/80 27 Jan 1981 ECJ European Tamara Vigier v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fuer Angestellte. R-70/80; [1981] EUECJ R-70/80 27 Jan 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against JAWMJ Kortmann C-32/80; R-32/80; [1981] EUECJ R-32/80; [1981] ECR 251 28 Jan 1981 ECJ European ECJ In the case of imported pharmaceutical products which have already been registered at the request of the manufacturer or the duly appointed importer, article 36 does not prevent national authorities from checking whether the products imported in parallel are identical to those which have already been registered or, where variants of the same medicinal are placed on the market, whether the differences between those variants have no therapeutic effect. That check must however extend only to verifying whether the products so conform and the member state in question must have required the manufacturer or authorized importer to provide full information regarding the different forms in which the medicinal products in question are manufactured or marketed in the various member states by either the manufacturer himself, subsidiary or related undertakings, or undertakings manufacturing such products under licence. A monitoring procedure which is in accordance with the requirements of article 36 of the EEC treaty is not deprived of its justification, within the meaning of that provision, by virtue of the fact that it gives rise to the collection of fees. On the other hand such fees may not be considered compatible with the treaty on the sole ground that they are charged in consequence of a measure adopted by the state which is justified within the meaning of article 36. The exemption provided for in article 36 in fact relates exclusively to quantitative restrictions on imports or exports or measures having equivalent effect. It may not be extended to customs duties or to charges having equivalent effect which, as such, fall outside the compass of article 36. Fees demanded of a parallel importer of pharmaceutical products either in the form of a single fee on the occasion of the registration of the pharmaceutical products which he proposes to import or in the form of an annual fee charged in order to meet the costs of procedures intended to check whether the products subsequently marketed are identical to the registered product do not constitute charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties where those fees form part of a general system of internal fees charged both on occasion of the registration of medicinal products produced in the member state in question and on the occasion of the registration of medicinal products imported either directly by the manufacturer of his appointed importer or as what are known as parallel imports and where such fees are charged, in the case of parallel imports, in accordance with criteria identical or comparable to the criteria employed in determining the fees on domestic products. A discriminatory internal tax does not automatically constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty. A charge in the form of an internal tax may not be considered as a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty unless the detailed rules governing the levying of the charge, or its use if the charge in question is allocated to a particular use, are such that in fact it is imposed solely on imported products to the exclusion of domestic products. Article 95 of the EEC treaty is complied with where an internal tax applies in accordance with the same criteria, objectively justified by the purpose for which the tax was introduced, to domestic products and imported products so that it does not result in the imported product ' s bearing a heavier charge than that borne by the similar domestic product. The fact that a charge which meets those criteria has different effects on the cost prices of the various undertakings by reason of particular features of the economic structure of such undertakings which manufacture or market such products is irrelevant to the application of that provision. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] DervieuDelahais (Rec 1981,P 317) (Judgment) C-95/80 3 Feb 1981 ECJ European Societe Havraise DervieuDelahais And Others v Directeur General Des Douanes Et Droits Indirects. R-95/80; [1981] EUECJ R-95/80 3 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1981,P 283) (Judgment) C-90/79; [1981] EUECJ C-90/79; [1981] ECR 283 3 Feb 1981 ECJ European ECJ 1. The prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties covers any charge exacted at the time of or on account of importation which, being borne specifically by an imported product to the exclusion of the similar domestic product, has the result of altering the cost price of the imported product thereby producing the same restrictive effect on the free movement of goods as a customs duty. The essential feature of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty which distinguishes it from an internal tax therefore resides in the fact that the former is borne solely by an imported product as such whilst the latter is borne both by imported and domestic products. 2. A charge which is borne by a product imported from another member state, when there is no identical or similar domestic product, does not constitute a charge having equivalent effect but internal taxation within the meaing of article 95 of the treaty if it relates to a general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 353) (Judgment) C-45/80; [1981] EUECJ C-45/80 4 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 343) (Judgment) C-44/80; [1981] EUECJ C-44/80 4 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities C-155/79R; [1981] EUECJ C-155/79R; [1983] QB 878 4 Feb 1981 ECJ Sir Gordon Slynn AG Legal Professions, European Sir Gordon Slynn AG discussed legal advce priviege: "Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially from the basic need of a man in a civilised society to be able to turn to his lawyer for advice and help, and if proceedings begin, for representation; it springs no less from the advantages to a society which evolves complex law reaching into all the business affairs of persons, real and legal, that they should be able to know what they can do under the law, what is forbidden, where they must tread circumspectly, where they run risks." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Rene Joseph Kugelmann R-108/80; [1981] EUECJ R-108/80 5 Feb 1981 ECJ European, Crime ECJ Approximation of legislation - preservatives which may be used in foodstuffs intended for human consumption - duty of member states - scope - right of individuals to rely upon the provisions of Directive 64/54/EEC - limits (Council Directive 64/54/EEC) At the present stage in the approximation of legislation in the field of preservatives , member states are not bound to authorize for use in foodstuffs all the substances the use of which is permitted by Directive 64/54/EEC. They have retained a certain discretion to determine their own rules concerning the addition of preservatives to foodstuffs, subject to the twofold condition that no preservative may be authorized unless it appears in the list annexed to the directive and that the use of a preservative which is listed there may not be totally prohibited except in special cases where there is no technological necessity. In these circumstances, an individual who is prosecuted for using sorbic acid in certain foodstuffs intended for human consumption cannot rely upon the provisions of Directive 64/54/eec authorizing the use of that preservative if the applicable national legislation permits the use thereof in other foodstuffs intended for human consumption. [ Bailii ] Officier Van Justitie v Koninklijke Kaasfabriek Eyssen Bv. R-53/80; [1981] EUECJ R-53/80 5 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eyssen (Rec 1981,P 409) (Judgment) C-53/80 5 Feb 1981 ECJ European Horvath v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas R-50/80; [1981] EUECJ R-50/80 5 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kugelman (Rec 1981,P 433) (Judgment) C-108/80 5 Feb 1981 ECJ European Staatsecretaris Van Financien v Cooperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats; ECJ 5-Feb-1981 - [1981] ECR 445; C-154/80; R-154/80; [1981] EUECJ R-154/80 P v Commission (Rec 1981,P 361) (Judgment) C-40/79 5 Feb 1981 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 457) (Judgment) C-133/80; [1981] EUECJ C-133/80 17 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 465) (Judgment) C-171/80; [1981] EUECJ C-171/80 17 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Fabriek Voor Hoogwaardige Voedingsprodukten Kelderman Bv. R-130/80; [1981] EUECJ R-130/80 19 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schiavo v Council (Rec 1981,P 473) (Judgment) C-122/79; [1981] EUECJ C-122/79 19 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Beek (Rec 1981,P 503) (Judgment) C-104/80 19 Feb 1981 ECJ European Kelderman (Rec 1981,P 527) (Judgment) C-130/80 19 Feb 1981 ECJ European Kurt Beeck v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit. R-104/80; [1981] EUECJ R-104/80 19 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Carbognani and Others v Commission (Rec 1981,P 543) (Judgment) C-161/80; [1981] EUECJ C-161/80 24 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Firma A. Weigand v Schutzverband Deutscher Wein E.V.. R-56/80; [1981] EUECJ R-56/80 25 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Weigand (Rec 1981,P 583) (Judgment) C-56/80 25 Feb 1981 ECJ European Arbed v Commission (Rec 1981,P 721) (Order) C-20/81; [1981] EUECJ C-20/81R 26 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Korter v Council (Rec 1981,P 615) (Judgment) C-148/79; [1981] EUECJ C-148/79 26 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Authie v Commission (Rec 1981,P 665) (Judgment) C-34/80; [1981] EUECJ C-34/80 26 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Giuffrida and Others v Council C-64/80; [1981] EUECJ C-64/80 26 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Farrall v Commission (Rec 1981,P 717) (Order) C-10/81; [1981] EUECJ C-10/81R 26 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] De Briey v Commission (Rec 1981,P 637) (Judgment) C-25/80; [1981] EUECJ C-25/80 26 Feb 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (Judgment) C-36/80 10 Mar 1981 ECJ European Benvenuto (Rec 1981,P 809) (Order) C-46/81; [1981] EUECJ C-46/81 11 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Susan Jane Worringham and Margaret Humphreys v Lloyds Bank Limited C-69/80; [1981] 1 WLR 950; [1981] ICR 558; [1981] 2 All ER 434; R-69/80; [1981] EUECJ R-69/80 11 Mar 1981 ECJ European, Discrimination, Employment Europa A contribution to a retirement benefits scheme which is paid by an employer on behalf of employees by means of an addition to the gross salary and which therefore helps to determine the amount of that salary constitutes 'pay' within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 119 of the EEC treaty. Directive 75/117/EEC is based on the concept of 'pay' as defined in the second paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty. Although article 1 of the directive explains that the concept of 'same work' contained in the first paragraph of article 119 of the treaty includes cases of 'work to which equal value is attributed', it in no way affects the concept of 'pay' contained in the second paragraph of article 119 but refers by implication to that concept. Article 119 of the EEC treaty applies directly to all forms of discrimination which may be identified solely with the aid of the criteria of equal work and equal pay referred to by the article in question, without national or community measures being required to define them with greater precision in order to permit of their application. The forms of discrimination which may be thus judicially identified include cases where men and women receive unequal pay for equal work carried out in the same establishment or service, public or private. This is the case where the requirement to pay contributions to a retirement benefits scheme applies only to men and not to women and the contributions payable by men are paid by the employer on their behalf by means of an addition to the gross salary the effect of which is to give men higher pay within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 119 than that received by women engaged in the same work or work of equal value. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Seton v Commission (Rec 1981,P 813) (Order) C-37/81; [1981] EUECJ C-37/81R 12 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Blanckaert and Willems Pvba v Luise Trost. R-139/80; [1981] EUECJ R-139/80 18 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Blankaert and Willems v Trost (Rec 1981,P 819) (Judgment) C-139/80 18 Mar 1981 ECJ European Metallurgiki Halyps v Commission (Rec 1981,P 841) (Order) C-41/81; [1981] EUECJ C-41/81R 20 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] C. Toneman Bv v Minister For Economic Affairs. R-109/80; [1981] EUECJ R-109/80 25 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Cooperatieve Stremsel- En Kleurselfabriek v Commission (Rec 1981,P 851) (Judgment) C-61/80; [1981] EUECJ C-61/80 25 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Toneman v Minister Van Economische Zaken (Rec 1981,P 881) (Judgment) C-109/80 25 Mar 1981 ECJ European Dr. Ritter Gmbh and Co. v Oberfinanzdirektion Hamburg. R-114/80; [1981] EUECJ R-114/80 26 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ritter v Oberfinanzdirektion Hamburg (Rec 1981,P 895) (Judgment) C-114/80 26 Mar 1981 ECJ European J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd C-96/80; [1981] 1 WLR 972; [1981] ICR 592; R-96/80; [1981] EUECJ R-96/80; [1981] IRLR 228 (ECJ); [1981] ECR 911 31 Mar 1981 ECJ Advocate-General Warner European, Employment, Discrimination ECJ The fact that work paid at time rates is remunerated at an hourly rate which varies according to the number of hours worked per week does not offend against the principle of equal pay laid down in article 119 of the Treaty in so far as the difference in pay between part-time work and full-time work is attributable to factors which are objectively justified and are in no way related to any discrimination based on sex. It is for the national courts to decide in each individual case whether, regard being had to the facts of the case, its history and the employer's intention, a pay policy represented as a difference based on weekly working hours is or is not in reality discrimination based on the sex of the worker. Therefore a difference in pay between full-time workers and part-time workers does not amount to discrimination prohibited by article 119 of the Treaty unless it is in reality merely an indirect way of reducing the level of pay of part-time workers on the ground that that group of workers is composed exclusively or predominantly of women. Article 119 of the treaty applies directly to all forms of discrimination which may be identified solely with the aid of criteria of equal work and equal pay referred to by the article in question, without national or community measures being required to define them with greater precision in order to permit of their application. The forms of discrimination which may be thus judicially identified include cases where men and women receive unequal pay for equal work carried out in the same establishment or service, public or private. Where the national court is able, using the criteria of equal work and equal pay, without the operation of community or national measures, to establish that the payment of lower hourly rates of remuneration for part-time work than for full-time work represents discrimination based on difference of sex the provisions of article 119 of the treaty apply directly to such a situation. Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC which is principally designed to facilitate the practical application of the principle of equal pay outlined in article 119 of the treaty in no way alters the content or scope of that principle as defined in the Treaty. Council Directive 75/117/EEC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Galinsky (Rec 1981,P 941) (Judgment) C-99/80 31 Mar 1981 ECJ European Maurice Galinsky v Insurance Officer. R-99/80; [1981] EUECJ R-99/80 31 Mar 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pizziolo v Commission (Rec 1981,P 969) (Judgment) C-785/79; [1981] EUECJ C-785/79; [1983] EUECJ C-785/79 2 Apr 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Nv United Foods And Pvba Aug. Van Den Abeele v Belgian State. R-132/80; [1981] EUECJ R-132/80 7 Apr 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] United Foods (Rec 1981,P 995) (Sv81-63 Fi81-63) (Judgment) C-132/80 7 Apr 1981 ECJ European Ludwigshafener Walzmuhle v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 1041) (Order) C-197/80 8 Apr 1981 ECJ European Ludwigshafener Walzmuehle Erling Kg v Eec. C-200/80; [1981] EUECJ C-200/80 8 Apr 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Durbeck v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt A M C-112/80 5 May 1981 ECJ European Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-804/79; [1981] EUECJ C-804/79 5 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Firma Anton Duerbeck v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt Am Main-Flughafen. R-112/80; [1981] EUECJ R-112/80 5 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hansen v Hauptzollamt Flensburg (Rec 1981,P 1165) (Judgment) C-153/80 7 May 1981 ECJ European Will v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1139) (Judgment) C-131/80; [1981] EUECJ C-131/80 7 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rumhaus Hansen Gmbh and Co v Hauptzollamt Flensburg. R-153/80; [1981] EUECJ R-153/80 7 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Spa International Chemical Corporation v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-66/80; [1981] EUECJ R-66/80 13 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] International Chemical Corporation v Amministrazione Delle Fianze Dello Stato (Rec 1981,P 1191) (Sv81-97 Fi81-97) (Judgment) C-66/80 13 May 1981 ECJ European Romano (Rec 1981,P 1241) (Judgment) C-98/80 14 May 1981 ECJ European Giuseppe Romano v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite. R-98/80; [1981] EUECJ R-98/80 14 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pietro Fanara v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite. R-111/80; [1981] EUECJ R-111/80 14 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fanara (Rec 1981,P 1269) (Judgment) C-111/80 14 May 1981 ECJ European Debayser (Rec 1981,P 1291) (Judgment) C-152/80 20 May 1981 ECJ European Debayser Sa, Sucre-Union Sa And Jean Lion Sa v Director Of The Fonds D'Intervention Et De Regularisation Du Marche Du Sucre, Minister For Agriculture And Minister For The Budget. R-152/80; [1981] EUECJ R-152/80 20 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Geist v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1387) (Order) C-192/80; [1981] EUECJ C-192/80 21 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Morbelli v Commission (Judgment) C-156/80; [1981] EUECJ C-156/80 21 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kindermann v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1329) (Judgment) C-60/80; [1981] EUECJ C-60/80 21 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Reinarz v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1311) (Judgment) C-29/80; [1981] EUECJ C-29/80 21 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings v Rinkau R-157/80; [1981] EUECJ R-157/80 26 May 1981 ECJ European, Crime ECJ 1. The concept of an offence which was not intentionally committed appearing in article II of the protocol annexed to the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be regarded as an independent concept which must be explained by reference, first, to the objectives and scheme of the convention and, secondly, to the general principles which the national legal systems have in common. It covers any offence the legal definition of which does not require, either expressly or as appears from the nature of the offence defined, the existence of intent on the part of the accused to commit the punishable act or omission. 2. The right to be defended without appearing in person, granted by Article II of the aforementioned protocol, applies in all criminal proceedings concerning offences which were not intentionally committed, in which the accused's liability at civil law, arising from the elements of the offence for which he is being prosecuted, is in question or on which such liability might subsequently be based. [ Bailii ] Rinkau (Rec 1981,P 1391) (Judgment) C-157/80 26 May 1981 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Essevi and Salengo (Rec 1981,P 1413) (Sv81-113 Fi81-113) (Judgment) C-142/80 27 May 1981 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Essevi Spa And Carlo Salengo. R-143/80; [1981] EUECJ R-143/80 27 May 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bernardi v Parliament (Rec 1981,P 1467) (Order) C-78/81; [1981] EUECJ C-78/81 2 Jun 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Van Dam (Rec 1981,P 1447) (Judgment) C-124/80 2 Jun 1981 ECJ European Officier Van Justitie v J. Van Dam and Zonen. R-124/80; [1981] EUECJ R-124/80 2 Jun 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Adorno v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1469) (Judgment) C-107/80; [1981] EUECJ C-107/80 3 Jun 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Curtis v Commission and Parliament C-167/80; [1981] EUECJ C-167/80; [1982] EUECJ C-167/80 4 Jun 1981 ECJ European Europa Officials - application to the court - act adversely affecting an official - act emanating from the appointing authority (staff regulations of officials, art. 91). The appeal referred to in article 91 of the staff regulations of officials may be directed only against an act adversely affecting an official and emanating from the appointing authority. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Salonia v Poidomani E Giglio (Rec 1981,P 1563) (Sv81-129 Fi81-129) (Judgment) C-126/80 16 Jun 1981 ECJ European Klomps v Michel [1981] ECR 1593; C-166/80; R-166/80; [1981] EUECJ R-166/80 16 Jun 1981 ECJ European The words "the document which instituted the proceedings" contained in article 27, point 2, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cover any document, such as the order for payment (zahlungsbefehl) in german law, service of which enables the plaintiff, under the law of the state of the court in which the judgment was given, to obtain in default of appropriate action taken by the defendant, a decision capable of being recognized and enforced under the provisions of the convention. A decision such as the enforcement order (vollstreckungsbefehl) in German law, which is issued after service of the order for payment has been effected and which is enforceable under the convention, is not covered by the words "the document which instituted the proceedings". In order to determine whether the defendant has been enabled to arrange for his defence as required by article 27, point 2, the court in which enforcement is sought must take account only of the time, such as that allowed under german law for submitting an objection (widerspruch) to the order for payment, available to the defendant for the purposes of preventing the issue of a judgment in default which is enforceable under the convention. Article 27, point 2, of the convention, which is addressed exclusively to the court before which proceedings are brought for recognition or enforcement in another contracting state, remains applicable where the defendant has lodged an objection against the decision given in default and a court in the state in which the judgment was given has declared the objection inadmissible on the ground that the time for making such objection has expired. Even if the court in which the judgment was given has held, in separate adversary proceedings, that service was duly effected, article 27, point 2, of the convention still requires the court in which enforcement is sought to examine whether service was effected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence. Article 27, point 2, of the convention does not require proof that the document which instituted the proceedings was actually brought to the knowledge of the defendant. As a general rule the court in which enforcement is sought may accordingly confine its examination to ascertaining whether the period reckoned from the date on which service was duly effected allowed the defendant sufficient time to arrange for his defence. Nevertheless the court must consider whether, in a particular case, there are exceptional circumstances which warrant the conclusion that, although service was duly effected, it was, however, inadequate for the purpose of causing time to begin to run. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Maria Salonia v Giorgio Poidomani And Franca Baglieri, Nee Giglio. R-126/80; [1981] EUECJ R-126/80 16 Jun 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Ireland (Rec 1981,P 1625) (Sv81-145 Fi81-145) (Judgment) C-113/80; [1981] EUECJ C-113/80 17 Jun 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Blasig v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1649) (Judgment) C-173/80; [1981] EUECJ C-173/80 18 Jun 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd; EAT 19-Jun-1981 - [1981] 1 WLR 1485; [1981] ICR 715; [1981] UKEAT 145_79_1906; [1981] 2 CMLR 24; [1981] IRLR 228; [1981] ECR 911 Elefanten Schuh Gmbh v Pierre Jacqmain [1982] 3 CMLR 1; R-150/80; [1981] EUECJ R-150/80; [1981] ECR 1671 24 Jun 1981 ECJ European, Jurisdiction ECJ 1. Article 18 of the convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of article 17 of that convention. 