swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 304 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

2.Social security for migrant workers - Family benefits - Unemployed worker subject to the legislation of a Member State - Members of the family residing in another Member State - Entitlement to benefits provided for by the legislation applicable to the worker - Condition of entitlement to benefits equivalent to a clause requiring children to reside in the Member State providing the benefits - Inapplicable to a worker whose children fulfil an equivalent condition in the Member State in which they reside

(Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council, Art. 74)

1.Benefits intended to help families to meet the cost of supporting their children aged over 16 but under 21 who are unemployed fall within the definition of "family benefits" in Article 1(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71.

2.The purpose of Article 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 is to prevent a Member State from being able to refuse to grant family benefits on account of the fact that a member of the worker' s family resides in a Member State other than that providing the benefits. Such a refusal could deter Community workers from exercising their right to freedom of movement and would therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom. It follows that a condition of entitlement to certain family benefits whereby a worker' s child must be registered as unemployed with the employment office of the Member State providing the benefits, a condition which can be fulfilled only if the child resides within the territory of that State, comes within the scope of Article 74 and must therefore be considered to be fulfilled where the child is registered as unemployed with the employment office of the Member State in which he resides.

(The grounds of this judgment do not differ from those of the judgment ruling on the interpretation of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, delivered on the same date : judgment of 22 February 1990 in Case C-228/88 Bronzino ((1990)) ECR 531.)
Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council Art . 1(u)(i )
[ Bailii ]
 
Turner v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-55,Summ pub ) T-40/89; [1990] EUECJ T-40/89
22 Feb 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Greece v Commission (Rec 1990,p I-561,Summ pub ) (Order) C-385/89
23 Feb 1990
ECJ

European


 
Hecq v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-599) (Judgment) C-116/88; [1990] EUECJ C-116/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Krantz v Ontvanger Der Directe Belastingen (Rec 1990,P I-583) (Judgment) C-69/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Trend-Moden Textilhandel v Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Rec 1990,P I-631) (Judgment) C-117/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Acerbis and Others v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-563) (Judgment) C-320/81; [1990] EUECJ C-320/81
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gb-Inno-Bm v Confederation Du Commerce Luxembourgeois (Rec 1990,P I-667) (Sv90-349 Fi90-349) (Judgment) C-362/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Criminal Proceedings Against Fauque and Others (Rec 1990,P I-649) (Judgment) C-153/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Trend-Moden Textilhandels Gmbh Contre Hauptzollamt Emmerich. R-117/88; [1990] EUECJ R-117/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
H. Krantz Gmbh and Co. v Ontvanger Der Directe Belastingen And Netherlands State. R-69/88; [1990] EUECJ R-69/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ministere Public v Gerard Fauque And Others. R-153/88; [1990] EUECJ R-153/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gb-Inno-Bm v Confederation Du Commerce Luxembourgeois. (Free Movement Of Goods ) R-362/88; [1990] EUECJ R-362/88
7 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Maindiaux and others v ESC (Rec 1990,p II-59) T-28/89; [1990] EUECJ T-28/89
8 Mar 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schwedler v Parliament (Rec 1990,p II-79) T-41/89; [1990] EUECJ T-41/89
8 Mar 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dautremont and others v Parliament T-71/89; [1990] EUECJ T-71/89
13 Mar 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec 1990,p I-691) (Judgment) C-30/89; [1990] EUECJ C-30/89
13 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Costacurta v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-93) T-34/89; [1990] EUECJ T-34/89
13 Mar 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gestetner Holdings v Council and Commission; ECJ 14-Mar-1990 - C-156/87; [1990] EUECJ C-156/87
 
Commission v Italy (Rec 1990,p I-847,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-137/89; [1990] EUECJ C-137/89
14 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Nashua Corporation and Others v Commission and Council; ECJ 14-Mar-1990 - [1990] EUECJ C-133/87
 
Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1990,P I-851) (Judgment) C-339/87; [1990] EUECJ C-339/87
15 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Du Pont De Nemours Italiana Spa v Unita Sanitaria Locale No 2 Di Carrara. (Free Movement Of Goods ) R-21/88; [1990] EUECJ R-21/88
20 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Du Pont De Nemours Italiana v Usl Di Carrara C-21/88
20 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France (Rec 1990,p I-925) (Judgment) C-62/89; [1990] EUECJ C-62/89
20 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgium v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-959) (Sv90-369 Fi90-369) (Judgment) C-142/87; [1987] EUECJ C-142/87R; [1990] EUECJ C-142/87
21 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Ravida v Office national des pensions (Rec 1990,p I-1063) (Judgment) C-85/89; [1990] EUECJ C-85/89
21 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Giovanni Cabras v Institut National D'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite. (Social Security For Migrant Workers) C-199/88; R-199/88; [1990] EUECJ R-199/88
21 Mar 1990
ECJ

European, Benefits
Article 46(3) of Council Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the highest theoretical amount of benefits calculated according to Article 46(2)(a) constitutes the limit on the benefits which may be claimed by a migrant worker under Community legislation, even where that theoretical amount is equal to the full benefit payable under the legislation of a single Member State. On that interpretation, the provisions in question are not incompatible with Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, since Article 46 of Regulation No 1408/71 is applicable only if it allows a migrant worker to be granted benefits at least as high as those payable under the legislation of one State alone.
When a recalculation of benefits pursuant to Article 51(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 leads to a reduction in the benefit paid by the institution of one Member State, without any adjustment to the benefit paid by the institution of another Member State, and the second institution thus holds no pension arrears payable to the recipient of the benefits, Article 112 of Regulation No 574/72 does not oblige the first institution to bear the expense of the benefits overpaid during the period needed for recalculating the benefits.
[ Bailii ]
 
Tither v Commissioners Of Inland Revenue (Rec 1990,P I-1133) (Judgment) C-333/88
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Lampe Muhle v Balm (Rec 1990,P I-1109) (Judgment) C-234/88
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Peter John Krier Tither v Commissioners Of Inland Revenue. R-333/88; [1990] EUECJ R-333/88
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Le Pen and Front National v Puhl and others (Rec 1990,p I-1183) (Judgment) C-201/89; [1990] EUECJ C-201/89
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilhelm-Lampe-Muehle v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. R-234/88; [1990] EUECJ R-234/88
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal proceedings against Houben (Rec 1990,p I-1161) (Judgment) C-83/89; [1990] EUECJ C-83/89
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Triveneta Zuccheri and Others v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-1083) (Judgment) C-347/87; [1990] EUECJ C-347/87
22 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Milk Marketing Board of England And Wales v Cricket St Thomas Estate R-372/88; [1990] EUECJ R-372/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Special rights of Milk Marketing Boards - Purchase of milk produced and marketed "without processing" - Concept - Pasteurized milk - Included (Council Regulation No 804/68, Art . 25(1)(a ), as amended by Regulation No 1421/78 and Regulation No 1422/78; Commission Regulation No 1565/79 )
Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Special rights of Milk Marketing Boards - Producers marketing milk otherwise than by sale to the Board - Requirement to pay contributions and other financial charges imposed by the Board - Permissibility - Conditions - Observance of the principle of proportionality.
[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against Bagli Pennacchiotti (Rec 1990,P I-1323) (Judgment) C-315/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European



 
 Pinto Teixeira v Commission; ECFI 27-Mar-1990 - T-62/89; [1990] EUECJ T-62/89
 
Milk Marketing Board v Cricket St Thomas (Rec 1990,P I-1345) (Judgment) C-372/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Cargill v Commission C-229/88; [1988] EUECJ C-229/88R
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Boots Company Plc v Commissioners Of Customs And Excise. R-126/88; [1990] EUECJ R-126/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Cartorobica v Ministero Delle Finanze Dello Stato (Rec 1990,P I-1269) (Judgment) C-189/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Grifoni v EAEC (Rec 1990,P I-1203) (Judgment) C-308/87; [1990] EUECJ C-308/87; [1994] EUECJ C-308/87
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Boots Company plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise C-126/88; [1990] STC 387
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European, VAT
In the simple case of a voucher which the issuer himself redeems by allowing a discount on a purchase from himself, the voucher is not property but is simply evidence of an obligation to give a discount.
1 Citers