2. Article 18 of the Convention of 27 september 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdiction which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court's jurisdiction but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised. 3. Since the aim of article 17 of the Convention is to lay down the formal requirements which agreements conferring jurisdiction must meet, contracting states are not free to lay down formal requirements other than those contained in the Convention. When those rules are applied to provisions concerning the language to be used in an agreement conferring jurisdiction they imply that the legislation of a contracting state may not allow the validity of such an agreement to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Hugues Desmedt v Commission Of The European Communities R-105/80; [1981] EUECJ R-105/80 25 Jun 1981 ECJ European ECJ Officials - staff regulations - conditions of employment of other servants - distinct fields of application - appointment of member of the local staff as probationary official - end of previous employment relationships The staff regulations and the conditions of employment of other servants each cover a clearly defined range of persons and it is not possible, except where there is an express derogation, for a servant to come simultaneously within the scope of both of those acts laid down by regulation. It follows from those considerations that a member of the local staff who accepts an appointment as a probationary official is subject to the staff regulations alone, the application of which automatically terminates the relationship formerly governed by the conditions of employment of other servants without its being necessary for the employment relationships thereunder to be terminated expressly by the administration. [ Bailii ] Dgv v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 1727) (Order) C-241/78 1 Jul 1981 ECJ European Dgv Deutsche Getreideverwertung Und Rheinische Kraftfutterwerke Gmbh And Others v Eec. C-249/78; [1981] EUECJ C-249/78; [1981] EUECJ C-249/78 1 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Dgv v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 1731) (Order) C-241/78 1 Jul 1981 ECJ European Ireks-Arkady v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 1719) (Order) C-238/78 1 Jul 1981 ECJ European Ireks-Arkady v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 1723) (Order) C-238/78 1 Jul 1981 ECJ European Garganese v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1785) (Judgment) C-185/80; [1981] EUECJ C-185/80 2 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Smuling - De Leeuw (Judgment) C-160/80 2 Jul 1981 ECJ European Smuling-De Leeuw Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, De Rotterdam. R-160/80; [1981] EUECJ R-160/80 2 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Celestre (Rec 1981,P 1737) (Judgment) C-116/80 2 Jul 1981 ECJ European Rijksdienst Voor Werknemerspensioenen v Giorgio Celestre And Others; Nationaal Pensioenfonds Voor Mijnwerkers v Jozef Strehl R-121/80; [1981] EUECJ R-121/80 2 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord Mbh Et Rewe-Markt Steffen v Hauptzollamt Kiel R-158/80; [1981] EUECJ R-158/80; [1981] ECR 1805 7 Jul 1981 ECJ European Europa The exemption provided for by regulation no 1544/69, as last amended by regulation no 3061/78, applies only to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from a non-member country. That exemption applies irrespective of the origin of the goods or the place from which they come and of the customs duties and taxes which they have borne prior to their importation into the territory of the community. However, it is impossible to consider as a traveller coming from a non-member country, within the meaning of the regulation, a person who, during a cruise departing from a port of a member state, does not call at a non-member country or who makes only a token call there and does not remain there for an appreciable period, that is to say, a period during which he has in fact an opportunity of making purchases. Regulation no 1544/69 of the council of 23 July 1969 contains exhaustive rules on the exemption from customs duty of goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers coming from non-member countries and those rules do not leave member states any power to grant, in the field covered by the regulation, any exemption wider than those provided for by the regulation. Article 190 of the eec treaty requires that regulations should contain a statement of the reasons which led the institution to adopt them, so as to make possible a review by the court and so that the member states and the nationals concerned may have knowledge of the conditions under which the community institutions have applied the treaty. A statement of reasons which does not provide any legal justification for the contested provisions of the regulation does not fulfil that requirement. Europa In the case of travel between non-member countries and the community, the exemption provided for in directive no 69/169, as supplemented by directives nos 72/230 and 78/1032, on the harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulations or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel may be granted only to travellers who arrive in the customs territory of the community from a non-member country and in this case the circumstances in which the goods have been acquired are irrelevant to the grant of the exemptions. In the case of travel within the community, where the journey from one member state to another involves transit through the territory of a non-member country or begins in a part of the territory of the other member state in which the taxes to which the directive refers are not chargeable on goods which are consumed within that territory, the traveller must be able to establish that the goods transported in his luggage were acquired subject to the general conditions governing taxation on the domestic market of a member state and do not qualify for any refund of turnover tax or excise duty. If the traveller is unable to provide the aforementioned proof he may enjoy only the more restricted exemption provided for in the case of travel between non-member countries and the community. In adopting directive no 69/169, and directives nos 72/230 and 78/1032 which supplement it, the council intended gradually to establish a complete system of exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty for goods contained in travellers ' personal luggage. Consequently in this field the member states are left with only the restricted power given to them by the directives to grant exemptions other than those specified in the directives. Although the eec treaty has made it possible in a number of instances for private persons to bring a direct action, where appropriate, before the court of justice, it was not intended to create new remedies in the national courts to ensure the observance of community law other than those already laid down by national law. On the other hand the system of legal protection established by the treaty, as set out in article 177 in particular, implies that it must be possible for every type of action provided for by national law to be available for the purpose of ensuring observance of community provisions having direct effect, on the same conditions concerning the admissibility and procedure as would apply were it a question of ensuring observance of national law. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] International Business Machines Corporation v Commission of The European Communities C-190/81; [1981] EUECJ C-190/81R 7 Jul 1981 ECJ European ECJ 1 The applications in cases 60/81R and 190/81R have the same subject-matter; it is therefore appropriate to join them and to give the decision regarding them in a single order. 2 according to article 185 of the treaty, actions brought before the court of justice do not have suspensory effect. The court may, however, if it considers that circumstances so require, order that application of the contested measures be suspended. It may also in pursuance of article 186 of the treaty prescribe any necessary interim measures. 3 according to article 83(2) of the rules of procedure a suspension of enforcement and the decision ordering provisional measures are subject to the existence of circumstances giving rise to urgency and factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for such measures. 4 it is clear from the consistent case-law of the court that measures of this nature cannot be considered unless the factual and legal grounds relied on to obtain them establish a prima facie case for granting them. In addition there must be urgency in the sense that it is necessary for the measures to be issued and to take effect before the decision of the court on the substance of the case in order to avoid serious and irreversible damage to the party seeking them; finally they must be provisional in the sense that they do not prejudge the decision on the substance of the case. 5 In support of its applications the applicant in substance claims that a suspension of enforcement would be justified because otherwise: (i) IBM will be forced to lodge a defence to a statement of objections delivered by the commission without lawful authority; (ii) the commission will have been permitted to continue to act in breach of binding principles of international law; (iii) IBM will have been forced to lodge a defence to a statement of objections so ill-defined and obscure as to justify the raising of the exceptio obscuri libelli and breach of due process. 6 The applicant's arguments amount in substance to claiming that the measures contested in the main proceedings are vitiated by such clear and serious defects that those measures appear, even at first sight, as lacking any legal basis and in reality constitute an evident nullity, known in the administrative law of certain member states as "voies de fait administratives". The nature and gravity of these illegalities alone imply, it is alleged, that it is necessary and urgent to put a stop immediately to situations of this type and that the judge to whom the application is made has jurisdiction to do so. 7 Without prejudice to the admissibility or the merits of the actions in the main proceedings, the measures under challenge, having regard to the nature of the complaints made against them, do not appear to be measures lacking even an appearance of legality, and as such to require their operation to be suspended forthwith. 8 It was therefore for the applicant to demonstrate, with a view to the avoidance of serious and irreversible damage to itself, the necessity and urgency for the court to grant the relief sought. 9 The factual and legal grounds relied upon by the applicant are not, however, such as to establish these basic conditions. The contested measures in the two main actions are in fact measures of inquiry and investigation, which precede a decision of the commission relating to the issue whether or not the applicant is or has been guilty of conduct prohibited by article 86 of the Treaty. 10 The pursuit of administrative proceedings of this type, organized, as the court has emphasized on various occasions, with a view to permitting undertakings to make known their point of view and to enlighten the commission, does not involve for the applicant any obligation other than that of participating, with a view to the defence of its rights, in the course of that procedure. That obligation is not of such a nature as to cause it, either as regards its legal position or as regards its interests, serious and irreversible damage of such a kind as to justify the measures sought. 11 It follows from all the considerations set out above that the applications must be dismissed. 12 Costs must in the circumstances be reserved. [ Bailii ] Rewe v Hauptzollamt Kiel C-158/80 7 Jul 1981 ECJ European IBM v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1857) (Order) C-60/81 7 Jul 1981 ECJ European Einkaufsgesellschaft Der Deutschen Konservenindustrie v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall (Rec 1981,P 1865) (Judgment) C-170/80 8 Jul 1981 ECJ European Maurice Andre And Others v Council And Commission Of The European Communities. C-219/22; [1981] EUECJ C-219/228 8 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Einkaufsgesellschaft Der Deutschen Konservenindustrie Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall. R-170/80; [1981] EUECJ R-170/80 8 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Andre and Others v Commission and Council (Rec 1981,P 1879) (Order) C-219/80 8 Jul 1981 ECJ European Turner v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1883) (Judgment) C-59/80; [1981] EUECJ C-59/80 9 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Administration Des Douanes v Societe Anonyme Gondrand Freres And Societe Anonyme Garancini. R-169/80; [1981] EUECJ R-169/80 9 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gondrand (Rec 1981,P 1931) (Judgment) C-169/80 9 Jul 1981 ECJ European Van Zaanen v Cour De Comptes (Rec 1981,P 1951) (Judgment) C-184/80; [1981] EUECJ C-184/80 9 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Merck and Co. Inc. v Stephar Bv And Petrus Stephanus Exler. R-187/80; [1981] EUECJ R-187/80; [1981] ECR 2063 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European A patentee had no IP right in the EU member state where he first marketed the goods and so had no right to "exhaust" associated rights. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Merck v Stephar and Exler (Rec 1981,P 2063) (Sv81-187 Fi81-187) (Judgment) C-187/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European Summary Proceedings Agains Sergius Oebel. R-155/80; [1981] EUECJ R-155/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gerhard Zuechner v Bayerische Vereinsbank Ag. R-172/80; [1981] EUECJ R-172/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European Europa Although the transfer of customers' funds from one member state to another normally performed by banks is an operation which falls within the special task of banks, particularly in connexion with international movements of capital, that is not sufficient to make them undertakings within the meaning of article 90(2) of the eec treaty unless it can be established that in performing such transfers the banks are operating a service of general economic interest with which they have been entrusted by a measure adopted by the public authorities. Article 104 et seq. Of the treaty in no way have the effect of exempting banks from the competition rules of the treaty. Those provisions appear in chapter 2 of title ii, which concerns "balance of payments", and are restricted to stipulating that there must be coordination between the member states on economic policy, and to that end they provide for collaboration between the appropriate national administrative departments and the central banks of the member states in order to attain the objectives of the treaty. A concerted practice within the meaning of article 85 (1) of the eec treaty is a form of coordination between undertakings which, without having reached the stage where an agreement properly so called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes practical cooperation between them for the risks of competition. The criteria of coordination and co-operation necessary for the existence of a concerted practice in no way require the working out of an actual " plan " but must be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the provisions of the treaty relating to competition, according to which each trader must determine independently the policy which he intends to adopt on the common market and the conditions which he intends to offer to his customers. Although it is correct to say that this requirement of independence does not deprive traders of the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing or anticipated conduct of their competitors, it does however strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such traders, the object or effect of which is to create conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market in question, regard being had to the nature of the products or services offered, the size and number of the undertakings and the volume of the said market. Parallel conduct in the debiting of a uniform bank charge on transfers by banks from one member state to another of sums of similar amount from their customers ' funds amounts to a concerted practice prohibited by article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if it is established that such parallel conduct exhibits the features of coordination and cooperation characteristic of such a practice and if that practice is capable of significantly affecting conditions of competition in the market for the services connected with such transfers. [ Bailii ] ELBA Elektroapparate Und Maschinenbau Walter Goettmann Kg v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof C-205/80; R-205/80; [1981] EUECJ R-205/80; [1981] ECR 2097 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa Common customs tariff - tariff headings - 'entertainment articles; carnival articles' . . . Within the meaning of tariff heading 97.05 - concept - flashing light circles - inclusion - 'flashing light circles' consisting of a circular plastic frame to which are attached incandescent light bulbs of various colours which flash when switched on are to be classified under tariff heading 97.05 of the common customs tariff. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Oebel (Rec 1981,P 1993) (Sv81-171 Fi81-171) C-155/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European Judgment Suss v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2041) (Judgment) C-186/80; [1980] EUECJ C-186/80R; [1981] EUECJ C-186/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Zuchner v Bayerische Vereinsbank (Rec 1981,P 2021) (Sv81-181 Fi81-181) (Judgment) C-172/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European Mascetti v Commission (Rec 1981,P 1975) (Judgment) C-145/80; [1981] EUECJ C-145/80; [1983] EUECJ C-145/80 14 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Wunsche v Balm (Rec 1981,P 2161) (Judgment) C-159/80 16 Jul 1981 ECJ European Biller and Others v Parliament (Rec 1981,P 2125) (Judgment) C-154/79; [1981] EUECJ C-154/79 16 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Albini v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 2141) (Judgment) C-33/80; [1980] EUECJ C-33/80R; [1981] EUECJ C-33/80 16 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Ludwig Wuensche and Co. Kg v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-159/80; [1981] EUECJ R-159/80 16 Jul 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gordon Craigie Bowden and others v Commission of the European Communities C-153/79; [1981] EUECJ C-153/79 16 Jul 1981 ECJ European, Employment Europa Officials - applications to the court - application directed against a regulation - absence of act adversely affecting the official -inadmissibility (EEC treaty, art. 173; staff regulations of officials, arts 90 and 91; council regulations nos 3085 and 3086/78 amending the staff regulations of officials) regulations nos 3085 and 3086/78 are of general application and hence officials may not claim that they constitute decisions which are of direct and individual concern to them in order to call their validity in question in proceedings under article 173 of the treaty. The mere submission of a complaint pursuant to article 90 of the staff regulations is not sufficient to create a judicial remedy against a measure which is in the nature of a regulation. The procedure provided for in article 90 (2) applies only where the appointing authority has taken a decision or has refrained from adopting a measure prescribed by the staff regulations and where such conduct constitutes an act adversely affecting the official. [ Bailii ] Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1981,P 2187) (Order) C-206/81 20 Jul 1981 ECJ European Agricola Commerciale Olio v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2193) (Order) C-232/81 21 Aug 1981 ECJ European Rt Hon Lord Bruce Of Donington v Eric Gordon Aspden C-208/80; R-208/80; [1981] EUECJ R-208/80 15 Sep 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Leclercq v Commission (Judgment) C-28/80 17 Sep 1981 ECJ European Oberthur v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2229) (Order) C-24/79 17 Sep 1981 ECJ European Jean Leclercq v Commission Of The European Communities. C-165/80; [1981] EUECJ C-165/80 17 Sep 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hudig En Pieters Bv v Minister Van Landbouw En Visserij C-136/80; R-136/80; [1981] EUECJ R-136/80 17 Sep 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Anglo-Irish Meat Company Limited v Minister For Agriculture. R-196/80; [1981] EUECJ R-196/80 1 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Anglo-Irish Meat Company (Rec 1981,P 2263) (Judgment) C-196/80 1 Oct 1981 ECJ European Guglielmi v Parliament (Rec 1981,P 2295) (Judgment) C-268/80; [1981] EUECJ C-268/80 1 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie (Rec 1981,P 2311) (Sv81-199 Fi81-199) (Judgment) C-246/80 6 Oct 1981 ECJ European C. Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie. R-246/80; [1981] EUECJ R-246/80 6 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Tither v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2345) (Judgment) C-175/80; [1981] EUECJ C-175/80 8 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 2373) (Judgment) C-252/80; [1981] EUECJ C-252/80 13 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Flamm v Commission and Council (Rec 1981,P 2383) (Order) C-567/79 14 Oct 1981 ECJ European Knoeppel v Commission and Council (Rec 1981,P 2387) (Order) C-618/79 14 Oct 1981 ECJ European Krupp v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2391) (Order) C-123/81; [1981] EUECJ C-123/81 14 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1981,P 2393) (Judgment) C-137/80; [1981] EUECJ C-137/80 20 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Etablissements Rohr Societe Anonyme v Dina Ossberger. R-27/81; [1981] EUECJ R-27/81 22 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kruse v Commission (Judgment) C-218/80; [1981] EUECJ C-218/80 22 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rohr v Ossberger C-27/81 22 Oct 1981 ECJ European Gerhard Venus And Wolfgang Obert v Commission And Council Of The EC C-786/79; [1981] EUECJ C-786/79 27 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Venus and Others v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2445) (Judgment) C-783/79 27 Oct 1981 ECJ European Anklagemyndigheden v Hans Ulrich Schumacher, Peter Hans Gerth, Johannes Heinrich Gothmann And Alfred -c- Topfer. R-250/80; [1981] EUECJ R-250/80 27 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schumacher (Rec 1981,P 2465) (Judgment) C-250/80 27 Oct 1981 ECJ European Krupp v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2489) (Judgment) C-275/80; [1981] EUECJ C-275/80 28 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Arning v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2539) (Judgment) C-125/80; [1981] EUECJ C-125/80 29 Oct 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 2577) (Judgment) C-28/81; [1981] EUECJ C-28/81 10 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Amesz and Others v Commission and Council (Rec 1981,P 2569) (Order) C-532/79 10 Nov 1981 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 2585) (Judgment) C-29/81; [1981] EUECJ C-29/81 10 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] IBM v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2639) (Sv81-225 Fi81-225) (Judgment) C-60/81; [1981] EUECJ C-60/81 11 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Guerrino Casati C-203/80; R-203/80; [1981] EUECJ R-203/80 11 Nov 1981 ECJ European Europa 1. Article 67(1) of the eec treaty differs from the provisions on the free movement of goods , persons and services in the sense that there is an obligation to liberalize capital movements only "to the extent necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the common market". The scope of that restriction , which remained in force after the expiry of the transitional period, varies in time and depends on an assessment of the requirements of the common market and on an appraisal of both the advantages and risks which liberalization might entail for the latter, having regard to the stage it has reached and, in particular, to the level of integration attained in matters in respect of which capital movements are particularly significant. Such an assessment is, first and foremost, a matter for the council, in accordance with the procedure provided for by article 69. 2. Article 67(1) of the treaty must be interpreted as meaning that restriction on the exportation of bank notes may not be regarded as abolished as from the expiry of the transitional period, irrespective of the provisions of article 69. 3. Failure to have recourse to the safeguard procedures provided for by article 73 in regard to restrictions imposed on capital movements which the member state concerned is not obliged to liberalize under the rules of community law does not constitute an infringement of the eec treaty. Europa 4. The first paragraph of article 71 of the treaty does not impose on the member states an unconditional obligation capable of being relied upon by individuals. 5. Article 106(3) of the treaty is inapplicable to the re-exportation of a sum of money previously imported with a view to making purchases of a commercial nature if such purchases have not in fact been effected. 6. The first two paragraphs of article 106 of the treaty are designed to ensure the free movement of goods in practice by authorizing all the transfers of currency necessary to achieve that aim. However , those provisions do not require the member states to authorize the importation and exportation of bank notes for the performance of commercial transactions, if such transfers are not necessary for the free movement of goods. In connexion with commercial transactions, that method of transfer which, moreover, is not in conformity with standard practice, cannot be regarded as necessary to ensure such free movement. 7. With regard to movements of capital and transfers of currency which the member states are not obliged to liberalize under the rules of community law, those rules do not restrict the member states ' power to adopt control measures and to enforce compliance therewith by means of criminal penalties. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi And Others ; Ditta Italo Orlandi and Figlio And Ditta Vincenzo Divella v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-217/80; [1981] EUECJ R-217/80 12 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Airola v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2717) (Judgment) C-72/80; [1981] EUECJ C-72/80 12 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bruckner v Commission and Council (Rec 1981,P 2697) (Judgment) C-799/79; [1981] EUECJ C-799/79; [1982] EUECJ C-799/79 12 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Birke v Commission and Council (Rec 1981,P 2669) (Judgment) C-543/79; [1981] EUECJ C-543/79; [1982] EUECJ C-543/79 12 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Salumi (Rec 1981,P 2735) (Judgment) C-212/80 12 Nov 1981 ECJ European Fournier v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2759) (Judgment) C-106/80; [1981] EUECJ C-106/80 19 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Benassi v Commission (Rec 1981,P 2815) (Judgment) C-194/80; [1981] EUECJ C-194/80 19 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Analog Devices v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Mitte and Others (Rec 1981,P 2781) (Judgment) C-122/80 19 Nov 1981 ECJ European Analog Devices Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-Mitte And Hauptzollamt Muenchen-West. R-122/80; [1981] EUECJ R-122/80 19 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Flensburg v Andresen (Rec 1981,P 2835) (Judgment) C-4/81 25 Nov 1981 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Flensburg v Hermann -c- Andresen Gmbh and Co. Kg. R-4/81; [1981] EUECJ R-4/81 25 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Michel v Parliament (Rec 1981,P 2861) (Judgment) C-195/80; [1981] EUECJ C-195/80 26 Nov 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pfizer Inc v Eurim-Pharm Gmbh R-1/81; [1981] EUECJ R-1/81; 1 CMLR 406 3 Dec 1981 ECJ European, Intellectual Property ECJ The essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product to the consumer or final user by enabling him to distinguish without any possibility of confusion between that product and products which have another origin. This guarantee of origin means that the consumer or final user may be certain that a trade-marked product which is offered to him has not been subject at a previous stage in the marketing process to interference by a third person, without the authorization of the proprietor of the trade mark, affecting the original condition of the product. Therefore, the proprietor of a trade-mark right may not rely on that right in order to prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical product manufactured in another member state by the subsidiary of the proprietor and bearing the latter ' s trade mark with his consent, where the importer, in re-packaging the product, confined himself to replacing the external wrapping without touching the internal packaging and made the trade mark affixed by the manufacturer to the internal packaging visible through the new external wrapping, at the same time clearly indicating on the external wrapping that the product was manufactured by the subsidiary of the proprietor and re-packaged by the importer. As to the exhaustion of rights in the field of trade marks: "regard must be had to the main function of the trade mark which is to give the consumer or final buyer a guarantee of the identity of origin of the marked product, by enabling him to distinguish this product, with no risk of confusion, from products of a different origin. This guarantee of origin implies that the consumer or final buyer can be sure that any marked product offered to him has not been interfered with by a third party, at an earlier stage of marketing, in any way which has affected the original condition of the product, without the consent of the trade mark owner." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Bakke-D'Aloya v Council C-280/80; [1981] EUECJ C-280/80 3 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Etienne v Commission C-35/81; [1981] EUECJ C-35/81 3 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Crujeiras Tome (Rec 1981,P 2997) (Judgment) C-180/80 8 Dec 1981 ECJ European Jose Crujeiras Tome v Procureur De La Republique And Procureur De La Republique v Anton Yurrita. R-266/80; [1981] EUECJ R-266/80 8 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Arbelaiz-Emazabel (Rec 1981,P 2961) (Judgment) C-181/80 8 Dec 1981 ECJ European Procureur General Pres La Cour D'Appel De Pau And Others v Jose Arbelaiz-Emazabel. R-181/80; [1981] EUECJ R-181/80 8 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 3019) (Judgment) C-193/80; [1981] EUECJ C-193/80 9 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Regina v Robert Tymen. R-269/80; [1981] EUECJ R-269/80 16 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pasquale Foglia v Mariella Novello. R-244/80; [1981] EUECJ R-244/80 16 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Tymen (Rec 1981,P 3079) (Judgment) C-269/80 16 Dec 1981 ECJ European Foglia v Novello (Rec 1981,P 3045) (Sv81-243 Fi81-243) (Judgment) C-244/80 16 Dec 1981 ECJ European Demont v Commission (Rec 1981,P 3105) (Judgment) C-791/79; [1981] EUECJ C-791/79 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ludwigshafener Walzmuhle v Council and Commission (Rec 1981,P 3211) (Judgment) C-197/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European Clement (Rec 1981,P 3339) (Judgment) C-2/81 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European Webb (Judgment) C-279/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European, Employment Where an undertaking hires out, for remuneration, staff who remain in the employ of that undertaking, no contract of employment being entered into with the user, its activities constitute an occupation which satisfies the conditions laid down in the first paragraph of article 60 of the eec treaty. Accordingly they must be considered a ' ' service ' ' within the meaning of that provision. The essential requirements of article 59 of the treaty became directly and unconditionally applicable on the expiry of the transitional period. Those essential requirements abolish all discrimination against the person providing the service by reason of his nationality or the fact that he is established in a member state other than that in which the service is to be provided. The freedom to provide services is one of the fundamental principles of the treaty and may be restricted only by provisions which are justified by the general good and which are imposed on all persons or undertakings operating in the member state in which the service is to be provided in so far as that interest is not safeguarded by the provisions to which the provider of the service is subject in the member state of his establishment. Article 59 of the treaty does not preclude a member state which requires agencies for the provision of manpower to hold a licence from requiring a provider of services established in another member state and pursuing such activities on the territory of the first member state to comply with that condition even if he holds a licence issued by the state in which he is established, provided, however, that in the first place when considering applications for licences and in granting them the member state in which the service is provided makes no distinction based on the nationality of the provider of the services or his place of establishment, and in the second place that it takes into account the evidence and guarantees already produced by the provider of the services for the pursuit of his activities in the member state in which he is established. Criminal Proceedings Against Alfred John Webb. R-279/80; [1981] EUECJ R-279/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bellardi-Ricci v Commission (Judgment) C-178/80; [1981] EUECJ C-178/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1981,P 3379) (Judgment) C-30/81 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Frans-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor Biologische Producten Bv R-272/80; [1981] EUECJ R-272/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European ECJ It follows from article 30 in conjunction with article 36 of the EEC Treaty that a member state is not prohibited from requiring plant protection products to be subject to prior approval , even if those products have already been approved in another member state. The authorities of the importing state are however not entitled unnecessarily to require technical or chemical analyses or laboratory tests when the same analyses or tests have already been carried out in another member state and their results are available to those authorities or may at their request be placed at their disposal. A member state operating an approvals procedure must ensure that no unnecessary control expenses are incurred if the practical effects of the control carried out in the member state of origin satisfy the requirements of the protection of public health in the importing member state. On the other hand , the mere fact that those expenses weigh more heavily on a trader marketing small quantities of an approved product than on his competitor who markets much greater quantities does not justify the conclusion that such expenses constitute arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction within the meaning of article 36. EEC Treaty 30 [ Bailii ] Gratreau v Commission (Rec 1981,P 3139) (Judgment) C-156/79 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Albert Clement, Gerard Ces And Others. R-2/81; [1981] EUECJ R-2/81 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Browning (Rec 1981,P 3357) (Judgment) C-22/81 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European De Hoe v Commission C-151/80; [1981] EUECJ C-151/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Demont v Commission (Rec 1981,P 3147) (Judgment) C-115/80; [1981] EUECJ C-115/80 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Regina v Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Norman Ivor Browning. R-22/81; [1981] EUECJ R-22/81 17 Dec 1981 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Regina v Plymouth, ex Parte Rogers; CA 1982 - [1982] 3 CMLR 221 Nicolaus Corman and Fils Sa v Hauptzollamt Gronau. R-64/81; [1982] EUECJ R-64/81 14 Jan 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Novi v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1) (Judgment) C-56/81; [1982] EUECJ C-56/81 14 Jan 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Corman v Hauptzollamt Gronau (Rec 1982,P 13) (Judgment) C-64/81 14 Jan 1982 ECJ European Reina v Landeskreditbank Baden-Wurttemberg C-65/81 14 Jan 1982 ECJ European Francesco Reina And Letizia Reina v Landeskreditbank Baden-Wuerttemberg. R-65/81; [1982] EUECJ R-65/81 14 Jan 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Becker v Finanzamt Muenster-Innenstadt C-8/81; R-8/81; [1982] EUECJ R-8/81; [1982] ECR 53 19 Jan 1982 ECJ European, Constitutional ECJ It would be incompatible with the binding effect which article 189 of the EEC treaty ascribes to directives to exclude in principle the possibility of the obligation imposed by it being relied upon by persons concerned. Particularly in cases in which the community authorities have, by means of a directive, placed member states under a duty to adopt a certain course of action, the effectiveness of such a measure would be diminished if persons were prevented from relying upon it in proceedings before a court and national courts were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of community law. Consequently, a member state which has not adopted the implementing measures required by the directive within the prescribed period may not plead, as against individuals, its own failure to perform the obligations which the directive entails. Thus, wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or in so far as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the state. Whilst the sixth council directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the member states relating to turnover taxes undoubtedly confers upon the member states varying degrees of discretion as regards implementing certain of its provisions, individuals may not for that reason be denied the right to rely on any provisions which owing to their particular subject-matter are capable of being severed from the general body of provisions and applied separately. This minimum guarantee for persons adversely affected by the failure to implement the directive is a consequence of the binding nature of the obligation imposed on the member states by the third paragraph of article 189 of the eec treaty. That obligation would be rendered totally ineffectual if the member states were permitted to annul, as the result of their inactivity, even those effects which certain provisions of a directive are capable of producing by virtue of their subject-matter. Article 13 c of directive 77/388 does not in any way confer upon the member states the right to place conditions on or to restrict in any manner whatsoever the exemptions provided for by part b. It merely reserves the right to the member states to allow, to a greater or lesser degree, persons entitled to those exemptions to opt for taxation themselves, if they consider that it is in their interest to do so. The scheme of directive 77/388 is such that on the one hand, by availing themselves of an exemption, persons entitled thereto necessarily waive the right to claim a deduction in respect of input tax and on the other hand, having been exempted from the tax, they are unable to pass on any charge whatsoever to the person following them in the chain of supply, with the result that the rights of third parties in principle cannot be affected. As from 1 january 1979 it was possible for the provision concerning the exemption from turnover tax of transactions consisting of the negotiation of credit contained in article 13b(d) 1 of directive 77/388 to be relied upon, in the absence of the implementation of that directive, by a credit negotiator where he had refrained from passing that tax on to persons following him in the chain of supply, and the state could not claim, as against him, that it had failed to implement the directive. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Birra Wuhrer v Council and Commission (Rec 1982,P 85) (Judgment) C-256/80; [1982] EUECJ C-256/80 27 Jan 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] De Franceschi v Council and Commission (Rec 1982,P 117) (Judgment) C-51/81; [1982] EUECJ C-51/81 27 Jan 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 189) (Judgment) C-73/81; [1982] EUECJ C-73/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 183) (Judgment) C-72/81; [1982] EUECJ C-72/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 153) (Judgment) C-68/81; [1982] EUECJ C-68/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Antonino Sinatra v Fonds National De Retraite Des Ouvriers Mineurs. R-7/81; [1982] EUECJ R-7/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sinatra (Rec 1982,P 137) (Judgment) C-7/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 175) (Judgment) C-71/81; [1982] EUECJ C-71/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 163) (Judgment) C-69/81; [1982] EUECJ C-69/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 169) (Judgment) C-70/81; [1982] EUECJ C-70/81 2 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kommanditgesellschaft In Firma Gebrueder Glunz v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof. R-248/80; [1982] EUECJ R-248/80 3 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societe Anonyme De Droit Francais Seco Et Societe Anonyme De Droit Francais Desquenne and Giral v Etablissement D'Assurance Contre La Vieillesse Et L'Invalidite. R-63/81; [1982] EUECJ R-63/81; [1982] ECR 223 3 Feb 1982 ECJ European Europa Article 59 and the third paragraph of article 60 of the eec treaty entail the abolition of all discrimination against a person providing a service on the grounds of his nationality or the fact that he is established in a member state other than that in which the service must be provided. Thus they prohibit not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the person providing the service but also all forms of covert discrimination which, although based on criteria which appear to be neutral, in practice lead to the same result. Legislation which requires employers to pay in respect of their workers social security contributions not related to any social security benefit for those workers may not reasonably be considered justified on account of the general interest in providing workers with social security. Community law does not preclude member states from applying their legislation, or collective labour agreements entered into by both sides of industry relating to minimum wages, to any person who is employed, even temporarily, within their territory, no matter in which country the employer is established , just as community law does not prohibit member states from enforcing those rules by appropriate means. However, it is not possible to describe as an appropriate means any rule or practice which imposes a general requirement to pay social security contributions , or other such charges affecting the freedom to provide services, on all persons providing services who are established in other member states and employ workers who are nationals of non-member countries, irrespective of whether those persons have complied with the legislation on minimum wages in the member state in which the services are provided, because such a general measure is by its nature unlikely to make employers comply with that legislation or to be of any benefit whatsoever to the workers in question. Community law precludes a member state from requiring an employer who is established in another member state and temporarily carrying out work in the first-named member state, using workers who are nationals of non-member countries, to pay the employer's share of social security contributions in respect of those workers when that employer is already liable under the legislation of the state in which he is established for similar contributions in respect of the same workers and the same periods of employment and the contributions paid in the state in which the work is performed do not entitle those workers to any social security benefits. Nor would such a requirement be justified if it were intended to offset the economic advantages which the employer might have gained by not complying with the legislation on minimum wages in the state in which the work is performed. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Seco v Evi (Rec 1982,P 223) (Sv82-299 Fi82-299) (Judgment) C-62/81 3 Feb 1982 ECJ European Glunz (Rec 1982,P 197) (Judgment) C-248/80 3 Feb 1982 ECJ European Adam v Commission; ECJ 4-Feb-1982 - C-828/79; [1982] EUECJ C-828/79 Battaglia v Commission (Rec 1982,P 297) (Judgment) C-1253/79; [1982] EUECJ C-1253/79 4 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Buyl and Others v Commission (Rec 1982,P 245) (Judgment) C-817/79; [1982] EUECJ C-817/79 4 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Mogensen and Others v Commission (Rec 1982,P 325) (Order) C-10/82 5 Feb 1982 ECJ European Mogensen and Others v Commission C-10/82R; [1982] EUECJ C-10/82R 5 Feb 1982 ECJ European ECJ 1 A judge before whom a request for the adoption of interim measures is brought, having heard the arguments set out by the parties, must restrict the scope of his consideration exclusively to the grounds capable of establishing the existence of urgency. 2 From that point of view it must be noted first of all that the post in dispute has already been filled and that, having regard to the facts at the present time, there is no longer any reason to grant the measure requested. 3 Although that finding has no effect whatever on the judgment to be given in the main action and on any consequences which it may have , it is appropriate to take note of the factual situation and to dismiss this application since it is now devoid of purpose. Costs 4 In these circumstances the costs must be reserved. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Polydor Limited And Rso Records Inc. v Harlequin Records Shops Limited And Simons Records Limited. R-270/80; [1982] EUECJ R-270/80 9 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Polydor and Others v Harlequin and Others (Rec 1982,P 329) (Sv82-309 Fi82-309) (Judgment) C-270/80 9 Feb 1982 ECJ European Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd C-12/81; [1983] 2 AC 751; [1982] 2 WLR 918; [1982] ICR 420; [1982] 2 All ER 402; R-12/81 9 Feb 1982 ECJ European, Discrimination The fact that an employer (although not bound to do so by contract) provides special travel facilities for former male employees to enjoy after their retirement constitutes discrimination within the meaning of article 119 against former female employees who do not receive the same facilities. Where a national court is able, using the criteria of equal work and equal pay, without the operation of community or national measures, to establish that the grant by an employer of special travel facilities solely to retired male employees represents discrimination based on difference of sex, the provisions of article 119 of the Treaty apply directly to such a situation. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Co De Mi v Commission (Rec 1982,P 377) (Order) C-229/81 9 Feb 1982 ECJ European Co.De.Mi. Spa v Commission Of Euratom. O-229/81; [1982] EUECJ O-229/81 9 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Transporoute v Ministere Des Travaux Publics C-76/81 10 Feb 1982 ECJ European Bout (Rec 1982,P 381) (Judgment) C-21/81 10 Feb 1982 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Daniel Bout And Bv I. Bout En Zonen. R-21/81; [1982] EUECJ R-21/81 10 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Transporoute Et Travaux v Minister Of Public Works. R-76/81; [1982] EUECJ R-76/81 10 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Flender v Commission (Rec 1982,P 395) (Judgment) C-74/81; [1982] EUECJ C-74/81 10 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Chem-Tec (Rec 1982,P 439) (Judgment) C-278/80 11 Feb 1982 ECJ European Chem-Tec B.H. Naujoks v Hauptzollamt Koblenz. R-278/80; [1982] EUECJ R-278/80 11 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Halyvourgiki v Commission (Rec 1982,P 593) (Judgment) C-39/81 16 Feb 1982 ECJ European Rumi v Commission (Rec 1982,P 487) (Judgment) C-258/80; [1980] EUECJ C-258/80R; [1982] EUECJ C-258/80 16 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Vedel (Rec 1982,P 465) (Judgment) C-204/80 16 Feb 1982 ECJ European Procureur De La Republique And Others v Guy Vedel And Others. R-204/80; [1982] EUECJ R-204/80 16 Feb 1982 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa Agriculture - wine-based aperitifs - community definition - none - power of member states to enact rules as to quality - requirement of minimum proportion of alcohol - permissibility - conditions (council regulations no 816/70, annex ii, point 10, and no 337/79, annex ii, point 11) The appellation 'wine-based aperitifs' is not at present governed by community regulations which exclude the application of the national legislation of the member states. Since there are no applicable community regulations the member states continue to have the power to define the standards applicable to the manufacture and marketing of national products called wine-based aperitifs. Therefore a member state may not be prevented from subjecting the manufacturer of wine-based aperitifs to special quality rules, depending on the characteristics of that kind of beverage. If a requirement of a minimum proportion of alcohol is within the community limits, it meets that criterion of quality. [ Bailii ] Ferriera Padana v Commission C-276/80; [1982] EUECJ C-276/80 16 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Halyvourgiki Inc. And Helliniki Halyvourgia Sa v Commission Of The European Communities. C-88/81; [1982] EUECJ C-88/81 16 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sic (Rec 1982,P 629) (Judgment) C-277/80 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European Zuckerfabrik Franken Gmbh v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-77/81; [1982] EUECJ R-77/81 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Zuckerfabrik Franken (Rec 1982,P 681) (Judgment) C-77/81 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European Vermaut v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries R-55/81; [1982] EUECJ R-55/81 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Vermaut (Rec 1982,P 649) (Judgment) C-55/81 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European Sic Societa Italiana Cauzioni v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-277/80; [1982] EUECJ R-277/80 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ruske v Commission (Rec 1982,P 661) (Judgment) C-67/81; [1982] EUECJ C-67/81 18 Feb 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1982,P 739) (Judgment) C-94/81; [1982] EUECJ C-94/81 2 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bv Diensten Groep v Beele (Rec 1982,P 707) (Sv82-327 Fi82-327) (Judgment) C-6/81 2 Mar 1982 ECJ European Bv Industrie Diensten Groep v J.A. Beele Handelmaatschappij Bv. R-6/81; [1982] EUECJ R-6/81 2 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Alpha Steel v Commission (Rec 1982,P 785) (Judgment) C-111/81; [1982] EUECJ C-111/81 3 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Alpha Steel v Commission (Rec 1982,P 749) (Judgment) C-14/81; [1982] EUECJ C-14/81 3 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gauff v Commission (Rec 1982,P 799) (Judgment) C-182/80; [1982] EUECJ C-182/80 4 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Effer Spa v Kantner (Rec 1982,P 825) (Judgment) C-38/81 4 Mar 1982 ECJ European Effer Spa v Hans-Joachim Kantner. R-38/81; [1982] EUECJ R-38/81 4 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1982,P 841) (Order) C-42/82 4 Mar 1982 ECJ European Fancon (Rec 1982,P 967) (Judgment) C-129/81 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European Grogan v Commission C-127/80; [1982] EUECJ C-127/80 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fratelli Fancon v Societa Industriale Agricole Tresse (Siat). R-129/81; [1982] EUECJ R-129/81 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite v Peter Knoeller. R-93/81; [1982] EUECJ R-93/81 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Knoeller (Rec 1982,P 951) (Judgment) C-93/81 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European De Pascale v Commission (Rec 1982,P 909) (Judgment) C-164/80; [1982] EUECJ C-164/80 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Curtis v Parliament C-167/80 11 Mar 1982 ECJ European Burg v Court Of Justice (Rec 1982,P 983) (Judgment) C-90/81; [1982] EUECJ C-90/81 18 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bodson v Caisse De Pensions Des Employes Prives (Rec 1982,P 1019) (Judgment) C-212/81 18 Mar 1982 ECJ European Caisse De Pension Des Employes Prives v Bodson R-212/81; [1982] EUECJ R-212/81 18 Mar 1982 ECJ European The purpose of calculating the actuarial equivalent in pursuance of article 11(2) of annex viii to the staff regulations of officials for the transfer of pension rights acquired under national schemes is to capitalize the value of a future contingent periodic benefit. The calculation is therefore based on a calculation of the capital corresponding to the pension to which the person concerned will be entitled at national level by the application of a discount rate by reason of the anticipated nature of the payment as compared with the due date, together with a reduction coefficient proportionate to the risk of the death of the recipient before the due date, determined as a function of the age of the insured and of death rates, both factors being calculated on the basis of the time due to elapse between the date of the award of the actuarial equivalent and that of the grant of the pension. The calculation of the sums repaid on the other hand may be effected in contributory insurance schemes by adding up the contributions paid by the insured person, together, where appropriate, with those paid by his employer ; interest may be added to these contributions. [ Bailii ] Chaumont-Barthel v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 1003) (Judgment) C-103/81; [1982] EUECJ C-103/81 18 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nordsee v Reederei Mond (Rec 1982,P 1095) (Sv82-345 Fi82-345) (Judgment) C-102/81 23 Mar 1982 ECJ European Margherita Baccini v Office National De L'Emploi (Onem). R-79/81; [1982] EUECJ R-79/81 23 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei Gmbh v Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern Ag and Co. Kg And Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern Ag and Co. Kg. R-102/81; [1982] EUECJ R-102/81 23 Mar 1982 ECJ European, Arbitration An arbitrator who is called upon to decide a dispute between the parties to a contract under a clause inserted in that contract is not to be considered as a 'court or tribunal of a member state' within the meaning of article 177 of the treaty where the contracting parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and where the public authorities in the member state concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration and are not called upon to intervene automatically in the proceedings before the arbitrator. If in the course of arbitration resorted to by agreement between the parties questions of community law are raised which the ordinary courts may be called upon to examine either in the context of their collaboration with arbitration tribunals or in the course of a review of an arbitration award, it is for those courts to ascertain whether it is necessary for them to make a reference to the court of justice under article 177 of the treaty in order to obtain the interpretation or assessment of the validity of provisions of community law which they may need to apply in exercising such functions. [ Bailii ] DM Levin v Staatssecretaris Van Justitie C-53/81; R-53/81; [1982] EUECJ R-53/81; [1982] ECR 1035 23 Mar 1982 ECJ European, Employment ECJ The concepts of "worker" and "activity as an employed person" define the field of application of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and, as such, may not be interpreted restrictively. The provisions of community law relating to freedom of movement for workers also cover a national of a member state who pursues, within the territory of another member state, an activity as an employed person which yields an income lower than that which, in the latter state, is considered as the minimum required for subsistence, whether that person supplements the income from his activity as an employed person with other income so as to arrive at that minimum or is satisfied with means of support lower than the said minimum , provided that he pursues an activity as an employed person which is effective and genuine. The motives which may have prompted a worker of a member state to seek employment in another member state are of no account as regards his right to enter and reside in the territory of the latter state provided that he there pursues or wishes to pursue an effective and genuine activity. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Baccini (Rec 1982,P 1063) (Judgment) C-79/81 23 Mar 1982 ECJ European Munk v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1155) (Judgment) C-98/81; [1982] EUECJ C-98/81 25 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Moksel v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1129) (Judgment) C-45/81; [1982] EUECJ C-45/81 25 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] AEG v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1179) (Order) C-107/82; [1982] EUECJ C-107/82R; [1982] EUECJ C-107/82R; [1983] EUECJ C-107/82 29 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Celanese v Council and Commission (Rec 1982,P 1183) (Order) C-236/81; [1982] EUECJ C-236/81 30 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] C.H.W. v G.J.H. R-25/81; [1982] EUECJ R-25/81 31 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Joseph Henri Thomas Blesgen v Belgian State. R-75/81; [1982] EUECJ R-75/81 31 Mar 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Vbvb and Vbbb v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1241) (Order) C-43/82 31 Mar 1982 ECJ European C H W v G J H (Rec 1982,P 1189) (Judgment) C-25/81 31 Mar 1982 ECJ European Blesgen (Rec 1982,P 1211) (Sv82-351 Fi82-351) (Judgment) C-75/81 31 Mar 1982 ECJ European Staatssecretaris Van Financien v Hong-Kong Trade Development Council. R-89/81; [1982] EUECJ R-89/81 1 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gerrit Holdijk And Others. R-143/81; [1982] EUECJ R-143/81 1 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Durbeck v Commission C-8/81; cx 1 Apr 1982 ECJ European Firma Anton Duerbeck v Commission Of The European Communities. C-11/81; [1982] EUECJ C-11/81 1 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Holdijk (Rec 1982,P 1299) (Sv82-359 Fi82-359) (Judgment) C-141/81 1 Apr 1982 ECJ European Hong-Kong Trade (Rec 1982,P 1277) (Judgment) C-89/81 1 Apr 1982 ECJ European Wolker v Commission C-89/82; [1982] EUECJ C-89/82R 6 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Co De Mi (Rec 1982,P 1325) (Order) C-318/81 28 Apr 1982 ECJ European Pabst and Richarz Kg v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (Rec 1982,P 1331) (Judgment) C-17/81 29 Apr 1982 ECJ European Merkur Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus C-147/81 29 Apr 1982 ECJ European Merkur Fleisch-Import Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus R-147/81; [1982] EUECJ R-147/81 29 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Arnold Pommerehnke, Firma Wilhelm Franzen And Hans-Harald Witt v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung R-99/81; [1982] EUECJ R-99/81 29 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pommerehnke v Balm (Rec 1982,P 1363) (Judgment) C-66/81 29 Apr 1982 ECJ European Pabst and Richarz Kg v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg. R-17/81; [1982] EUECJ R-17/81 29 Apr 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schul v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Judgment) [1982] ECR 1409; C-15/81 5 May 1982 ECJ European, VAT A basic element of the VAT system is that VAT is chargeable on each transaction only after deduction of the amount of the VAT borne directly by the cost of the various components of the price of the goods and services and that the deduction procedure is so designed that only taxable persons may deduct the VAT already charged on the goods and services from the VAT for which they are liable. 1 Citers Gaston Schul Douane Expediteur Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, Roosendaal. R-15/81; [1982] EUECJ R-15/81 5 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Firma Wilhelm Fromme v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-54/81; [1982] EUECJ R-54/81 6 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Wunsche (Rec 1982,P 1479) (Judgment) C-126/81 6 May 1982 ECJ European Wuensche Handelsgesellschaft v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-126/81; [1982] EUECJ R-126/81 6 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Aeg v Commission (Order) C-107/82 6 May 1982 ECJ European Fromme v Balm (Rec 1982,P 1449) (Sv82-385 Fi82-385) (Judgment) C-54/81 6 May 1982 ECJ European Baywa Ag And Others v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-193/81; [1982] EUECJ R-193/81 6 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Baywa v Bundesanstalt Fur Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (Rec 1982,P 1503) (Sv82-393 Fi82-393) (Judgment) C-146/81 6 May 1982 ECJ European Hasselblad v Commission C-86/82 7 May 1982 ECJ European Alaimo v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1559) (Judgment) C-16/81; [1982] EUECJ C-16/81 13 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgian State (Rec 1982,P 1665) (Sv82-421 Fi82-421) (Judgment) C-115/81 18 May 1982 ECJ European Rezguia Adoui v Belgian State And City Of Liege; Dominique Cornuaille v Belgian State R-116/81; [1982] EUECJ R-116/81 18 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities C-155/79; [1982] EUECJ C-155/79; [1983] 1 All ER 705; [1982] FSR 474; [1982] ECR 1575; [1983] 3 WLR 17; [1982] 2 CMLR 264; [1983] QB 878 18 May 1982 ECJ Advocate-General Sir Gordon Slynn European, Legal Professions The court set out the rationale for legal professional privilege: "Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially from the basic need of a man in a civilised society to be able to turn to his lawyer for advice and help, and if proceedings begin, for representation; it springs no less from the advantages to a society which evolves complex law reaching into all the business affairs of persons, real and legal, that they should be able to know what they can do under the law, what is forbidden, where they must tread circumspectly, where they run risks." and "Community law, which derives from not only the economic but also the legal interpretation of the member states, must take into account the principles and concepts common to the laws of those states concerning the observance of confidentiality, in particular, as regards certain communications between lawyer and client. That confidentiality serves the requirement, the importance of which is recognised in all of the member states, that any person must be able, without constraint, to consult a lawyer whose profession entails the giving of independent legal advice to all those in need of it." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Dumortier v Council (Rec 1982,P 1748) (Order) C-64/76 19 May 1982 ECJ European Dumortier v Council (Rec 1982,P 1733) (Judgment) C-64/76 19 May 1982 ECJ European Staple Dairy Products Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce. R-84/81; [1982] EUECJ R-84/81 19 May 1982 ECJ European, Agriculture [ Bailii ] Staple Dairy Products C-84/81 19 May 1982 ECJ European Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1982,P 1837) (Judgment) C-100/81; [1982] EUECJ C-100/81 25 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1982,P 1791) (Judgment) C-96/81; [1982] EUECJ C-96/81 25 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1982,P 1819) (Judgment) C-97/81; [1982] EUECJ C-97/81 25 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Copine v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1911) (Order) C-142/82; [1982] EUECJ C-142/82R 26 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Roger Ivenel v Helmut Schwab. R-133/81; [1982] EUECJ R-133/81 26 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ivenel v Schwab (Rec 1982,P 1891) (Sv82-441 Fi82-441) (Judgment) C-133/81 26 May 1982 ECJ European Germany v Commission (Rec 1982,P 1855) (Judgment) C-44/81; [1982] EUECJ C-44/81 26 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 1845) (Sv82-433 Fi82-433) (Judgment) C-149/79 26 May 1982 ECJ European Francis Aubin v Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle Pour L'Emploi Dans L'Industrie Et Le Commerce (Unedic) And Association Pour L'Emploi Dans Les Industries Et Le Commerce Des Yvelines (Assedic). R-227/81; [1982] EUECJ R-227/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kaders (Rec 1982,P 1941) (Judgment) C-50/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European Otto Reichelt Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Sued R-113/81; [1982] EUECJ R-113/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Provveditorie Marittime S. Giacomo Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato Dogana Di Genova. R-196/81; [1982] EUECJ R-196/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Paul Kaders Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof. R-49/81; [1982] EUECJ R-49/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] S Giacomo (Rec 1982,P 1973) (Judgment) C-196/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European Paul Kaders Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus. R-50/81; [1982] EUECJ R-50/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kaders (Rec 1982,P 1917) (Judgment) C-49/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European Aubin (Rec 1982,P 1991) (Judgment) C-227/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European Reichelt v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Sud (Rec 1982,P 1957) (Judgment) C-113/81 27 May 1982 ECJ European Nungesser v Commission C-258/78; [1982] EUECJ C-258/78 8 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1982,P 2133) (Judgment) C-91/81; [1982] EUECJ C-91/81 8 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1982,P 2187) (Judgment) C-95/81; [1982] EUECJ C-95/81 9 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Orlandi Italo E Figlio And Others v Ministry Of Foreign Trade. R-210/80; [1982] EUECJ R-210/80 9 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Orlandi (Rec 1982,P 2147) (Judgment) C-206/80 9 Jun 1982 ECJ European Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1982,P 2175) (Judgment) C-58/81; [1982] EUECJ C-58/81 9 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Weidenmann (Rec 1982,P 2259) (Judgment) C-231/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European R.A. Grendel Gmbh v Finanzamt Fuer Korperschaften De Hambourg. R-255/81; [1982] EUECJ R-255/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Grendel (Rec 1982,P 2301) (Judgment) C-255/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European Interagra v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2233) (Judgment) C-217/81; [1982] EUECJ C-217/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Camera (Rec 1982,P 2213) (Judgment) C-92/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Wuerzburg v H. Weidenmann Gmbh and Co. R-231/81; [1982] EUECJ R-231/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Lord Bethell v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2277) (Sv82-449 Fi82-449) (Judgment) C-246/81; [1982] EUECJ C-246/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Antonia Caracciolo (Nee Camera) v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite And Union Nationale Des Mutualites Socialistes. R-92/81; [1982] EUECJ R-92/81 10 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ludwig Wuensche and Co. v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-3/81; [1982] EUECJ R-3/81 17 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Wunsche v Balm (Rec 1982,P 2319) (Judgment) C-3/81 17 Jun 1982 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Timothy Frederick Robertson And Others. R-220/81; [1982] EUECJ R-220/81 22 Jun 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Robertson (Judgment) C-220/81 22 Jun 1982 ECJ European Free movement of goods - quantitative restrictions - measures having equivalent effect - prohibition on the sale of silver-plated articles not bearing a lawful hallmark - application to similar articles imported from other member states - permissibility - conditions - assessment by the national court (eec treaty , art. 30) article 30 of the treaty does not prevent a member state from applying national rules prohibiting the sale of silver-plated articles not stamped with a hallmark which complies with the requirements of those rules to like articles imported from another member state in which they have been lawfully marketed , provided that such articles have not been stamped , in accordance with the legislation of the member state of exportation , with a hallmark containing information equivalent to that provided by the hallmarks prescribed by the rules of the member state of importation and intelligible to consumers of that state. It is for the national court to make the findings of fact needed for the purpose of determining whether or not such equivalence exists by reference to the interpretative criteria specified by the court. Adam v Commission; ECJ 1-Jul-1982 - C-1205/79; [1982] EUECJ C-1205/79 Flamm v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2371) (Judgment) C-567/79; [1982] EUECJ C-567/79A 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Knoeppel v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2407) (Judgment) C-618/79; [1982] EUECJ C-618/79A 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Palte and Haentjens Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, Rotterdam. R-209/81; [1982] EUECJ R-209/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bausystem v Finanzamt Munchen Fur Korperschaften C-222/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European Hautzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Wunsche (Rec 1982,P 2493) (Judgment) C-145/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European Baz Bausystem Ag v Finanzamt Muenchen Fuer Korperschaften. R-222/81; [1982] EUECJ R-222/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Battaglia Et Bevilacqua v Commission of the European Communities C-18/80; [1982] EUECJ C-18/80 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European Europa Where in a building loan agreement entered into between an official of the european communities and the commission the amount of the loan is expressed in belgian francs and where the monthly repayments are made in the currency of the country where the property to be financed is situated, the amounts in foreign currency transferred in order to repay the loan must be converted into belgian francs on the basis of the parity ruling on the date of the transfer, it is consonant, on the one hand, with the provisions of the agreement, which does not provide for a fixed parity throughout the performance thereof but for the various parities which might apply successively and, on the other hand, with the fact that the beneficiary of the loan is an official, for the exchange rate to be the rate fixed as a reference parity in article 63 of the staff regulations and for the monthly transfers to be made in accordance with the provisions of article 17 of annex vii thereto. In the performance of a loan agreement concluded before the entry into force of regulations nos 3085/78 and 3086/78 amending inter alia the provisions of article 63 of the staff regulations and of article 17 of annex vii thereto, the commission is therefore correct to apply to the monthly repayments falling due after the entry into force of the regulations in question the exchange rate resulting from application of the updated parities and of the new version of article 17. [ Bailii ] Battaglia and Others v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2449) (Judgment) C-5/80 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European Paltje En Haentjens (Rec 1982,P 2511) (Judgment) C-208/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Ludwig Wuensche and Co. R-145/81; [1982] EUECJ R-145/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Porta v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2469) (Judgment) C-109/81; [1982] EUECJ C-109/81 1 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] French Republic, Italian Republic And United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland v Commission Of The European Communities. C-190/80; [1982] EUECJ C-190/80 6 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland C-61/81; [1982] ICR 578; [1982] EUECJ C-61/81 6 Jul 1982 ECJ European, Discrimination The general scheme and content of Directive 75/117, whose essential purpose is to implement the principle of equal pay for men and women, indicate that it is the responsibility of the member states to guarantee the right to receive equal pay for work of equal value even in the absence of a system of job classification. To that end they must make use of appropriate laws, regulations and administrative provisions in such a way that all employees in the community may be protected in these matters. It follows that where there is disagreement as to the application of the concept of 'work to which equal value is attributed' within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 1 of the directive, the worker must be entitled to claim before an appropriate authority that his work has the same value as other work and, if that is found to be the case, to have his rights under the treaty and the directive acknowledged by a binding decision. Each member state must therefore endow an authority with the requisite jurisdiction to decide whether work has the same value as other work. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] France, Italy and United Kingdom v Commission (Judgment) C-188/80 6 Jul 1982 ECJ European Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2627) (Judgment) C-119/81; [1982] EUECJ C-119/81 7 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bosmans v Commission C-189/81; [1982] EUECJ C-189/81 8 Jul 1982 ECJ European Europa A decision of the appointing authority assigning to a post in a personal capacity an official who has already been assigned in a personal capacity to another post of the same grade does not alter the position of the person concerned under the staff regulations and therefore does not adversely affect him. [ Bailii ] Edeka v Germany (Rec 1982,P 2745) (Judgment) C-245/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European Cogis (Rec 1982,P 2701) (Judgment) C-216/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland C-40/82; [1982] EUECJ C-40/82; [1984] EUECJ C-40/82 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European, Animals Europa Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - Protection of animal health. 1. Although under article 36 of the treaty it is for each of the member states to determine, and, if appropriate, to alter its policy relating to animal health, the effects of health policy on imports from other member states cannot exceed the limits laid down by community law. 2. The second sentence of article 36 is designed to prevent restrictions on trade 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. In so far as certain facts suggest that the real aim of health measures adopted by a member state is to block, for commercial and economic reasons, imports from other member states and inasmuch as it cannot be shown that, for reasons of animal health, the only possibility open to the member state concerned was to apply those measures and that they were therefore not more restrictive than was necessary for the intended purpose, the measures in question constitute a disguised restriction within the meaning of the second sentence of article 36. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Cogis (Compagnia Generale Interscambi) v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-216/81; [1982] EUECJ R-216/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pendy Plastic Products Bv v Pluspunkt Handelsgesellschaft (Rec 1982,P 2723) (Judgment) C-228/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European Felicitas Rickmers-Linie (Rec 1982,P 2771) (Judgment) C-270/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European Felicitas Rickmers-Linie Kg and Co. v Finanzamt Fuer Verkehrsteuern, A Hambourg. R-270/81; [1982] EUECJ R-270/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Edeka Zentrale Ag v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-245/81; [1982] EUECJ R-245/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pendy Plastic Products Bv v Pluspunkt Handelsgesellschaft Mbh. R-228/81; [1982] EUECJ R-228/81 15 Jul 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ford Ag v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2849) (Order) C-229/82; [1982] EUECJ C-229/82R; [1984] EUECJ C-229/82 6 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Keurkoop Bv v Nancy Kean Gifts Bv R-144/81; [1982] EUECJ R-144/81; [1982] ECR 2853 14 Sep 1982 ECJ European, Intellectual Property ECJ The protection of designs comes under the protection of industrial and commercial property within the meaning of article 36 inasmuch as its aim to define exclusive rights which are characteristic of that property. In the absence of community standardization or a harmonization of laws the determination of the conditions and procedures under which protection of designs is granted is a matter for the national rules of each member state. In its present state community law does not preclude the adoption of national provisions to the effect that the person who first files the design acquires the exclusive right to it without its being necessary to inquire whether that person is also the author of the design or a person entitled under him and without those concerned being entitled to allege that the person filing the design is not the author, the person commissioning him or his employer. Although a right to a design, as a legal entity, does not as such fall within the class of agreements or concerted practices envisaged by article 85(1), the exercise of that right may be subject to the prohibitions contained in the treaty when it is the purpose, the means or the result of an agreement, decision or concerted practice. The proprietor of a right to a design acquired under the legislation of a member state may prevent the importation of products from another member state which are identical in appearance to the design which has been filed, provided that the products in question have not been put into circulation in the other member state by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right or a person legally or economically dependent on him, that as between the natural or legal persons in question there is no kind of agreement or concerted practice in restraint of competition and finally that the respective rights of the proprietors to the right to the design in the various member states were created independently of one another. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Kind v EEC (Rec 1982,P 2885) (Judgment) C-106/81; [1982] EUECJ C-106/81 15 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Denkavit Futtermittel Gmbh v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-233/81; [1982] EUECJ R-233/81 15 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Denkavit Futtermittel (Rec 1982,P 2933) (Judgment) C-233/81 15 Sep 1982 ECJ European Rijksdienst Voor Werknemeerspensioenen v Alice Vlaeminck. R-132/81; [1982] EUECJ R-132/81 16 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ontps v Vlaeminck (Rec 1982,P 2953) (Judgment) C-132/81 16 Sep 1982 ECJ European Moselstahlwerk v Commission (Rec 1982,P 2971) (Order) C-220/82; [1982] EUECJ C-220/82R 20 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Besem (Rec 1982,P 2995) (Judgment) C-274/81 23 Sep 1982 ECJ European G.F. Koks v Raad Van Arbeid. R-275/81; [1982] EUECJ R-275/81 23 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] C.G. Besem v Bestuur Van De Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging. R-274/81; [1982] EUECJ R-274/81 23 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Board of The Sociale Verzekeringsbank v Heirs or Assigns of GT Kuijpers R-276/81; [1982] EUECJ R-276/81 23 Sep 1982 ECJ European It follows from the provisions of title II of regulations no 3/58 and no 1408/71 that the application of national legislation is determined by reference to criteria drawn from the rules of community law. Although it is for the legislature of each member state to lay down the conditions creating the right or the obligation to become affiliated to a social security scheme or to a particular branch under that scheme the member states are not entitled to determine the extent to which their own legislation or that of another member state is applicable. Article 13(c) of regulation no 3 and article 14 (1)(c)(i) of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision of a member state is incompatible with those provisions if its effect is such that a worker residing in that member state is not insured for the purposes of an old-age pension because he is insured for such purposes under the legislation of another member state , even if he resided in the territory of the first-mentioned member state and is there engaged in gainful employment concurrently with his activities in the territory of the other member state. That answer is not affected by the fact that the employment in the state of residence is secondary to the main activity of the person concerned which is pursued in the other member state. [ Bailii ] Almadent (Rec 1982,P 2981) (Judgment) C-237/81 23 Sep 1982 ECJ European Almadent Dental-Handels Und Vertriebsgesellschaft Mbh v Hauptzollamt Mainz. R-237/81; [1982] EUECJ R-237/81 23 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Oleifici Mediterranei v EEC (Rec 1982,P 3057) (Judgment) C-26/81; [1982] EUECJ C-26/81 29 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ford v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3091) (Order) C-228/82 29 Sep 1982 ECJ European Amylum v Council (Rec 1982,P 3107) (Judgment) C-108/81; [1982] EUECJ C-108/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Iff (Rec 1982,P 3239) (Judgment) C-295/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European Howe and Bainbridge (Judgment) C-317/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European Roquette Freres v Council (Rec 1982,P 3159) (Judgment) C-110/81; [1982] EUECJ C-110/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Howe and Bainbridge Bv v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt Am Main R-317/81; [1982] EUECJ R-317/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] International Flavors and Fragrances Iff (Deutschland) Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall. R-295/81; [1982] EUECJ R-295/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Tunnel Refineries v Council (Rec 1982,P 3189) (Judgment) C-114/81; [1982] EUECJ C-114/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Roquette Freres v Council (Rec 1982,P 3213) (Judgment) C-242/81; [1982] EUECJ C-242/81 30 Sep 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Williams v Court of Auditors C-9/81; [1982] EUECJ C-9/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European 1. The implementation of a general decision based on new criteria for the classification of new staff recruited to the department, which entails inequalities of treatment for officials oppointed at an earlier stage, entitles those officials to call for a review of their administrative status with a view to their obtaining an appropriate alteration of their classification on the ground that the emergence of that new development is such as to affect them adversely. 