 
Chomel v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-131) T-123/89; [1990] EUECJ T-123/89
27 Mar 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against Angelo Bagli Pennacchiotti. (Acts Of The Institutions ) R-315/88; [1990] EUECJ R-315/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Cartorobica Spa v Ministero Delle Finanze Dello Stato. (Common Commercial Policy ) R-189/88; [1990] EUECJ R-189/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-1229,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-10/88; [1990] EUECJ C-10/88
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Council (Rec 1990,p I-1383) (Judgment) C-9/89; [1990] EUECJ C-9/89
27 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against Zanetti and Others (Rec 1990,P I-1509) (Judgment) C-359/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Malt v Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf (Rec 1990,P I-1481) (Judgment) C-219/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Siegen v Finanzamt Hagen (Rec 1990,P I-1447) (Judgment) C-38/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Criminal Proceedings Against E. Zanetti And Others. (Approximation Of Laws ) R-359/88; [1990] EUECJ R-359/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against G Vessoso And G Zanetti C-206/88; [1990] ECR I -1461; R-206/88; [1990] EUECJ R-206/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ
Sir Gordon Slynn, P
European, Environment
ECJ The concept of waste, within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442 and Article 1 of Directive 78/319, is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization . The concept does not presume that the holder disposing of a substance or an object intends to exclude all economic reutilization of the substance or object by others.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Erich Wittmann Gmbh and Co. Kg v Hauptzollamt Nuernberg-Fuerth. R-344/88; [1990] EUECJ R-344/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Wittmann v Hauptzollamt Nurnberg-Furth (Rec 1990,P I-1505,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-344/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European


 
Malt Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Duesseldorf. R-1224/80; [1990] EUECJ R-1224/80
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Waldrich Siegen Werkzeugmaschinen Gmbh v Finanzamt Hagen. (Tax Provisions ) R-38/88; [1990] EUECJ R-38/88
28 Mar 1990
ECJ

European
ECJ A taxable person may, in proceedings before a national court, rely on Article 4(2)(b ) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, which prohibits Member States from seeking to collect capital duty when a contribution received by the company does not increase its assets. That prohibition is by its very nature precise and unconditional.
The absorption of a company' s losses by a shareholder, pursuant to a profit and loss transfer agreement concluded before those losses are determined does not increase the assets of that company for the purposes of Article 4(2)(b ) of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital.
Directive 69/335
[ Bailii ]
 
Alexandrakis v Commission T-57/89; [1990] EUECJ T-57/89
29 Mar 1990
ECFI

European
Europa The question of admissibility in connection with consistency between the prior complaint through official channels and the application to the Court is a matter of public policy, inasmuch as it relates to the legality of the administrative procedure, which constitutes an essential procedural requirement. The Court is justified in considering the matter of its own motion in particular in view of the very purpose of the administrative procedure, namely to permit an amicable settlement of the differences which have arisen between officials or servants and the administration. The Court must dismiss as inadmissible any submission which was not relied on in the complaint and which was first raised in the course of the written procedure before it, since the official complaint not only contains no reference to that submission but also does not include any argument from which the defendant institution could have inferred that the applicant intended to make the submission at issue. When the appointing authority appoints an official on the basis of the normal recruitment rules under the Staff Regulations, the relevant classification criteria may be applied in the context of Articles 31 and 32 thereof. Where, on the other hand, an official has been appointed pursuant to Regulation No 3018/87 introducing special transitional measures for the recruitment of overseas staff of the European Association for Cooperation as officials of the European Communities, the classification of the person concerned in the appointment decision is lawful in so far as it was determined in accordance with the derogation set out in Article 3 of the regulation, under which the criterion automatically applying relates to the level of salary previously received from the said Association, whose application therefore rules out any reference to the classification criteria under the normal rules.
[ Bailii ]
 