2. Article 5(3) of the staff regulations, expressing as it does the principle of equality of treatment as between officials of the same category or in the same department, is of central importance to the legal provisions governing employees of the european communities. That principle underlies the staff regulations, and in particular article 46, which applies to the award of a higher step upon promotion in cases where careers are organized in a consistent manner from the outset. In a case where a community institution has prescribed for the new officials recruited from outside the communities independent rules for classification which do not exist in that form in other community institutions, with the result that the careers of the new officials, on the one hand, and of those transferred from other institutions, on the other, are not organized in a consistent manner, it is not entitled, to rely, in the case of officials transferred from other institutions, upon article 46 of the staff regulations in order to justify the alleged difference between their status and that of the newly-recruited officials from outside the communities. [ Bailii ] Coditel v Cine-Vog Films (Rec 1982,P 3381) (Sv82-503 Fi82-503) (Judgment) C-262/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European Alfred Eggers and Co. v Hauptzollamt Kassel. R-302/81; [1982] EUECJ R-302/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Council (Rec 1982,P 3329) (Judgment) C-59/81; [1982] EUECJ C-59/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 3369) (Judgment) C-206/81; [1981] EUECJ C-206/81R; [1982] EUECJ C-206/81; [1983] EUECJ C-206/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Alusuisse v Council and Commission (Rec 1982,P 3463) (Sv82-523 Fi82-523) (Judgment) C-307/81; [1982] EUECJ C-307/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eggers v Hauptzollamt Kassel (Rec 1982,P 3443) (Judgment) C-302/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European Coditel Sa, Compagnie Generale Pour La Diffusion De La Television, And Others v Cine-Vog Films Sa And Others. R-262/81; [1982] EUECJ R-262/81 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nederlandsch Bevrachtingskantoor Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen A Amsterdam. R-37/82; [1982] EUECJ R-37/82 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bevrachtingskantoor (Rec 1982,P 3481) (Judgment) C-37/82 6 Oct 1982 ECJ European Greek Canners v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3535) (Judgment) C-250/81; [1982] EUECJ C-250/81 7 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Inc. And Dewfield (An Unlimited Company Trading As CD (Uk)) v Commissioners Of Customs And Excise R-234/81; [1982] EUECJ R-234/81 7 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Berti v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3493) (Judgment) C-131/81; [1982] EUECJ C-131/81; [1985] EUECJ C-131/81 7 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Du Pont De Nemours C-234/81 7 Oct 1982 ECJ European Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1982,P 3565) (Judgment) C-149/81; [1982] EUECJ C-149/81 12 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1982,P 3555) (Judgment) C-148/81; [1982] EUECJ C-148/81 12 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Ireland (Rec 1982,P 3573) (Judgment) C-151/81; [1982] EUECJ C-151/81 12 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1982,P 3547) (Judgment) C-136/81; [1982] EUECJ C-136/81 12 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Norddeutsches Vieh Und Fleischkontor Herbert Will, Trawako, Transit-Warenhandels-Kontor Gmbh and Co., And Gedelfi, Grosseinkauf Gmbh and Co., v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-215/81; [1982] EUECJ R-215/81 13 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Norddeutsches Vieh- Und Fleischkontor (Rec 1982,P 3583) (Judgment) C-213/81 13 Oct 1982 ECJ European Roquette Freres v Council (Rec 1982,P 3623) (Judgment) C-179/80; [1982] EUECJ C-179/80 19 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] K v Germany and Parliament (Rec 1982,P 3637) (Order) C-233/82; [1982] EUECJ C-233/82 21 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Einberger v Hauptzollamt Freiburg (Judgment) C-240/81 26 Oct 1982 ECJ European Senta Einberger v Hauptzollamt Freiburg. R-240/81; [1982] EUECJ R-240/81 26 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Wilfried Wolf v Hauptzollamt Duesseldorf. R-221/81; [1982] EUECJ R-221/81 26 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Mainz v Kupferberg and Cie (Rec 1982,P 3641) (Sv82-531 Fi82-531) (Judgment) C-104/81 26 Oct 1982 ECJ European Wolf v Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf (Rec 1982,P 3681) (Judgment) C-221/81 26 Oct 1982 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Mainz v C.A. Kupferberg and Cie Kg A.A.. R-104/81; [1982] EUECJ R-104/81 26 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Morson and Jhanjan v Netherlands State (Rec 1982,P 3723) (Sv82-555 Fi82-555) (Judgment) C-35/82 27 Oct 1982 ECJ European Elestina Esselina Christina Morson v State Of The Netherlands And Head Of The Plaatselijke Politie Within The Meaning Of The Vreemdelingenwet; Sweradjie Jhanjan v State Of The Netherlands. R-36/82; [1982] EUECJ R-36/82 27 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] D v Luxembourg (Rec 1982,P 3709) (Judgment) C-1/82; [1982] EUECJ C-1/82 27 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Directeur Des Affaires Maritimes Du Littoral Du Sud-Ouest And Procureur De La Republique v Javier Marticorena-Otazo And Manuel Prego Parada. R-139/81; [1982] EUECJ R-139/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Directeur Des Affaires Maritimes Du Littoral Du Sud-Ouest And Procureur De La Republique v Alfonso Campandeguy Sagarzazu ; Administrateur Des Affaires Maritimes, Bayonne And Procureur De La Republique v Antonio Echevarria Sagasti. R-140/81; [1982] EUECJ R-140/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Administrateur Des Affaires Maritimes, Bayonne And Procureur De La Republique v Jose Dorca Marina And Others. R-58/82; [1982] EUECJ R-58/82 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Groupement Des Agences Des Voyages v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3799) (Judgment) C-135/81; [1982] EUECJ C-135/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Affaires Maritimes A Bayonne and Others v Dorca Marine and Others (Rec 1982,P 3949) (Judgment) C-50/82 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European Faust v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3745) (Judgment) C-52/81; [1982] EUECJ C-52/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Affaires Maritimes Du Littoral Du Sud-Ouest and Others v Campandeguy Sagarzazu and Others (Rec 1982,P 3847) (Judgment) C-137/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European Jose Arantzamendi-Osa And Others v Procureur De La Republique And Procureur General. R-28/82; [1982] EUECJ R-28/82 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Affaires Maritimes Du Littoral Du Sud-Ouest and Others v Marticorena-Otazo and Others (Rec 1982,P 3819) (Judgment) C-138/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European Oberthur v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3781) (Judgment) C-105/81; [1982] EUECJ C-105/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Arantzamendi-Oso and Others (Rec 1982,P 3927) (Judgment) C-13/82 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European Giannini v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3865) (Judgment) C-265/81; [1982] EUECJ C-265/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Lion (Rec 1982,P 3887) (Judgment) C-292/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European Societe Jean Lion Et Cie, Societe Loiret and Haentjens Sa And Others v Fonds D'Intervention Et De Regularisation Du Marche Du Sucre (Firs). R-293/81; [1982] EUECJ R-293/81 28 Oct 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt Pvba. R-261/81; [1982] EUECJ R-261/81 10 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rau v De Smedt (Rec 1982,P 3961) (Judgment) C-261/81 10 Nov 1982 ECJ European Vismans (Rec 1982,P 3983) (Judgment) C-47/82 11 Nov 1982 ECJ European Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1982,P 3995) (Order) C-263/82 11 Nov 1982 ECJ European Gebroeders Vismans Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, Rotterdam. R-47/82; [1982] EUECJ R-47/82 11 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 4001) (Order) C-293/82; [1982] EUECJ C-293/82R; [1982] EUECJ C-293/82R 22 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Commission v Ireland (Rec 1982,P 4005) (Sv82-565 Fi82-565) (Judgment) C-249/81; [1982] EUECJ C-249/81 24 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Evens v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1982,P 4033) (Judgment) C-79/82; [1982] EUECJ C-79/82 25 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Castille v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4047) (Order) C-173/82 29 Nov 1982 ECJ European Ministere Public v Trinon (Rec 1982,P 4089) (Judgment) C-12/82 30 Nov 1982 ECJ European Suys (Rec 1982,P 4111) (Judgment) C-32/82 30 Nov 1982 ECJ European Kerr (Rec 1982,P 4053) (Judgment) C-287/81 30 Nov 1982 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Joseph Trinon. R-12/82; [1982] EUECJ R-12/82 30 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Anklagemyndigheden v Jack Noble Kerr. R-287/81; [1982] EUECJ R-287/81 30 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Petrus Suys And Others. R-32/82; [1982] EUECJ R-32/82 30 Nov 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fernando Micheli And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-202/81; [1982] EUECJ C-202/81 2 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societe Laitiere De Gace v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles (Forma). R-273/81; [1982] EUECJ R-273/81 2 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societe RuMi v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles R-272/81; [1982] EUECJ R-272/81 2 Dec 1982 ECJ European, Agriculture Agriculture - common organization of the markets - milk and milk products - special aid for the denaturing of skimmed-milk powder intended for feed for animals other than young calves - denaturing not carried out in conformity with community provisions - loss of the benefit of the aid in its entirety - principle of proportionality - breach - none. (Commission Regulation (EEC) no 1844/77) In view of the fact that the special aid granted for the denaturing of skimmed-milk powder intended for feed for animals other than young calves is considerably higher than the amount granted in the case of feed for calves, and in view of the risk that it might be used for other, unauthorized purposes where the denaturing departs even to a slight extent from the method referred to in Regulation no 1844/77, the commission was legally justified in adopting provisions which entail witholding of the aid and loss of the security for failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out denaturing laid down by the regulation and was not obliged to vary the severity of the measure in question according to the gravity of the failure to comply with the obligation. Such a measure cannot be regarded as out of proportion to the objective pursued and the fact that the denaturing departs even to a slight extent from the above-mentioned method is capable of depriving the trader of the entire benefit of the special aid. [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1982,P 4213) (Judgment) C-41/82; [1982] EUECJ C-41/82 7 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Klughardt (Rec 1982,P 4291) (Judgment) C-309/81 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European Metallurgiki Halyps v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4261) (Judgment) C-258/81; [1982] EUECJ C-258/81 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] H.P. Klughardt Ohg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen. R-309/81; [1982] EUECJ R-309/81 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Plug v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4229) (Judgment) C-191/81; [1982] EUECJ C-191/81 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Italgrani v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato (Rec 1982,P 4323) (Judgment) C-82/82 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European Malfitano (Rec 1982,P 4309) (Judgment) C-76/82 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European Ditta Italgrani v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-82/82; [1982] EUECJ R-82/82 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Salvatore Malfitano v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite (Inami). R-76/82; [1982] EUECJ R-76/82 9 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1982,P 4331) (Order) C-293/82 13 Dec 1982 ECJ European Nso v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4371) (Order) C-260/82 14 Dec 1982 ECJ European Procureur De La Republique And Comite National De Defense Contre L'Alcoolisme v Alex Waterkeyn And Others ; Procureur De La Republique v Jean Cayard And Others. R-314/81; [1982] EUECJ R-314/81 14 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Procureur De La Republique v Waterkeyn (Rec 1982,P 4337) (Sv82-575 Fi82-575) (Judgment) C-314/81 14 Dec 1982 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Krefeld v Maizena (Rec 1982,P 4601) (Judgment) C-5/82 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European Amesz and Others v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4465) (Judgment) C-532/79 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European Birke v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4425) (Judgment) C-543/79 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European Battaglia v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4497) (Judgment) C-737/79; [1982] EUECJ C-737/79; [1985] EUECJ C-737/79 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Bruckner v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4525) (Judgment) C-799/79 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European Roumengous Carpentier v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4379) (Judgment) C-158/79; [1982] EUECJ C-158/79 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European Europa In order that the rule contained in article 64 of the staff regulations to the effect that account must be taken of living conditions in the various "places of employment" may be observed, that expression must be understood as meaning not only the capitals of the member states but the exact places where the duties of a sufficiently large number of officials and other employees of the communities are performed. Therefore it is for the community institutions, in cases in which the cost of living in such a place of employment undergoes fluctuations greater than those occurring in the capital of the state in question, to determine separate weightings. The wordings of article 65(2) precludes any interpretation to the effect that the council is not obliged to adjust the weightings within a period of two months following any substantial change in the cost of living. The council ' s power in this respect is to decide whether or not there has been a substantial increase in the cost of living and, if there has, to draw the appropriate conclusions. Any other interpretation would run counter to the objective of the provision in question which is to guarantee to all officials the same purchasing power whatever their place of employment. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Commission v Denmark (Rec 1982,P 4547) (Judgment) C-211/81; [1982] EUECJ C-211/81 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Jan Amesz And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-660/79; [1982] EUECJ C-660/79; [1985] EUECJ C-660/79 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Cowood v Commission (Rec 1982,P 4625) (Judgment) C-60/82; [1982] EUECJ C-60/82 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Krefeld v Maizena Gmbh. R-5/82; [1982] EUECJ R-5/82 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Oosthoek (Rec 1982,P 4575) (Sv82-583 Fi82-583) (Judgment) C-286/81 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1982,P 4637) (Judgment) C-160/82; [1982] EUECJ C-160/82 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Oosthoek'S Uitgeversmaatschappij Bv. R-286/81; [1982] EUECJ R-286/81 15 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Balm v Bruggen (Rec 1982,P 4647) (Judgment) C-71/82 16 Dec 1982 ECJ European Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung v Firma H. Und J. Brueggen. R-71/82; [1982] EUECJ R-71/82 16 Dec 1982 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Albertini and Others v Joint Nuclear Research Center and Commission C-338/82 23 Dec 1982 ECJ European Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Aps Samex; 1983 - [1983] 1 All ER 1042 Luigi Coppola v Insurance Officer. R-150/82; [1983] EUECJ R-150/82 12 Jan 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Andreas Matthias Donner v Netherlands State. R-39/82; [1983] EUECJ R-39/82 12 Jan 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Donner (Rec 1983,P 19) (Judgment) C-39/82 12 Jan 1983 ECJ European Coppola (Rec 1983,P 43) (Judgment) C-150/82 12 Jan 1983 ECJ European K v Council (Rec 1983,P 1) (Judgment) C-257/81; [1983] EUECJ C-257/81 12 Jan 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 65) (Order) C-347/82 17 Jan 1983 ECJ European Smit (Rec 1983,P 73) (Judgment) C-126/82 25 Jan 1983 ECJ European DJ Smit Transport Bv v Commissie Grensoverschrijdend Beroepsgoederenvervoer R-126/82; [1983] EUECJ R-126/82 25 Jan 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Interagra Sa v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles (Forma). R-109/82; [1983] EUECJ R-109/82 27 Jan 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] List v Commission (Rec 1983,P 103) (Judgment) C-263/81; [1983] EUECJ C-263/81 27 Jan 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Interagra v Forma (Rec 1983,P 127) (Judgment) C-109/82 27 Jan 1983 ECJ European Albertini and Others v Joint Nuclear Research Center and Commission (Rec 1983,P 145) (Order) C-338/82 1 Feb 1983 ECJ European Robards (Rec 1983,P 171) (Judgment) C-149/82 3 Feb 1983 ECJ European F. Van Luipen En Zn Bv Against A Disciplinary Measure Adopted Against It. R-29/82; [1983] EUECJ R-29/82 3 Feb 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Van Luipen (Rec 1983,P 151) (Judgment) C-29/82 3 Feb 1983 ECJ European Stephanie Robards v Insurance Officer. R-149/82; [1983] EUECJ R-149/82 3 Feb 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Favre v Commission (Rec 1983,P 199) (Order) C-346/82 7 Feb 1983 ECJ European Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-124/81; [1983] EUECJ C-124/81 8 Feb 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Naamloze Vennootschap Farr Company v Belgian State. R-130/82; [1983] EUECJ R-130/82 10 Feb 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Farr (Rec 1983,P 327) (Judgment) C-130/82 10 Feb 1983 ECJ European Luxembourg v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 255) (Sv83-17 Fi83-17) (Judgment) C-230/81; [1983] EUECJ C-230/81 10 Feb 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kommanditgesellschaft In Der Firma Hans-Otto Wagner Gmbh Agrarhandel v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung; ECJ 23-Feb-1983 - R-8/82; [1983] EUECJ R-8/82 Toledano-Laredo v Commission; ECJ 23-Feb-1983 - C-225/81; [1983] EUECJ C-225/81 Fromancais v Forma C-66/82 23 Feb 1983 ECJ European Judgment Fromancais Sa v Fonds D'Orientation Et De Regularisation Des Marches Agricoles (Forma); ECJ 23-Feb-1983 - R-66/82; [1983] EUECJ R-66/82; [1983] ECR 395 Chris International Foods v Commission; ECJ 23-Feb-1983 - C-91/82; [1983] EUECJ C-91/82R Commission v Belgium (Rec 1983,P 467) (Sv83-39 Fi83-39) (Judgment) C-301/81; [1983] EUECJ C-301/81 1 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 449) (Judgment) C-300/81; [1983] EUECJ C-300/81 1 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Glv v Commission (Rec 1983,P 483) (Sv83-49 Fi83-49) (Judgment) C-7/82; [1983] EUECJ C-7/82 2 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1983,P 531) (Judgment) C-155/82; [1983] EUECJ C-155/82 2 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Margherita Baccini v Office National De L'Emploi (Onem). R-232/82; [1983] EUECJ R-232/82 10 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Syndicat National Des Fabricants Raffineurs D'Huile De Graissage And Others v Groupement D'Interet Economique 'Inter-Huiles' And Others. R-172/82; [1983] EUECJ R-172/82 10 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fabricants Raffineurs D'Huile De Graissage v Inter-Huiles (Rec 1983,P 555) (Judgment) C-172/82 10 Mar 1983 ECJ European Baccini (Rec 1983,P 583) (Judgment) C-232/82 10 Mar 1983 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 601) (Judgment) C-319/81; [1983] EUECJ C-319/81 15 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Italy v Commission (Rec 1983,P 655) (Judgment) C-61/82; [1983] EUECJ C-61/82 15 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Italy v Commission (Rec 1983,P 687) (Judgment) C-62/82; [1983] EUECJ C-62/82 15 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Netherlands v Commission (Rec 1983,P 631) (Judgment) C-45/82; [1983] EUECJ C-45/82 15 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ferriere Di Roe Volciano v Commission C-234/82; [1983] EUECJ C-234/82R; [1983] EUECJ C-234/82 15 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 711) (Judgment) C-145/82; [1983] EUECJ C-145/82 15 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Compagnia Singer Spa And Geigy Spa v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-290/81; [1983] EUECJ R-290/81 16 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societa Italiana Per L'Oleodotto Transalpino (Siot) v Ministero Delle Finanze, Ministero Della Marina Mercantile, Circoscrizione Doganale Di Trieste And Ente Autonomo Del Porto Di Trieste. R-266/81; [1983] EUECJ R-266/81 16 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Singer and Geigy v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato (Rec 1983,P 847) (Judgment) C-290/81 16 Mar 1983 ECJ European Siot v Ministero Delle Finanze (Rec 1983,P 731) (Sv83-65 Fi83-65) (Judgment) C-266/81 16 Mar 1983 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spi and Sami (Rec 1983,P 801) (Sv83-81 Fi83-81) (Judgment) C-267/81; [1983] EUECJ C-267/81 16 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Macevicius v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 867) (Judgment) C-252/81; [1983] EUECJ C-252/81 17 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Control Data v Commission (Rec 1983,P 911) (Judgment) C-294/81; [1983] EUECJ C-294/81 17 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hoffmann v Commission; ECJ 17-Mar-1983 - C-280/81; [1983] EUECJ C-280/81 Kikvorsch (Rec 1983,P 947) (Judgment) C-94/82 17 Mar 1983 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against De Kikvorsch Groothandel-Import-Export Bv. R-94/82; [1983] EUECJ R-94/82 17 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hans Dinter Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Koln-Deutz. R-175/82; [1983] EUECJ R-175/82 17 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Dinter (Rec 1983,P 969) (Judgment) C-175/82 17 Mar 1983 ECJ European Amministrazione Delle Finanze v Armando And Ottavio Leonelli. R-88/82; [1983] EUECJ R-88/82 22 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Peters v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging (Rec 1983,P 987) (Sv83-95 Fi83-95) (Judgment) C-34/82 22 Mar 1983 ECJ European Leonelli (Rec 1983,P 1061) (Judgment) C-88/82 22 Mar 1983 ECJ European Commission v France (Rec 1983,P 1013) (Sv83-103 Fi83-103) (Judgment) C-42/82; [1982] EUECJ C-42/82R; [1983] EUECJ C-42/82 22 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Cousin (Rec 1983,P 1101) (Judgment) C-162/82 23 Mar 1983 ECJ European Peskeloglou v Bundesanstalt Fur Arbeit C-77/82 23 Mar 1983 ECJ European Anastasia Peskeloglou v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit. R-77/82; [1983] EUECJ R-77/82 23 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Criminal Proceedings Against Paul Cousin And Others. R-162/82; [1983] EUECJ R-162/82 23 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nordgetreide v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1983,P 1149) (Judgment) C-167/82 24 Mar 1983 ECJ European Colussi v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 1131) (Judgment) C-298/81; [1983] EUECJ C-298/81 24 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nordgetreide Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-167/82; [1983] EUECJ R-167/82 24 Mar 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Germany (Rec 1983,P 1173) (Judgment) C-113/82; [1983] EUECJ C-113/82 19 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Weinvertriebs-Gmbh (Rec 1983,P 1217) (Judgment) C-59/82 20 Apr 1983 ECJ European Schutzverband Gegen Unwesen In Der Wirtschaft v Weinvertriebs-Gmbh. R-59/82; [1983] EUECJ R-59/82 20 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1241) (Order) C-10/83 20 Apr 1983 ECJ European Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1983,P 1195) (Judgment) C-49/82; [1983] EUECJ C-49/82 20 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Iro v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1237) (Order) C-348/82 20 Apr 1983 ECJ European Ragusa v Commission C-282/81; [1983] EUECJ C-282/81 21 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Flensburg v Hansen (Rec 1983,P 1271) (Judgment) C-38/82 26 Apr 1983 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Flensburg v Firma Hansen Gmbh and Co. R-38/82; [1983] EUECJ R-38/82 26 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ramel (Rec 1983,P 1319) (Judgment) C-170/82 28 Apr 1983 ECJ European Lippman v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1301) (Judgment) C-143/82; [1983] EUECJ C-143/82 28 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Office National De Commercialisation Des Produits Viti-Vinicoles v Societe A Responsabilite Limitee Les Fils D'Henri Ramel. R-170/82; [1983] EUECJ R-170/82 28 Apr 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Van Der Bunt-Craig (Rec 1983,P 1385) (Judgment) C-238/81 5 May 1983 ECJ European Soler (Rec 1983,P 1413) (Judgment) C-80/82 5 May 1983 ECJ European Ditterich v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1359) (Judgment) C-207/81; [1983] EUECJ C-207/81 5 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Raad Van Arbeid v Mme Van Der Bunt Craig R-238/81; [1983] EUECJ R-238/81 5 May 1983 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ Irrespective of the characteristics peculiar to the various national laws, social security benefits must be considered to be of the same kind when their purpose and basis of calculation are the same. In that respect, benefits acquired under the legislation of two member states, which seeks to ensure that an aged person deprived of the income of his or her deceased spouse has sufficient means of subsistence, and the respective amounts of which are determined on the basis of the insurance and social security contributions of that spouse, must be considered to be benefits of the same kind by reason of their identical purpose and basis of calculation. When a worker receives a pension pursuant to national legislation alone, the provisions of regulation no 1408/71 do not prevent that legislation from being applied to him in its entirety, including the national rules against overlapping benefits. If, however, the application of that national legislation is less favourable to the worker than the application of article 46 of regulation no 1408/71, the provisions of that article must be applied. On the latter supposition, paragraph (3) of article 46 is applicable to the exclusion of rules against overlapping laid down by national legislation. Where benefits of the same kind are granted or awarded in different member states on the basis of analogous national rules, without any reference to the provisions of regulation no 1408/71, there are no grounds for applying the method of currency conversion set out in article 107 of regulation no 574/72. No provision of community law requires the periodical recalculation, by reason of a variation in the rates of conversion of currencies, of a social security benefit whose amount has been established in another member state. [ Bailii ] Paola Piscitello v Istituto Nazionale Della Previdenza Sociale (Inps). R-139/82; [1983] EUECJ R-139/82 5 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pizziolo v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1343) (Judgment) C-785/79 5 May 1983 ECJ European Piscitello (Rec 1983,P 1427) (Sv83-123 Fi83-123) (Judgment) C-139/82 5 May 1983 ECJ European Administration Des Impots v Guy Soler. R-80/82; [1983] EUECJ R-80/82 5 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Klockner v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1549) (Judgment) C-311/81; [1983] EUECJ C-311/81 11 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Klockner v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1599) (Judgment) C-136/82; [1983] EUECJ C-136/82 11 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1451) (Judgment) C-244/81; [1983] EUECJ C-244/81 11 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Nicolas Corman and Fils v Hauptzollamt Hambourg-Jonas. R-156/82; [1983] EUECJ R-156/82 11 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Klockner v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1507) (Judgment) C-303/81; [1983] EUECJ C-303/81 11 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] European Coal And Steel Community (Ceca) v La Faillite Ferriere Sant'Anna Spa. R-168/82; [1983] EUECJ R-168/82 17 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] ECSC v Ferriere Sant'Anna C-168/82 17 May 1983 ECJ European Commission v Belgium (Rec 1983,P 1649) (Judgment) C-132/82; [1983] EUECJ C-132/82 17 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1983,P 1669) (Judgment) C-133/82; [1983] EUECJ C-133/82 17 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pauls Agriculture v Council and Commission (Rec 1983,P 1707) (Judgment) C-256/81; [1983] EUECJ C-256/81 18 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kaffee-Contor Bremen Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Nord. R-192/82; [1983] EUECJ R-192/82 19 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kaffee-Contor Bremen (Rec 1983,P 1769) (Judgment) C-192/82 19 May 1983 ECJ European Mavridis v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 