Greece v Council C-62/88; [1990] EUECJ C-62/88
29 Mar 1990
ECJ

European
Europa The need for a complete and consistent review of legality requires the first paragraph of Article 173 to be construed as not depriving the Court of jurisdiction to consider, in proceedings for the annulment of a measure based on a provision of the EEC Treaty, a submission concerning the infringement of a rule of the EAEC or ECSC Treaties. In the context of the organization of the powers of the Community, the choice of the legal basis for a measure, which may influence its content in so far as it determines the procedure to be followed for its adoption, must be based on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Although Article 190 of the Treaty compels a reference to the Commission' s proposal in measures which may be adopted only on a proposal from the Commission, it does not thereby impose the obligation to indicate whether or not the measure in question is in conformity with that proposal. By subjecting the release for free circulation of certain agricultural products originating in non-member countries to compliance with maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination, Regulation No 3955/87 pursues the aim of ensuring that agricultural products and processed agricultural products intended for human consumption and likely to be contaminated are introduced into the Community only according to common arrangements which safeguard the health of consumers, maintain, without having unduly adverse effects on trade between the Community and non-member countries, the unified nature of the market and prevent deflections of trade. It follows that, according to its objective and its content, the regulation seeks to regulate trade between the Community and non-member countries; accordingly it comes within the common commercial policy within the meaning of Article 113 of the EEC Treaty.
[ Bailii ]
 
Emrich v Commission (Rec 1990,p I-1555) (Order) C-371/89; [1990] EUECJ C-371/89
30 Mar 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pfloeschner v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-153) T-135/89; [1990] EUECJ T-135/89
3 Apr 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Greece v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-1559,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-111/88; [1988] EUECJ C-111/88R; [1990] EUECJ C-111/88
4 Apr 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hilti v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-163Pub ext) T-30/89
4 Apr 1990
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Rec 1990,p I-1595,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-6/89; [1990] EUECJ C-6/89
5 Apr 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Office national des pensions v Bianchin (Rec 1990,p I-1619,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-109/89; [1990] EUECJ C-109/89
5 Apr 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Rec 1990,P I-1567) (Judgment) C-132/88; [1990] EUECJ C-132/88
5 Apr 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pian v Office national des pensions (Rec 1990,p I-1599) (Judgment) C-108/89; [1990] EUECJ C-108/89
5 Apr 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gill v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-173) T-43/89; [1990] EUECJ T-43/89
6 Apr 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against Jelle Hakvoort. (Agriculture ) R-348/88; [1990] EUECJ R-348/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Oberhausener Kraftfutterwerk Wilhelm Hopermann Gmbh v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. (Agriculture ) R-357/88; [1990] EUECJ R-357/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
SCARPE v ONIC (Rec 1990,p I-1701) (Judgment) C-27/89; [1990] EUECJ C-27/89
2 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands State v Bakker Hillegom (Rec 1990,p I-1735) (Judgment) C-111/89; [1990] EUECJ C-111/89
2 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against Hakvoort (Rec 1990,P I-1647) (Judgment) C-348/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European


 
Oberhausener Kraftfutterwerk Wilhelm Hopermann Gmbh v Bundesanstalt Fuer Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. (Agriculture ) R-358/88; [1990] EUECJ R-358/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hopermann v Balm (Judgment) C-358/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European


 
Hopermann v Balm (Judgment) C-357/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European


 
Winter-Lutzins v Bestuur Van De Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Rec 1990,P I-1623) (Judgment) C-293/88
2 May 1990
ECJ

European


 
Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v Kits van Heijningen (Rec 1990,p I-1755) (Judgment) C-2/89; [1990] EUECJ C-2/89
3 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Biehl v Administration Des Contributions (Rec 1990,P I-1779) (Sv90-399 Fi90-399) (Judgment) C-175/88
8 May 1990
ECJ