1731) (Judgment) C-289/81; [1983] EUECJ C-289/81 19 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Verros v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 1755) (Judgment) C-306/81; [1983] EUECJ C-306/81 19 May 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Lux v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1983,P 1785) (Order) C-69/83 20 May 1983 ECJ European Seton v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1789) (Judgment) C-36/81; [1983] EUECJ C-36/81 1 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Musique Diffusion Francaise And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-103/80; [1983] EUECJ C-103/80 7 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 1955) (Sv83-179 Fi83-179) (Judgment) C-78/82; [1983] EUECJ C-78/82 7 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Musique Diffussion Francaise v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1825) (Sv83-133 Fi83-133) (Judgment) C-100/80 7 Jun 1983 ECJ European Verzyck v Commission (Rec 1983,P 1991) (Judgment) C-225/82; [1983] EUECJ C-225/82 9 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1983,P 2011) (Judgment) C-90/82; [1983] EUECJ C-90/82 21 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Boel v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2041) (Judgment) C-317/82; [1983] EUECJ C-317/82 22 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societe Cooperative D'Amelioration De L'Elevage Et D'Insemination Artificielle Du Bearn v Lucien J.M. Mialocq And Others. R-271/81; [1983] EUECJ R-271/81 28 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Amelioration De L'Elevage v Mialocq (Rec 1983,P 2057) (Judgment) C-271/81 28 Jun 1983 ECJ European Commission v France (Rec 1983,P 2079) (Judgment) C-161/82; [1983] EUECJ C-161/82 28 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fabius v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2147) (Order) C-39/83 30 Jun 1983 ECJ European De Compte v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 2151) (Order) C-122/83; [1983] EUECJ C-122/83R 30 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schloh v Council (Rec 1983,P 2105) (Judgment) C-85/82; [1983] EUECJ C-85/82 30 Jun 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Biagio Valentini v Assedic De Lyon. R-171/82; [1983] EUECJ R-171/82 5 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Valentini (Rec 1983,P 2157) (Sv83-189 Fi83-189) (Judgment) C-171/82 5 Jul 1983 ECJ European Usinor v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2183) (Order) C-78/83 5 Jul 1983 ECJ European Jean-Jacques Geist v Commission Of The European Communities. O-285/81; [1983] EUECJ O-285/81 6 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Geist v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2217) (Judgment) C-285/81; [1984] EUECJ C-285/81 6 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Geist v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2191) (Judgment) C-117/81; [1983] EUECJ C-117/81 6 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Johanning v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2253) (Judgment) C-230/82; [1983] EUECJ C-230/82 6 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-170/78 12 Jul 1983 ECJ European Societe D'Initiatives and De Cooperation Agricoles v Commission (Order) C-114/83; [1983] EUECJ C-114/83R; [1984] EUECJ C-114/83 12 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Forcheri v Belgian State (Rec 1983,P 2323) (Sv83-211 Fi83-211) (Judgment) C-152/82 13 Jul 1983 ECJ European Sandro Forcheri And His Wife Marisa Forcheri, Nee Marino, v Belgian State And Asbl Institut Superieur De Sciences Humaines Appliquees Ecole Ouvriere Superieure. R-152/82; [1983] EUECJ R-152/82 13 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Detti v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 2421) (Judgment) C-144/82; [1983] EUECJ C-144/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Europa A complaint directed against a decision of a selection board appears to be pointless, as the institution concerned has no authority to annul or amend the decisions of a selection board, and therefore the only legal remedy open to those concerned by such a decision lies in a direct application to the court. However, where a complaint is nevertheless submitted, the prescribed period begins to run, in accordance with article 91 of the staff regu lations, from the day on which the decision taken in reply to the complaint is notified to the person concerned. A selection board for a competition enjoys a wide discretion and the court has no jurisdiction to review its value judgments. However, the board must proceed on the basis of objective criteria which are known to each of the candidates and it must state adequately the grounds on which its decision is based. It is for that reason that indent (e) of the second subparagraph of article 1(1) of annex iii to the staff regulations provides that the notice of competition, drawn up by the appointing authority, must specify inter alia, where the competition is on the basis of tests, of what kind they will be and how they will be marked. In view of the importance for the subsequent career of officials of recruitment by way of competition, it must be ensured that criteria for assessment which are objective and equal for all the candidates are strictly applied. It follows that the candidates in a competition are entitled to expect that tests which take place simultaneously in different places are entirely identical and, in addition, they should receive formal and accurate information as to the result of the tests which they have taken. Where irregularities or errors have occurred in the course of a competition and cannot be rectified by a repetition of the tests, with the result that the only alternative is the application of a corrective factor in the assessment of the tests, that factor must be applied unequivocally and the person concerned is entitled to be informed of the criteria adopted. Where, in an open competition for the purpose of constituting a reserve for future recruitment, the court annuls the decision of the selection board not to place a candidate on a reserve list, the rights of the person concerned are adequately protected if the board and the appointing authority reconsider their decisions and seek a just solution in his case. It is not necessary to call in question the entire result of the competition or to annual the appointments which have been made as a result thereof. [ Bailii ] Meiko (Rec 1983,P 2539) (Judgment) C-224/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Nebe v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2475) (Judgment) C-176/82; [1983] EUECJ C-176/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 2525) (Judgment) C-203/82; [1983] EUECJ C-203/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sandoz (Rec 1983,P 2445) (Sv83-221 Fi83-221) (Judgment) C-174/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Ferrario and Others v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2357) (Judgment) C-152/81 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Gerling Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherung Ag and Others v Amministrazione Del Tesoro Dello Stato (Rec 1983,P 2503) (Judgment) C-201/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Ohrgaard and Others v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2379) (Judgment) C-9/82; [1983] EUECJ C-9/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Mascetti v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2343) (Judgment) C-145/80 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Sandoz Bv. R-174/82; [1983] EUECJ R-174/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gerling Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherungs-Ag And Others v Amministrazione Del Tesoro Dello Stato. R-201/82; [1983] EUECJ R-201/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Meiko-Konservenfabrik v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-224/82; [1983] EUECJ R-224/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] W. Ferrario And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-186/81; [1983] EUECJ C-186/81 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European Europa The general principle of equality is one of the fundamental principles of the law of the community civil service. That principle requires that comparable situations shall not be treated differently unless such differentiation is objectively justified. Clearly it requires that employees who are in identical situations shall be governed by the same rules, but it does not prevent the community legislature from taking into account objective differences in the conditions or situations in which those concerned are placed. The second indent of the third paragraph of article 3 of annex vii to the staff regulations, in so far as it restricts the entitlement to the double education allowance to the case where the official is entitled to the expatriation allowance, is based on objective criteria and has a direct relationship with the purpose of the scheme of education allowances. [ Bailii ] Mogensen and Others v Commission; ECJ 14-Jul-1983 - C-10/82; [1983] EUECJ C-10/82 Spijker v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2559) (Judgment) C-231/82; [1983] EUECJ C-231/82 14 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Raznoimport v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2573) (Order) C-120/83; [1983] EUECJ C-120/83R 19 Jul 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Cmc v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2583) (Order) C-118/83 5 Aug 1983 ECJ European Jerzak (Rec 1983,P 2603) (Judgment) C-279/82 15 Sep 1983 ECJ European Leo Jerzak v Bundesknappschaft Verwaltungsstelle Aachen. R-279/82; [1983] EUECJ R-279/82 15 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1983,P 2621) (Order) C-171/83; [1983] EUECJ C-171/83R 20 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Deutsche Milchkontor Gmbh (Rec 1983,P 2633) (Sv83-233 Fi83-233) (Judgment) C-205/82 21 Sep 1983 ECJ European Deutsche Milchkontor Gmbh And Others v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-215/82; [1983] EUECJ R-215/82 21 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Royal Belge (Rec 1983,P 2685) (Judgment) C-23/81; [1983] EUECJ C-23/81 22 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Roquette Freres v Onic (Rec 1983,P 2755) (Judgment) C-311/82 22 Sep 1983 ECJ European Verli-Wallace v Commission C-159/82; [1983] EUECJ C-159/82 22 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Vincent Rodolphe Auer v Ministere Public. R-271/82; [1983] EUECJ R-271/82 22 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Roquette Freres v Office National Interprofessionnel Des Cereales (Onic). R-311/82; [1983] EUECJ R-311/82 22 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Auer v Ministere Public (Rec 1983,P 2727) (Sv83-253 Fi83-253) (Judgment) C-271/82 22 Sep 1983 ECJ European Universitat Hamburg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Kehrwieder (Rec 1983,P 2771) (Sv83-265 Fi83-265) (Judgment) C-216/82 27 Sep 1983 ECJ European Universitat Hamburg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Kehrwieder. R-216/82; [1983] EUECJ R-216/82 27 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Renaud v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2823) (Judgment) C-148/82; [1983] EUECJ C-148/82 28 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Angelini v Commission (Judgment) C-131/82; [1983] EUECJ C-131/82 28 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rosana v Council (Rec 1983,P 2841) (Judgment) C-193/82 28 Sep 1983 ECJ European Maria Rosani And Others v Council Of The Ec. C-198/82; [1983] EUECJ C-198/82 28 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Papageorgopoulos v ESC C-277/82; [1983] EUECJ C-277/82 29 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 2865) (Order) C-206/81 29 Sep 1983 ECJ European Cour De Comptes v Williams C-9/81 29 Sep 1983 ECJ European De Bruyn v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 2879) (Judgment) C-223/82; [1983] EUECJ C-223/82 29 Sep 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fediol v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2913) (Sv83-275 Fi83-275) (Judgment) C-191/82; [1983] EUECJ C-191/82 4 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nevas v Social Welfare Fund For Lawyers, Athens (Rec 1983,P 2969) (Order) C-142/83; [1983] EUECJ C-142/83 5 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ministero Delle Finanze v Esercizio Magazzini Generali Spa And Mellina Agosta Srl. R-187/82; [1983] EUECJ R-187/82 5 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Magazzini Generali (Rec 1983,P 2951) (Judgment) C-186/82 5 Oct 1983 ECJ European Delhaize (Rec 1983,P 2973) (Judgment) C-2/82 6 Oct 1983 ECJ European Sa Delhaize Freres 'Le Lion' And Others v Belgian State. R-2/82; [1983] EUECJ R-2/82 6 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Lohmann (Rec 1983,P 3025) (Judgment) C-289/82 6 Oct 1983 ECJ European Lohmann Gmbh and Co. Kg v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt Am Main. R-289/82; [1983] EUECJ R-289/82 6 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Celant and Others v Commission (Rec 1983,P 2995) (Judgment) C-118/82 6 Oct 1983 ECJ European Maria Grazia Celant And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-123/82; [1983] EUECJ C-123/82 6 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3075) (Judgment) C-273/82; [1983] EUECJ C-273/82 11 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Demo-Studio Schmidt (Rec 1983,P 3045) (Judgment) C-210/81; [1983] EUECJ C-210/81 11 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Lucchini v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3083) (Judgment) C-179/82; [1983] EUECJ C-179/82 19 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Usinor v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3105) (Judgment) C-265/82; [1983] EUECJ C-265/82 19 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ferriere San Carlo v Commission C-75/83; [1983] EUECJ C-75/83 19 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gutmann v Commission C-92/82; [1983] EUECJ C-92/82 20 Oct 1983 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Official - Resettlement allowance - Recovery of undue payment. [ Bailii ] Steinfort v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3141) (Judgment) C-299/82; [1983] EUECJ C-299/82 20 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Aeg v Commission (Judgment) C-107/82 25 Oct 1983 ECJ European De Samvirkende Danske Landboforeninger v Ministry Of Fiscal Affairs. R-297/82; [1983] EUECJ R-297/82 26 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Danske Landboforeningen (Rec 1983,P 3299) (Sv83-331 Fi83-331) (Judgment) C-297/82 26 Oct 1983 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3273) (Judgment) C-163/82; [1983] EUECJ C-163/82 26 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] De Beste Boter (Rec 1983,P 3331) (Judgment) C-276/82 27 Oct 1983 ECJ European Volkswagenwerk v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig (Rec 1983,P 3355) (Judgment) C-321/82 27 Oct 1983 ECJ European Roomboterfabriek &Quot;De Beste Boter&Quot; Bv v Produktschap Voor Zuivel. R-276/82; [1983] EUECJ R-276/82 27 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Volkswagenwerk Ag v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig. R-321/82; [1983] EUECJ R-321/82 27 Oct 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-165/82; [1983] EUECJ C-165/82 8 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nv Iaz International Belgium And Others v Commission Of The European Communities. C-96/10; [1983] EUECJ C-96/102; [1983] ECR 3369 8 Nov 1983 ECJ European ECJ 1. The purpose of the preliminary administrative procedure is to prepare the way for the commission's decision concerning the infringement of the competition rules although that procedure also provides the undertakings concerned with an opportunity to bring the practices complained of into line with the rules of the treaty. 2. The fact that the commission made a decision public before notifying it to the addressees, however regrettable such conduct might be, does not affect the validity of the decision. Once a decision has been adopted, it cannot be affected by acts subsequent to its adoption. 3. Article 85 (1) of the treaty applies also to associations of undertakings in so far as their own activities or those of the undertakings affiliated to them are calculated to produce the results which it aims to suppress. A recommendation of an association of undertakings, even if it has no binding effect, cannot escape that article where compliance with the recommendation by the undertakings to which it is addressed has an appreciable influence on competition in the market in question. 4. The condition laid down by article 4(2) of regulation no 17 that an agreement must not relate either to imports or to exports between member states if it is to qualify for exemption from notification must be interpreted with reference to the structure of article 4 and its aim of simplifying administrative procedure, which it pursues by not requiring undertakings to notify agreements which, whilst they may be covered by article 85 (1) of the treaty, appear in general, by reason of their special characteristics, to be less harmful from the point of view of the objectives of that provision. That is not the case where an agreement has as its purpose appreciably to restrict parallel imports into a member state and thus tends to isolate the national market in a manner which is incompatible with the fundamental principles of the common market. 5. The requirement that a decision adversely affecting a person should state the reasons on which it is based, laid down by Article 190 of the eec treaty, is intended to enable the court to review the legality of the decision and to provide the person concerned with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which will allow its legality to be contested. Accordingly, that requirement is satisfied where the decision refers to the matters of fact and of law on which the legal justification for the measure is based and to the considerations which led to its adoption. 6. If the parties which took part in the drawing-up of an agreement were aware that the agreement as drafted, regard being had to its terms, to the legal and economic context in which it was concluded and to the conduct of the parties, had as its purpose to restrict parallel imports and that it was capable of affecting trade between member states inasmuch as it was capable of making parallel imports more difficult, if not impossible, they acted deliberately by signing the agreement, whether or not they were aware that, in so doing, they were infringing the prohibition laid down by article 85 (1) of the treaty. 7. In assessing the gravity of an infringement regard must be had to a large number of factors, the nature and importance of which vary according to the type of infringement in question and the particular circum- stances of the case. Those factors may, depending on the circumstances, include the volume and value of the goods in respect of which the infringement was committed and the size and economic power of the undertaking and, consequently, the influence which the undertaking was able to exert on the market. 8. Where an infringement has been committed by a number of undertakings, the prior fixing of a maximum aggregate amount of the fine, fixed in relation to the seriousness of the danger which the agreement represented to competition and trade in the common market, is compatible with the individual fixing of the penalty. 9. The commission is not obliged in calculating the amount of the fine to take account of the adverse financial situation of the undertaking concerned. Recognition of such an obligation would be tantamount to conferring an unjustified competitive advantage on undertakings least well adapted to the conditions of the market. [ Bailii ] Iaz v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3369) (Judgment) C-96/82 8 Nov 1983 ECJ European Habourdin International Sa and Others v Spa Italcremona (Order) C-80/83 9 Nov 1983 ECJ European Habourdin International Sa And Banque Nationale De Paris v Spa Italocremona R-80/83; [1983] EUECJ R-80/83 9 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spa San Giorgio R-199/82; [1983] EUECJ R-199/82; [1983] ECR 3595 9 Nov 1983 ECJ European Europa Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling - reference to the court - right of every national court - stage of the proceedings before the national court - nature of the decision to be given by the national court - irrelevant (eec treaty, art. 177, second para.) Community law - direct effect - national charges incompatible with community law - repayment - procedures - application of national law - limits - Community law - direct effect - national charges incompatible with community law - repayment - procedures - application of national law - conditions - consideration of possible passing on of the charge - permissibility Community law - direct effect - national charges incompatible with community law - repayment - procedures - application of national law - conditions - requirement of proof that the taxpayer has not passed the charges on - unacceptability - criteria. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Commission v Denmark (Rec 1983,P 3573) (Judgment) C-158/82; [1983] EUECJ C-158/82 9 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Germany v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3549) (Judgment) C-46/82; [1983] EUECJ C-46/82 9 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Michelin v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3461) (Sv83-351 Fi83-351) (Judgment) C-322/81; [1983] EUECJ C-322/81 9 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gesamthochschule Essen v Hauptzollamt Duesseldorf. R-300/82; [1983] EUECJ R-300/82 10 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gesamthochschule Essen (Rec 1983,P 3643) (Judgment) C-300/82 10 Nov 1983 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1983,P 3689) (Judgment) C-322/82; [1983] EUECJ C-322/82 15 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ferdinand M.J.J. Duijnstee v Lodewijk Goderbauer R-288/82; [1983] EUECJ R-288/82; [1983] ECR 3663 15 Nov 1983 ECJ European, Insolvency, Intellectual Property A liquidator sought to recover a patent from an employee of the company, a claim held not to be excluded from the Convention. Europa 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968, which seeks to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the contracting states in civil matters, must override national provisions which are incompatible with it. 2. Article 19 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 requires the national court to declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction whenever it finds that a court of another contracting state has exclusive jurisdiction under article 16 of the convention, even in an appeal in cassation where the national rules of procedure limit the court ' s reviewal to the grounds raised by the parties. 3. The term "proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents "contained in article 16 ( 4 ) of the convention of 27 september 1968 must be regarded as an independent concept intended to have uniform application in all the contracting states. 4. The term "proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents" does not include a dispute between an employee for whose invention a patent has been applied for or obtained and his employer, where the dispute relates to their respective rights in that patent arising out of the contract of employment. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1983,P 3707) (Judgment) C-52/83; [1983] EUECJ C-52/83 15 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Duijnstee v Goderbauer C-288/82; [1983] ECR 3663 15 Nov 1983 ECJ European, Intellectual Property There was a dispute between an inventor and the liquidator of a company concerning ownership of patents. The liquidator's claim was that under Dutch law the inventions had been made on terms that the patents ought to belong to the company. He demanded that the inventor should be ordered to transfer not only the Dutch patent, but also the corresponding patents in 22 other countries, including five which had adhered to the Brussels Convention. Held: To make the order would not violate Article 16(4) of the Convention. The validity of the patents was not being challenged. Nor was the conduct of the various national authorities whose business it was to keep the patent registers. Nor was the liquidator seeking an order directing those authorities to rectify their registers in the light of Dutch law. Instead, the liquidator was asking for an order which would have required the inventor himself to apply to rectify the registers: an order in personam. 1 Citers Thyssen Ag v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3721) (Judgment) C-188/82; [1983] EUECJ C-188/82 16 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Firma E. Merck v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas. R-292/82; [1983] EUECJ R-292/82 17 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Stavridis v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 3803) (Order) C-73/83; [1983] EUECJ C-73/83 17 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Merck Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1983,P 3781) (Judgment) C-292/82 17 Nov 1983 ECJ European Trefois v Court Of Justice (Rec 1983,P 3751) (Judgment) C-290/82; [1983] EUECJ C-290/82 17 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Benito D'Amario v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben. R-320/82; [1983] EUECJ R-320/82 24 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Cohen v Commission (Rec 1983,P 3829) (Judgment) C-342/82; [1983] EUECJ C-342/82 24 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] D'Amario (Rec 1983,P 3811) (Judgment) C-320/82 24 Nov 1983 ECJ European Roussel (Rec 1983,P 3849) (Sv83-401 Fi83-401) (Judgment) C-181/82 29 Nov 1983 ECJ European Roussel Laboratoria Bv And Others v Etat Neerlandais. R-181/82; [1983] EUECJ R-181/82 29 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ferriere San Carlo v Commission C-235/82; [1983] EUECJ C-235/82; [1986] EUECJ C-235/82 30 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Ferriere Di Roe Volciano v Commission C-234/82 30 Nov 1983 ECJ European Van Bennekom (Rec 1983,P 3883) (Judgment) C-227/82 30 Nov 1983 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Leendert Van Bennekom. R-227/82; [1983] EUECJ R-227/82 30 Nov 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Morina v Parliament (Rec 1983,P 4051) (Judgment) C-18/83; [1983] EUECJ C-18/83 1 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Depoortere v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4003) (Judgment) C-217/82; [1983] EUECJ C-217/82 1 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Blomefield v Commission C-190/82; [1983] EUECJ C-190/82 1 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Michael v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4023) (Judgment) C-343/82; [1983] EUECJ C-343/82 1 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Council (Rec 1983,P 4063) (Judgment) C-218/82; [1983] EUECJ C-218/82 13 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Apple and Pear Development Council v K J Lewis Ltd and others C-222/82; R-222/82 13 Dec 1983 ECJ European, Agriculture The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of goods and to agriculture and the rules on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables do not prevent a member state from adopting or maintaining measures (i) establishing a development council for fruit production, composed of members appointed by the minister responsible, in particular from among the growers involved, and (ii) requiring only fruit growers with a plantation which exceeds a specified size to register with the said council, to furnish returns and information on their activities in the industry and to finance the administrative and other expenses of the council by the payment of an annual charge, in so far as the activities of the council consist in compiling statistics, promoting or undertaking research, making the results thus obtained available to growers and giving growers technical advice about fruit-growing. [ Bailii ] Klockner-Werke v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4143) (Judgment) C-263/82; [1982] EUECJ C-263/82R; [1982] EUECJ C-263/82R; [1983] EUECJ C-263/82 14 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Societe De Vente De Ciments v Kerpen and Kerpen (Rec 1983,P 4173) (Judgment) C-319/82 14 Dec 1983 ECJ European Societe De Vente De Ciments Et Betons De L'Est Sa v Kerpen and Kerpen Gmbh Und Co. Kg. R-319/82; [1983] EUECJ R-319/82 14 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Metallurgiki Halyps v Commission (Judgment) C-31/82; [1983] EUECJ C-31/82 15 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schoellershammer v Commission (Rec 1983,P 4219) (Judgment) C-283/82; [1983] EUECJ C-283/82 15 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rienks (Rec 1983,P 4233) (Judgment) C-5/83 15 Dec 1983 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against H.G. Rienks. R-5/83; [1983] EUECJ R-5/83 15 Dec 1983 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board; HL 1984 - [1984] AC 130 Regina v Thomas Scott and Sons Bakers Ltd [1984] ECR 2863 1984 Road Traffic, European In the field of road transport, Community social legislation "aims at the harmonisation of conditions of competition between methods of inland transport, especially with regard to the road sector and the improvement of working conditions and road safety." 1 Citers Turner v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1) (Judgment) C-266/82; [1984] EUECJ C-266/82 12 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Vbvb and Vbbb v Commission EEC (Rec 1984,P 19) (Sv84-437 Fi84-437) (Judgment) C-43/82; [1982] EUECJ C-43/82R; [1984] EUECJ C-43/82 17 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Ekro Bv Vee En Vleeshandel v Produktschap Voor Vee En Vlees. R-327/82; [1984] EUECJ R-327/82 18 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ekro (Rec 1984,P 107) (Judgment) C-327/82 18 Jan 1984 ECJ European Andersen and Others v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 195) (Judgment) C-262/80; [1984] EUECJ C-262/80 19 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Andersen and Others v Council (Rec 1984,P 177) (Judgment) C-260/80; [1984] EUECJ C-260/80 19 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Maurice Andre And Others v Commission And Council Of The Ec. C-242/80; [1984] EUECJ C-242/80 19 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Erdini v Council (Rec 1984,P 211) (Judgment) C-65/83; [1984] EUECJ C-65/83 19 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Advenier and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 131) (Judgment) C-211/80; [1984] EUECJ C-211/80 19 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Andre and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 165) (Judgment) C-219/80 19 Jan 1984 ECJ European Seiler and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 229) (Judgment) C-189/82; [1984] EUECJ C-189/82 26 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Clin-Midy v Belgian State (Rec 1984,P 251) (Judgment) C-301/82 26 Jan 1984 ECJ European Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Muenchen v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-West. R-45/83; [1984] EUECJ R-45/83 26 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ludwig Maximilians-Universitat Munchen (Rec 1984,P 267) (Judgment) C-45/83 26 Jan 1984 ECJ European Sa Clin-Midy And Others v Belgian State. R-301/82; [1984] EUECJ R-301/82 26 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] IFG v Freistaat Bayern C-1/83 31 Jan 1984 ECJ European Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro C-286/82; [1984] ECR 377; R-286/82; [1984] EUECJ R-286/82 31 Jan 1984 ECJ European, Health The freedom to provide services includes the freedom, for the recipients of services, to go to another member state in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by restrictions, even in relation to payments. Tourists, persons receiving medical treatment and persons travelling for the purposes of education or business are to be regarded as recipients of services. The general scheme of the treaty shows, and a comparison between articles 67 and 106 confirms, that the current payments covered by article 106 are transfers of foreign exchange which constitute the consideration within the context of an underlying transaction, whilst the movements of capital covered by article 67 are financial operations essentially concerned with the investment of the funds in question rather than remuneration for a service. For that reason movements of capital may themselves give rise to current payments, as is implied by articles 67(2) and 106(1). The physical transfer of bank notes may not therefore be classified as a movement of capital where the transfer in question corresponds to an obligation to pay arising from a transaction involving the movement of goods or services. Article 106 compels member states to authorize the payments referred to in that provision in the currency of the member state in which the creditor or beneficiary resides. Payments made in the currency of a third country are not therefore covered by that provision. Article 106 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that: transfers in connection with tourism or travel for the purposes of business, education or medical treatment constitute payments and not movements of capital, even where they are effected by means of the physical transfer of bank notes; any restrictions on such payments are abolished as from the end of the transitional period; member states retain the power to verify that transfers of foreign currency purportedly intended for liberalized payments are not in reality used for unauthorized movements of capital; controls introduced for that purpose may not have the effect of limiting payments and transfers in connection with the provision of services to a specific amount for each transaction or for a given period, or of rendering illusory the freedoms recognized by the treaty or of subjecting the exercise thereof to the discretion of the administrative authorities; such controls may involve the fixing of flat-rate limits below which no verification is carried out, whereas in the case of expenditure exceeding those limits proof is required that the amounts transferred have actually been used in connection with the provision of services, provided however that the flat-rate limits so determined are not such as to affect the normal pattern of the provision of services. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Commission v United Kingdom C-40/82 31 Jan 1984 ECJ European (Judgment) Commission v Ireland (Rec 1984,P 317) (Judgment) C-74/82; [1984] EUECJ C-74/82 31 Jan 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] IFG Intercontinentale Fleischhandelsgesellschaft Mbh and Co. Kg v Freistaat Bayern; ECJ 31-Jan-1984 - R-1/83; [1984] EUECJ R-1/83 Ilford v Commission (Rec 1984,P 423) (Order) C-1/84; [1984] EUECJ C-1/84R 1 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] W. J. Derks v Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging. R-285/82; [1984] EUECJ R-285/82 2 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Derks (Rec 1984,P 433) (Judgment) C-285/82 2 Feb 1984 ECJ European Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 459) (Judgment) C-166/82; [1984] EUECJ C-166/82 7 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Duphar (Rec 1984,P 523) (Sv84-505 Fi84-505) (Judgment) C-238/82 7 Feb 1984 ECJ European Jongeneel Kaas (Rec 1984,P 483) (Sv84-489 Fi84-489) (Judgment) C-237/82 7 Feb 1984 ECJ European Jongeneel Kaas Bv And Others v State Of The Netherlands And Stichting Centraal Orgaan Zuivelcontrole. R-237/82; [1984] EUECJ R-237/82 7 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Duphar Bv And Others v The Netherlands State. R-238/82; [1984] EUECJ R-238/82 7 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gambetta Auto v Bureau Central Francais (Rec 1984,P 591) (Judgment) C-344/82 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European Ospig v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Ost (Rec 1984,P 609) (Judgment) C-7/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European Fabius v Commission (Rec 1984,P 627) (Judgment) C-39/83; [1983] EUECJ C-39/83R; [1984] EUECJ C-39/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Ospig Textilgesellschaft Kg W. Ahlers v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Ost. R-7/83; [1984] EUECJ R-7/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bureau Central Francais v Fonds De Garantie Automobile (Judgment) C-64/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European Bureau Central Francais v Fonds De Garantie Automobile And Others. R-64/83; [1984] EUECJ R-64/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Groupement D'Interet Economique 'Rhone-Alpes Huiles' And Others v Syndicat National Des Fabricants Raffineurs D'Huile De Graissage And Others. R-295/82; [1984] EUECJ R-295/82 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sa Gambetta Auto v Bureau Central Francais And Fonds De Garantie Automobile. R-344/82; [1984] EUECJ R-344/82 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Metro International Kommanditgesellschaft v Oberfinanzdirektion Muenchen. R-60/83; [1984] EUECJ R-60/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Metro (Rec 1984,P 671) (Judgment) C-60/83 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European Busseni v Commission (Rec 1984,P 557) (Judgment) C-284/82; [1984] EUECJ C-284/82 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kohler v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1984,P 641) (Judgment) C-316/82; [1984] EUECJ C-316/82 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rhone-Alpes Huiles (Rec 1984,P 575) (Judgment) C-295/82 9 Feb 1984 ECJ European Wolfgang Gewiese And Manfred Mehlich v Colin Scott Mackenzie. R-24/83; [1984] EUECJ R-24/83 14 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Alfer v Commission (Rec 1984,P 799) (Judgment) C-2/83; [1984] EUECJ C-2/83 14 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gewiese and Mehlich (Rec 1984,P 817) (Judgment) C-24/83 14 Feb 1984 ECJ European Commission v Germany (Rec 1984,P 777) (Judgment) C-325/82; [1984] EUECJ C-325/82 14 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rewe v Hauptzollamt Flensburg and Others C-278/82 14 Feb 1984 ECJ European Gerlach (Rec 1984,P 841) (Judgment) C-46/83 16 Feb 1984 ECJ European Boel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 859) (Judgment) C-76/83; [1984] EUECJ C-76/83 16 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Gerlach and Co. Bv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen. R-46/83; [1984] EUECJ R-46/83 16 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Allied Corporation and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1005) (Sv84-519 Fi84-519) (Judgment) C-239/82; [1984] EUECJ C-239/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Walzstahc-Vereinigung And Thyssen Aktiengesellschaft v Commission Of The European Communities. C-221/82; [1984] EUECJ C-221/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] St. Nikolaus Brennerei Und Likorfabrik, Gustav Kniepf-Melde Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Krefeld. R-337/82; [1984] EUECJ R-337/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v France (Rec 1984,P 933) (Judgment) C-202/82; [1984] EUECJ C-202/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Walzstahl-Vereinigung and Thyssen v Commission (Rec 1984,P 951) (Judgment) C-140/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European Hasselblad v Commission C-86/82; [1982] EUECJ C-86/82R; [1984] EUECJ C-86/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] St Nikolaus Brennerei Und Likorfabrik v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Rec 1984,P 1051) (Judgment) C-337/82 21 Feb 1984 ECJ European Gerda Kloppenburg v Finanzamt Leer. R-70/83; [1984] EUECJ R-70/83 22 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kloppenburg (Rec 1984,P 1075) (Sv84-533 Fi84-533) (Judgment) C-70/83 22 Feb 1984 ECJ European Zentralgenossenschaft Des Fleischergewerbes Eg (Zentrag) v Hauptzollamt Bochum. R-93/83; [1984] EUECJ R-93/83 23 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Zentrag v Hauptzollamt Bochum (Rec 1984,P 1095) (Judgment) C-93/83 23 Feb 1984 ECJ European Senta Einberger v Hauptzollamt Freiburg. R-294/82; [1984] EUECJ R-294/82 28 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ford v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1129) (Judgment) C-228/82; [1982] EUECJ C-228/82R 28 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Germany (Rec 1984,P 1111) (Judgment) C-247/81; [1984] EUECJ C-247/81 28 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Einberger v Hauptzollamt Freiburg (Rec 1984,P 1177) (Sv84-541 Fi84-541) (Judgment) C-294/82 28 Feb 1984 ECJ European Cilfit C-77/83; R-77/83; [1984] EUECJ R-77/83 29 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Estel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1195) (Judgment) C-270/82; [1984] EUECJ C-270/82 29 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rewe-Zentral Ag v Direktor Der Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland. R-37/83; [1984] EUECJ R-37/83 29 Feb 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rewe-Zentrale (Rec 1984,P 1229) (Judgment) C-37/83 29 Feb 1984 ECJ European Salvatore Cinciuolo v Union Nationale Des Federations Mutualistes Neutres And Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite R-104/83; [1984] EUECJ R-104/83 1 Mar 1984 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ Social security for migrant workers - old-age and survivors' insurance - benefits - adjustment - recalculation - scope of the system (Regulation no 1408/71 of the council, art. 51) Article 51 of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as applying to benefits such as those in respect of accidents at work or occupational disease which, by virtue of the national rules against overlapping of benefits, originally affected the amount of the pension fixed pursuant to article 46 and any subsequent adjustments to which might again affect that pension. It is therefore not necessary to recalculate the pension pursuant to article 46 if an adjustment is made to such a benefit on account of the general evolution of the economic and social situation. [ Bailii ] Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1271) (Judgment) C-10/83; [1983] EUECJ C-10/83R; [1984] EUECJ C-10/83 1 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Cinciuolo (Rec 1984,P 1285) (Judgment) C-104/83 1 Mar 1984 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Karl Prantl. R-16/83; [1984] EUECJ R-16/83 13 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Prantl (Rec 1984,P 1299) (Sv84-549 Fi84-549) (Judgment) C-16/83 13 Mar 1984 ECJ European Industrie Riunite Odolesi Spa v Commission Of The European Communities. O-348/82; [1984] EUECJ O-348/82 15 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Tradax v Commission (Judgment) C-64/82; [1984] EUECJ C-64/82 15 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eiss v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1341) (Judgment) C-310/81; [1984] EUECJ C-310/81 15 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Iro v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1409) (Judgment) C-348/82; [1983] EUECJ C-348/82R 15 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Tiel-Utrecht Schadeverzekering v FCGA (Judgment) C-313/82 15 Mar 1984 ECJ European Forcheri v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1425) (Judgment) C-28/83; [1984] EUECJ C-28/83 15 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] C. Razzouk Et A. Beydoun v Commission Of The European Communities C-117/82; [1984] EUECJ C-117/82; [1984] ECR 1509 20 Mar 1984 ECJ European The case concerned survivors' pensions under the Community's own Staff Regulations. Held: The principle of equal treatment of men and women "forms part of the fundamental rights the observance of which the court has a duty to ensure." Article 4 of the draft Directive provided that there should be no discrimination on grounds of sex in the payment of survivorship benefits: "and to this end: (a) either the recognition on the same terms for widowers of entitlement to the pensions and other benefits provided for widows; (b) or the replacement of widows' benefits by the creation or extension of a system of individual rights open to all surviving spouses regardless of sex." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Razzouk and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1509) (Judgment) C-75/82 20 Mar 1984 ECJ European Germany v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1451) (Sv84-565 Fi84-565) (Judgment) C-84/82; [1984] EUECJ C-84/82 20 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1543) (Judgment) C-314/82; [1984] EUECJ C-314/82 20 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] 3M Deutschland (Rec 1984,P 1587) (Judgment) C-92/83 22 Mar 1984 ECJ European Paterson v Weddel C-90/83 22 Mar 1984 ECJ European 3M Deutschland Gmbh v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt Am Main. R-92/83; [1984] EUECJ R-92/83 22 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Michael Paterson And Others v W. Weddel and Company Limited And Others. R-90/83; [1984] EUECJ R-90/83 22 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 1603) (Judgment) C-169/82; [1984] EUECJ C-169/82 27 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 1633) (Judgment) C-50/83; [1984] EUECJ C-50/83 27 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bertoli v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1649) (Judgment) C-8/83; [1984] EUECJ C-8/83 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eisa v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1749) (Order) C-37/84; [1984] EUECJ C-37/84R 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eisa v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1759) (Order) C-45/84; [1984] EUECJ C-45/84R 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pluimveeslachterij Midden-Nederland (Rec 1984,P 1721) (Judgment) C-47/83 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European Cram v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1679) (Judgment) C-29/83; [1984] EUECJ C-29/83 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Administrative Appeal Proaceedings Against A Disciplinary Measure Brought By Pluimveeslachterij Midden-Nederland Bv R-47/83; [1984] EUECJ R-47/83 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Von Gallera v Maitre (Rec 1984,P 1769) (Order) C-56/84 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European Christoph Von Gallera v Gisele Maitre R-56/84; [1984] EUECJ R-56/84 28 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Buick v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1773) (Judgment) C-25/83; [1984] EUECJ C-25/83 29 Mar 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Geist v Commission (Rec 1984,P 1789) (Judgment) C-285/81 5 Apr 1984 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Jan Van De Haar And Kaveka De Meern Bv. R-178/82; [1984] EUECJ R-178/82 5 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Schickedanz (Rec 1984,P 1829) (Judgment) C-298/82 5 Apr 1984 ECJ European Gustav Schickedanz Kg v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt Am Main. R-298/82; [1984] EUECJ R-298/82 5 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Van De Haar (Rec 1984,P 1797) (Judgment) C-177/82 5 Apr 1984 ECJ European Alvarez v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 1847) (Judgment) C-347/82; [1983] EUECJ C-347/82R; [1984] EUECJ C-347/82 5 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen; ECJ 10-Apr-1984 - (1986) 2 CMLR 430; C-14/83; [1984] ECR 1891; R-14/83; [1984] EUECJ R-14/83 Luxembourg v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 1945) (Sv84-591 Fi84-591) (Judgment) C-108/83; [1984] EUECJ C-108/83 10 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Dorit Harz v Deutsche Tradax Gmbh. R-79/83; [1984] EUECJ R-79/83 10 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Harz v Deutsche Tradax (Judgment) C-79/83 10 Apr 1984 ECJ European Commission v Belgium (Rec 1984,P 1861) (Judgment) C-324/82; [1984] EUECJ C-324/82 10 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Unifrex v Council and Commission (Rec 1984,P 1969) (Judgment) C-281/82; [1984] EUECJ C-281/82 12 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Wunsche (Rec 1984,P 1995) (Judgment) C-345/82 12 Apr 1984 ECJ European Wuensche Handelsgesellschaft Gmbh and Co. v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-345/82; [1984] EUECJ R-345/82 12 Apr 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Greece C-58/83; [1984] EUECJ C-58/83 10 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Zuckerfabrik Franken v Hauptzollamt Wurzburg (Rec 1984,P 2039) (Judgment) C-121/83 15 May 1984 ECJ European Zuckerfabrik Franken Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Wuerzburg. R-121/83; [1984] EUECJ R-121/83 15 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eisen Und Metall Aktiengesellschaft v Commission C-9/83; [1984] EUECJ C-9/83 16 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Pakvries (Rec 1984,P 2101) (Judgment) C-105/83 16 May 1984 ECJ European Albertini and Others v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2123) (Judgment) C-338/82; [1982] EUECJ C-338/82R; [1983] EUECJ C-338/82R; [1984] EUECJ C-338/82 17 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Brusse (Rec 1984,P 2223) (Judgment) C-101/83 17 May 1984 ECJ European Denkavit Nederland Bv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-15/83; [1984] EUECJ R-15/83 17 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bahr v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2155) (Judgment) C-12/83; [1984] EUECJ C-12/83 17 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Denkavit Nederland (Rec 1984,P 2171) (Judgment) C-15/83 17 May 1984 ECJ European Estel v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2195) (Judgment) C-83/83; [1984] EUECJ C-83/83 17 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Favre v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2269) (Judgment) C-346/82; [1983] EUECJ C-346/82R; [1984] EUECJ C-346/82 30 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Eximo v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2295) (Judgment) C-62/83; [1984] EUECJ C-62/83 30 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Aschermann v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2253) (Judgment) C-326/82; [1984] EUECJ C-326/82 30 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ferriera Vittoria v Commission C-224/83; [1984] EUECJ C-224/83 30 May 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 2361) (Judgment) C-280/83; [1984] EUECJ C-280/83 5 Jun 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Melkunie (Rec 1984,P 2367) (Judgment) C-97/83 6 Jun 1984 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Cmc Melkunie Bv. R-97/83; [1984] EUECJ R-97/83 6 Jun 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Partenreederei Ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven- and Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout C-71/83; R-71/83; [1984] EUECJ R-71/83; [1984] ECR 2417 19 Jun 1984 ECJ European, Transport, Jurisdiction Europa Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments - jurisdiction agreement - jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading - validity - conditions (convention of 27 September 1968, art. 17) a jurisdiction clause contained in the printed conditions on a bill of lading satisfies the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention : if the agreement of both parties to the conditions containing that clause has been expressed in writing; or if the jurisdiction clause has been the subject-matter of a prior oral agreement between the parties expressly relating to that clause, in which case the bill of lading, signed by the carrier, must be regarded as confirmation in writing of the oral agreement; or if the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the parties, in so far as it is thereby established that the relationship is governed by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause. As regards the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill of lading, the conditions laid down by article 17 of the convention are satisfied if the jurisdiction clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and if, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper ' s rights and obligations. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Asbl Bureau Belge Des Assureurs Automobiles v Adriano Fantozzi And Sa Les Assurances Populaires. R-116/83; [1984] EUECJ R-116/83 21 Jun 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Bureau Belge Des Assureurs Automobiles v Fantozzi (Judgment) C-116/83 21 Jun 1984 ECJ European Lux v Court Of Auditors (Rec 1984,P 2447) (Judgment) C-69/83; [1983] EUECJ C-69/83R; [1984] EUECJ C-69/83 21 Jun 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Moser v Land Baden-Wurttemberg C-180/83 28 Jun 1984 ECJ European Mabanaft Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Emmerich. R-36/83; [1984] EUECJ R-36/83 28 Jun 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nordbutter Gmbh and Co. Kg And Bayerische Milchversorgungs Gmbh v Federal Republic Of Germany. R-190/83; [1984] EUECJ R-190/83 28 Jun 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hans Moser v Land Baden-Wuerttemberg R-180/83; [1984] EUECJ R-180/83 28 Jun 1984 ECJ Employment, European ECJ Free movement of workers - Concept of worker. 1. As regards the division of jurisdiction between national courts and the court of justice under article 177 of the treaty, it is for the national court, which is alone in having direct knowledge of the facts of the case and of the arguments put forward by the parties and which must assume the responsibility of giving judgment in the case, to assess, with full knowledge of the matter before it, the relevance of the questions of law raised by the dispute before it and the need for a preliminary ruling so as to enable it to give judgment. 2. Article 48 of the eec treaty does not apply to situations which are wholly internal to a member state, such as that of a national of a member state who has never resided or worked in another member state. Such a person may not rely on article 48 to prevent the application to him of legislation of his own country, denying him access to a particular kind of vocational training. [ Bailii ] Nordbutter (Rec 1984,P 2553) (Judgment) C-187/83 28 Jun 1984 ECJ European Mabananft v Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Rec 1984,P 2497) (Judgment) C-36/83 28 Jun 1984 ECJ European De Compte v Parliament C-141/84 3 Jul 1984 ECJ European Metalgoi v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2585) (Order) C-82/84; [1984] EUECJ C-82/84R 4 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ooms v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2613) (Judgment) C-115/83; [1984] EUECJ C-115/83 5 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Caisse D'Allocations Familiales v Meade C-238/83 5 Jul 1984 ECJ European Caisse D'Allocations Familiales De La Region Parisienne v Mr And Mrs Richard Meade. R-238/83; [1984] EUECJ R-238/83 5 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Societe D'Initiatives and De Cooperation Agricoles v Commission (Judgment) C-114/83 5 Jul 1984 ECJ European Usinor v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2643) (Order) C-62/84; [1984] EUECJ C-62/84R 6 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Campus Oil (Rec 1984,P 2727) (Sv84-633 Fi84-633) (Judgment) C-72/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European Dansk Denkavit (Rec 1984,P 2649) (Sv84-609 Fi84-609) (Judgment) C-42/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European Gaarm v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2789) (Order) C-289/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European Kirk (Rec 1984,P 2689) (Sv84-623 Fi84-623) (Judgment) C-63/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European Regina v Kent Kirk R-63/83; [1984] EUECJ R-63/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sts v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2769) (Judgment) C-126/83; [1984] EUECJ C-126/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Campus Oil Limited And Others v Minister For Industry And Energy And Others. R-72/83; [1984] EUECJ R-72/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Dansk Denkavit Aps v Ministeriet For Skatter Og Afgifter. R-42/83; [1984] EUECJ R-42/83 10 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Regina v Thomas Scott and Sons Bakers Limited And Brian Rimmer. R-133/83; [1984] EUECJ R-133/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 2849) (Judgment) C-130/83; [1984] EUECJ C-130/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European Europa Aid granted by states - commission decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - obligation of the member state concerned (EEC treaty, arts 92 and 93) Where a formal decision has been adopted by the commission declaring aid granted by a state to be incompatible with the common market, the member state concerned is under an obligation to give effect to the decision within the prescribed period, by taking the measures necessary to ensure the formal repeal of the provisions found by the commission to be contrary to the requirements of article 92 of the EEC treaty. [ Bailii ] Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Dimex Nahrungsmittel Im Und Export Gmbh and Co. Kg. R-89/83; [1984] EUECJ R-89/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 2793) (Judgment) C-51/83; [1984] EUECJ C-51/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Regina v Scott (Rec 1984,P 2863) (Judgment) C-133/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Dimex (Rec 1984,P 2815) (Judgment) C-89/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European Commune De Differdange v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2889) (Judgment) C-222/83; [1984] EUECJ C-222/83 11 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Caisse De Compensation Pour Allocations Familiales Du Batiment, De L'Industrie Et Du Commerce Du Hainaut v Salvatore Patteri. R-242/83; [1984] EUECJ R-242/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Angelidis v Commission (Judgment) C-17/83; [1984] EUECJ C-17/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Prodest v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie De Paris C-237/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European Moussis v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3133) (Judgment) C-227/83; [1984] EUECJ C-227/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Les Rapides Savoyards v Directeur Des Douanes and Droits Indirects (Rec 1984,P 3105) (Judgment) C-218/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European Carmela Castelli v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries (Onpts). R-261/83; [1984] EUECJ R-261/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Luxembourg v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2931) (Judgment) C-49/83; [1984] EUECJ C-49/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Patteri (Rec 1984,P 3171) (Sv84-663 Fi84-663) (Judgment) C-242/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European Firma P v Firma K (Rec 1984,P 3033) (Judgment) C-178/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European Busseni v Commission (Rec 1984,P 2951) (Judgment) C-81/83; [1984] EUECJ C-81/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Hydrotherm Geratebau gmbh v Compact del Dott Ing Mario andreoli and c Sas [1984] ECR 2999; C-170/83; R-67/67; [1984] EUECJ R-67/67 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European, Intellectual Property, Commercial Europa In competition law, the term ' undertaking ' must be understood as designating an economic unit for the purposes of the subject-matter of the agreement in question even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal. Regulation nr 67/67 of the commission on the application of article 85 (3) of the treaty to categories of exclusive dealing agreements must be applied even if several legally independent undertakings participate in the agreement as one contracting party provided that those undertakings constitute an economic unit for the purposes of the agreement. In those circumstances competition between the persons participating together, as a single party, in the agreement in question is impossible. Regulation no 67/67 is applicable where the obligations entered into cover not only a defined area of the common market but also countries outside the community. Article 3 (b) (1) of regulation no 67/67 must be interpreted as excluding an agreement from block exemption only if it is clear from the actual terms of the agreement or from the conduct of the parties that they intend to use, or are in fact using, an industrial property right in such a way as to prevent or impede, with the aid of that right, parallel imports into the territory covered by the exclusive dealership. The fact that an agreement does not contain any provision to prevent abuse of an industrial property right is not in itself a sufficient reason for excluding that agreement from the application of regulation no 67/67. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Ordre des avocats au Barreau de Paris v Onno Klopp C-107/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European, Legal Professions Europa In laying down that freedom of establishment shall be attained at the end of the transitional period, article 52 imposes an obligation to attain a precise result the fulfilment of which must be made easier by, but not made dependent on, the implementation of a programme of progressive measures. Consequently the fact that the council has failed to issue the directives provided for by articles 54 and 57 cannot serve to justify failure to meet the obligation. The rule in article 52 of the treaty, according to which the progressive abolition of the restrictions on freedom of establishment applies to restrictions on the setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any member state established in the territory of another member state must be regarded as a specific statement of a general principle, applicable equally to the liberal professions, according to which the right of establishment includes freedom to set up and maintain, subject to observance of the professional rules of conduct, more than one place of work within the community. Even in the absence of any directive coordinating national provisions governing access to and the exercise of the legal profession, article 52 et seq. Of the eec treaty prevent the competent authorities of a member state from denying, on the basis of the national legislation and the rules of professional conduct which are in force in that state, to a national of another member state the right to enter and to exercise the legal profession solely on the ground that he maintains chambers simultaneously in another member state. 1 Citers Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission C-209/83; [1984] EUECJ C-209/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Castelli v Ontps (Rec 1984,P 3199) (Sv84-671 Fi84-671) (Judgment) C-261/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European Les Rapides Savoyards Sarl And Others v Directeur General Des Ddouanes Et Droits Indirects. R-218/83; [1984] EUECJ R-218/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ordre Des Avocats Au Barreau De Paris v Onno Klopp. R-107/83; [1984] EUECJ R-107/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Sarl Prodest v Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie De Paris. R-237/83; [1984] EUECJ R-237/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Firma P v Firma K. R-178/83; [1984] EUECJ R-178/83 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Ulrich Hofmann v Barmer Ersatzkasse C-184/83; R-184/83; [1984] EUECJ R-184/83; [1984] ECR 3047 12 Jul 1984 ECJ European Europa Directive 76/207 is not designed to settle questions concerning the organization of the family, or to alter the division of responsability between parents. By reserving to member states the right to retain or introduce provisions which are intended to protect women in connection with "pregnancy and maternity", directive 76/207 recognizes the legitimacy, in terms of the principle of equal treatment, of protecting a woman's needs in two respects. First, it is legitimate to ensure the protection of a woman's biological condition during pregnancy and thereafter until such time as her physiological and mental functions have returned to normal after childbirth; secondly, it is legitimate to protect the special relationship between a woman and her child over the period which follows pregnancy and childbirth, by preventing that relationship from being disturbed by the multiple burdens which would result from the simultaneous pursuit of employment . Maternity leave granted to a woman on expiry of the statutory protective period falls within the scope of article 2(3) of Directive 76/207, inasmuch as it seeks to protect a woman in connection with the effects of pregnancy and motherhood. That being so, such leave may legitimately be reserved to the mother to the exclusion of any other person, in view of the fact that it is only the mother who may find herself subject to undesirable pressures to return to work prematurely. Directive 76/207 leaves member states with a discretion as to the social measures which they adopt in order to guarantee, within the framework laid down by the directive, the protection of women in connection with pregnancy and maternity and to offset the disadvantages which women, by comparison with men, suffer with regard to the retention of employment. Such measures are closely linked to the general system of social protection in the various member states. The member states therefore enjoy a reasonable margin of discretion as regards both the nature of the protective measures and the detailed arrangements for their implementation. Articles 1, 2 and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that a member state may, after the protective period has expired, grant to mothers a period of maternity leave which the state encourages them to take by the payment of an allowance. The directive does not impose on member states a requirement that they shall, as an alternative, allow such leave to be granted to fathers, even where the parents so decide. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Oryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities C-160/84; [1984] EUECJ C-160/84R 16 Jul 1984 ECJ European, Customs and Excise 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Oryzomyli Kavallas v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3217) (Order) C-160/84 16 Jul 1984 ECJ European Liefting v Academisch Ziekenhuis Bij De Universiteit Van Amsterdam (Rec 1984,P 3225) (Judgment) C-23/83 18 Sep 1984 ECJ European W.G.M. Liefting And Others v Directie Van Het Academisch Ziekenhuis Bij De Universiteit Van Amsterdam And Others. R-23/83; [1984] EUECJ R-23/83 18 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 3249) (Judgment) C-221/83; [1984] EUECJ C-221/83 18 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Heijn (Rec 1984,P 3263) (Judgment) C-94/83 19 Sep 1984 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against Albert Heijn Bv. R-94/83; [1984] EUECJ R-94/83 19 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Konecke v Balm (Rec 1984,P 3291) (Judgment) C-117/83 25 Sep 1984 ECJ European Karl Konecke Gmbh and Co. Kg, Fleischwarenfabrik, v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-117/83; [1984] EUECJ R-117/83 25 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Les Verts v Council (Rec 1984,P 3339) (Order) C-297/83; [1984] EUECJ C-297/83 26 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Les Verts v Commission and Council (Rec 1984,P 3325) (Order) C-216/83; [1984] EUECJ C-216/83 26 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Les Verts v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 3335) (Order) C-296/83; [1984] EUECJ C-296/83 26 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Les Verts v Parliament (Rec 1984,P 3331) (Order) C-295/83; [1984] EUECJ C-295/83 26 Sep 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Culmsee and Others v Esc and Council (Rec 1984,P 3321) (Order) C-175/83 26 Sep 1984 ECJ European Mulligan v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3379) (Judgment) C-235/83; [1984] EUECJ C-235/83 27 Sep 1984 ECJ European Official: Recovery of undue payment. [ Bailii ] Vreeland (Rec 1984,P 3343) (Judgment) C-38/83 27 Sep 1984 ECJ European Bv Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-38/83; [1984] EUECJ R-38/83 27 Sep 1984 ECJ European Cancellation of the advance fixing of export refunds. [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 3403) (Judgment) C-279/83; [1984] EUECJ C-279/83 3 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 3395) (Judgment) C-254/83; [1984] EUECJ C-254/83 3 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Heineken Brouwerijen Bv v Inspecteur Der Vennootschapsbelasting, Amsterdam And Utrecht R-127/83; [1984] EUECJ R-127/83 9 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Heineken (Rec 1984,P 3435) (Judgment) C-91/83 9 Oct 1984 ECJ European Witte v Parliament C-188/83; [1984] EUECJ C-188/83 9 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Caisse Primaire D'Assurance Maladie De Rouen v A. Guyot. R-128/83; [1984] EUECJ R-128/83 11 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Usinor v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3483) (Judgment) C-103/83; [1984] EUECJ C-103/83 11 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Guyot (Rec 1984,P 3507) (Judgment) C-128/83 11 Oct 1984 ECJ European Alpa v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3519) (Judgment) C-151/83; [1984] EUECJ C-151/83 11 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Williams v Court Of Auditors C-257/83; [1984] EUECJ C-257/83 16 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] N M v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3571) (Order) C-83/84; [1984] EUECJ C-83/84 17 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] F B v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3577) (Order) C-135/84; [1984] EUECJ C-135/84 17 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Eurico Srl v Commission Of The European Communities. R-109/83; [1984] EUECJ R-109/83 18 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Oryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities [1984] EUECJ C-160/84R 24 Oct 1984 ECJ European, Customs and Excise 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Oryzomyli Kavallas v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3615) (Order) C-160/84 24 Oct 1984 ECJ European Pizzinato v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3619) (Order) C-241/84; [1984] EUECJ C-241/84R 24 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Rijksuniversiteit Te Groningen (Rec 1984,P 3623) (Judgment) C-185/83 25 Oct 1984 ECJ European Interfacultair Instituut Electronenmicroscopie Der Rijksuniversiteit Te Groningen v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen Te Groningen. R-185/83; [1984] EUECJ R-185/83 25 Oct 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Robert Fearon and Company Limited v Irish Land Commission. R-182/83; [1984] EUECJ R-182/83 6 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Fearon v Irish Land Commission (Rec 1984,P 3677) (Sv84-679 Fi84-679) (Judgment) C-182/83 6 Nov 1984 ECJ European Th. Kohl Kg v Ringelhan and Rennett Sa And Ringelhan Einrichtungs Gmbh. R-177/83; [1984] EUECJ R-177/83 6 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Kohl v Ringelhan (Rec 1984,P 3651) (Judgment) C-177/83 6 Nov 1984 ECJ European Firma A. Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz. R-283/83; [1984] EUECJ R-283/83 13 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Birra Wuhrer v Council and Commission (Rec 1984,P 3693) (Judgment) C-256/80 13 Nov 1984 ECJ European F. A. Salzano v Bundesanstalt Fuer Arbeit Kindergeldkasse. R-191/83; [1984] EUECJ R-191/83 13 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz (Judgment) C-283/83 13 Nov 1984 ECJ European Salzano (Rec 1984,P 3741) (Judgment) C-191/83 13 Nov 1984 ECJ European Intermills v Commission; ECJ 14-Nov-1984 - C-323/82; [1984] EUECJ C-323/82 University Of Hamburg v Hauptzollamt Muenchen-West. R-236/83; [1984] EUECJ R-236/83 15 Nov 1984 ECJ European ECJ 1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 3 of regulation no 1798/75 on the importation free of common customs tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials, considered in conjunction with one another, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that materials can be regarded as components, spare parts or accessories of an installation or a complex unit of equipment for scientific research does not prevent them from being classified as scientific instruments or apparatus, if it is established that they are capable of performing an independent scientific function and if all the requirements of article 3(1) of the regulation are satisfied. 2. The phrase "scientific instruments and apparatus which qualify for duty-free admission" in article 3(2) of regulation no 1798/75 must be interpreted as meaning that components, spare parts and accessories may be imported free of duty provided that they are intended for scientific instruments or apparatus which are, or have been, admitted free of duty. Duty-free admission may not, however, be granted where the components are intended to be incorporated in a scientific installation constructed in the community. [ Bailii ] Claudio Fioravanti v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato. R-99/83; [1984] EUECJ R-99/83 27 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Savma v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3915) (Judgment) C-264/81; [1984] EUECJ C-264/81 27 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Calzaturificio Brennero Sas v Wendel Gmbh Schuhproduktion International. R-258/83; [1984] EUECJ R-258/83 27 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Agricola Commerciale Olio v Commission (Rec 1984,P 3881) (Judgment) C-232/81; [1981] EUECJ C-232/81R; [1984] EUECJ C-232/81 27 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Fioravanti (Rec 1984,P 3939) (Judgment) C-99/83 27 Nov 1984 ECJ European Schuhfabrik Brennero v Wendel Gmbh (Rec 1984,P 3971) (Judgment) C-258/83 27 Nov 1984 ECJ European Weber (Rec 1984,P 4007) (Judgment) C-181/83 29 Nov 1984 ECJ European Suss v Commission (Rec 1984,P 4029) (Judgment) C-265/83; [1984] EUECJ C-265/83 29 Nov 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Biovilac v EEC (Rec 1984,P 4057) (Sv84-701 Fi84-701) (Judgment) C-59/83; [1984] EUECJ C-59/83 6 Dec 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Toyo v Council (Rec 1984,P 4093) (Order) C-240/84 7 Dec 1984 ECJ European Criminal Proceedings Against J. G. Abbink. R-134/83; [1984] EUECJ R-134/83 11 Dec 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Licata v Esc (Rec 1984,P 4119) (Order) C-270/84 11 Dec 1984 ECJ European Abbink (Rec 1984,P 4097) (Judgment) C-134/83 11 Dec 1984 ECJ European Vlachos v Court Of Justice (Rec 1984,P 4149) (Judgment) C-20/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European Eberhard Haug-Adrion v Frankfurter Versicherungs-Ag. R-251/83; [1984] EUECJ R-251/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European ECJ 1. Although it is essential that national courts explain the reasons why they consider that a reply to their questions is necessary for their decision in the main proceedings, and define the legal context of the request for interpretation, where questions are couched in imprecise terms it is for the court to extract from all the information provided by the national court and from the documents concerning the main proceedings the elements of community law that need to be interpreted, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute. 2.The general prohibition of discrimination laid down in article 7 and the implementing rules in articles 48, 59 and 65 are intended to eliminate all measures which, in the fields of free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, treat a national of another member state more severely or place him in a situation less advantageous, from a legal or factual point of view, than that of one of the member state ' s own nationals in the same circumstances. They do not, however, preclude the application in motor-vehicle insurance contracts of tariff conditions based on objective actuarial factors under which no-claims bonuses are not granted in respect of vehicles registered under customs plates. 3.Article 34 of the treaty applies only to 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 special advantage for national products or for the domestic market of the state concerned. National rules do not fall within that category if they merely authorize insurance companies to take into account in their tariff conditions particular circumstances in which vehicles are used which increase or diminish the insurance risk, such as, for example, the use of vehicles registered under customs plates, in respect of which article 34 does not prohibit the refusal of no-claims bonuses. [ Bailii ] Commission v Italy (Rec 1984,P 4249) (Judgment) C-113/83; [1984] EUECJ C-113/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Charles Lux v Court Of Auditors Of The European Communities. C-274/82; [1984] EUECJ C-274/82 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Aristides Vlachos v Court Of Justice Of The European Communities. C-21/83; [1984] EUECJ C-21/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European ECJ 1. While recruitment marks entry into a category or a service of the community institutions, promotion governs the advancement of the career thus begun within the category or service which the candidate has entered. The community institutions are therefore right to treat an official's appointment to a higher career bracket following an internal competition as promotion and in that regard to apply the rules of the staff regulations on promotion properly so called. The official "promoted" through that procedure may not be treated more favourably under the staff regulations than an official who has completed the required minimum period of service. 2. An official eligible for promotion who had to complete a probationary period before being established must, even after completion of the probationary period, complete the minimum period of service required by the staff regulations. [ Bailii ] Fabbro v Commission (Rec 1984,P 4333) (Order) C-269/84 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European Usinor v Commission (Rec 1984,P 4177) (Judgment) C-78/83; [1983] EUECJ C-78/83R; [1984] EUECJ C-78/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Gaarm - Groupement Des Associations Agricoles Pour L'organisation De La Production Et De La Commercialisation Des Pommes De Terre Et Legumes De La Region Malouine And Others v Commission of The European Communities C-289/83; [1984] EUECJ C-289/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa 1. Non-contractual liability - importation at low prices of new potatoes from Greece - failure to act on the part of the commission (EEC treaty, art. 46 and art. 215, second para. Act of accession of the Hellenic Republic, arts 130 (2) and 131; council regulation no 17, art. 3, and council regulation no 26, art. 4) 2. Accession of new member states to the communities - Hellenic Republic -agriculture - safeguard clause - conditions governing its application -appraisal by the commission (act of accession of the Hellenic Republic, art. 130 (2)) [ Bailii ] Charles Lux v Court of Auditors of the European Communities C-129/82 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European, Discrimination, Employment Europa 1. Officials - recruitment - appointment to the starting grade - exception authorized by the staff regulations - application by means of a general decision - discretionary power of the administration - limits - no discretion allowed (staff regulations of officials, arts. 5 (3) and 31 (2) (b)) 2.Measures adopted by the institutions - internal directive - rule of conduct indicating the practice to be followed - legal force as regards the administration (staff regulations of officials, art. 5 (3)) Where an exception, authorized by the staff regulations, to the general rule governing appointments is introduced in the form of a general decision adopted within an institution, the principle that there should be no discrimination between officials in any one category at the time of their recruitment, laid down by the staff regulations, would be deprived of any legal significance if in such a case the appointing authority still had the same discretion as is conferred upon it to lay down exceptions to the aforementioned general rule. The court has held on numerous occasions that the principle of equality of treatment laid down by the staff regulations is of fundamental importance in the law relating to the employment of community officials. Thus, although an internal directive does not have the character of a rule of law which the administration is bound to observe, it nevertheless lays down a rule of conduct indicating the practice to be followed, from which the administration may not depart without giving the reasons which have led it to do so, since otherwise the aforesaid principle would be infringed. Germany v Commission (Rec 1984,P 4341) (Order) C-278/84 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European Sermide Spa v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero and Others C-106/83; R-106/83; [1984] EUECJ R-106/83 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ 1. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - discrimination between producers or consumers - prohibition - scope - measures differentiated according to regions of the community - whether permissible -objective criteria (EEC treaty, arts 7 and 40 (3), second subparagraph) 2. Agriculture - common organization of the markets - sugar - production levy - calculation - consideration of losses resulting from disposal -concept of disposal (regulation (EEC) no 3330/74 of the council, art. 27 (2); regulation (EEC) no 700/73 of the commission, art. 7 (2); commission regulation EEC) no 3358/81, art. 1) Under the principle of non-discrimination between community producers or consumers, which is enshrined in the second subparagraph of article 40 (3) of the EEC treaty and which includes the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in the first paragraph of article 7 of the EEC treaty, comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. It follows that the various elements in the common organization of the markets, such as protective measures, subsidies, aid and so on, may not be differentiated according to region or according to other factors affecting production or consumption except by reference to objective criteria which ensure a proportionate division of the advantages and disadvantages for those concerned without distinction between the territories of the member states. The factors taken into account in the calculation of the sugar production levy for a given marketing year include the losses resulting from disposal of b quota sugar on the world market. Since neither regulation no 3330/74 nor regulation no 700/73 defines the concept of disposal, it was permissible for the commission, when fixing the amount of the levy in regulation no 3358/81, to quantify the volume of exports on the basis of the information derived from export licences, which impose an obligation on the licensees to carry out the operations in question, subject to the provision of security, rather than actual exports, which are difficult to bring into account owing to the practices pursued by the national authorities. [ Bailii ] Hansen v Esc (Rec 1984,P 4317) (Judgment) C-14/84; [1984] EUECJ C-14/84 13 Dec 1984 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Nippon Seiko KK v Council of The European Communities; ECJ 17-Dec-1984 - C-258/84 Regina v Her Majesty's Treasury, Ex parte Smedley; CA 19-Dec-1984 - [1985] 1 QB 657; [1984] EWCA Civ 7
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1980 To: 1984