European


 
Klaus Biehl v Administration Des Contributions Du Grand-Duche De Luxembourg. R-175/88; [1990] EUECJ R-175/88
8 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Maclaine Watson v Council and Commission (Order) C-241/87; [1990] EUECJ C-241/87
10 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sens v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-185) T-117/89; [1990] EUECJ T-117/89
10 May 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Office national de l'emploi v Di Conti (Rec 1990,p I-1829) (Judgment) C-163/89; [1990] EUECJ C-163/89
10 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kongress Agentur Hagen Gmbh v Zeehaghe Bv. R-365/88; [1990] EUECJ R-365/88; [1990] ECR 1-1861
15 May 1990
ECJ

European
A Dutch hotel group sued in Holland a German agent who on behalf of his German principal had booked and then cancelled a large number of hotel rooms. When the agent sought to third party his principal under a guarantee, jurisdiction for which was provided by Article 6(2) of the Convention, the plaintiffs objected on the ground that this would complicate the proceedings. The Court was asked whether the Dutch court could “assess the admissibility [i.e. merits] of the application for leave [to bring third party proceedings] in the light of the rules of the national procedural law.” Held: The court concluded that Article 6(2) merely determines which court had jurisdiction and “is not concerned with conditions for admissibility properly so called,” and "It should be noted, however, that the application of national procedural rules may not impair the effectiveness of the Convention. As the Court has held, ... a court may not apply conditions of admissibility laid down by national law which would have the effect of restricting the application of the rules of jurisdiction laid down in the Convention.
Accordingly an application for leave to bring an action on a warranty or guarantee may not be refused expressly or by implication on the ground that the third parties sought to be joined reside or are domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings."
Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and others v Ufficio provinciale imposta sul valore aggiunto di Piacenza C-4/89; [1990] EUECJ C-4/89
15 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kongress Agentur Hagen GmbH v Zeehaghe BV C-365/88
15 May 1990
ECJ

European, Jurisdiction
Europa Where a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State is sued in a court of another Contracting State pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgment in civil and commercial matters, that court also has jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6(2) of the Convention to entertain an action on a warranty or guarantee brought against a person domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings. To enable the entire dispute to be heard by a single court, Article 6(2) simply requires there to be a connecting factor between the main action and the action on a warranty or guarantee, irrespective of the basis on which the court has jurisdiction in the original proceedings. Article 6(2) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national court to accede to the request for leave to bring an action on a warranty or guarantee and that the national court may apply the procedural rules of its national law in order to determine whether that action is admissible, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention in that regard is not impaired and, in particular, that leave to bring the action on the warranty or guarantee is not refused on the ground that the third party resides or is domiciled in a Contracting State other than that of the court seised of the original proceedings.
1 Citers


 
Sonito and others v Commission (Rec 1990,p I-1981) (Judgment) C-87/89; [1990] EUECJ C-87/89
17 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Weingut Dietz-Matti v Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft (Rec 1990,p I-2013) (Judgment) C-158/89; [1990] EUECJ C-158/89
17 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Douglas Harvey Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (1990) ICR 616; C-262/88; [1990] ECR I-1889; [1991] 1 QB 344; R-262/88; [1990] EUECJ R-262/88
17 May 1990
ECJ

European, Employment, Discrimination
Europa The benefits paid by an employer to a worker on the latter's redundancy constitute a form of pay to which the worker is entitled in respect of his employment, which is paid to him upon termination of the employment relationship, which facilitates his adjustment to the new circumstances resulting from the loss of his employment and which provides him with a source of income during the period in which he is seeking new employment. Such benefits paid in connection with a compulsory redundancy consequently fall within the scope of the second paragraph of Article 119 of the Treaty, whether they are paid under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis. Unlike the benefits awarded by national statutory social security schemes, retirement pensions paid under private occupational schemes, which are characterized by the fact of being established either by an agreement between workers and employers or by a unilateral decision taken by the employer - whether financed by the employer alone or by both the employer and the workers - which may by law with the employee' s agreement operate in part as a substitute for the statutory scheme and which apply only to workers employed by certain undertakings, constitute consideration paid by the employer to the worker in respect of his employment and consequently fall within the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty. The fact that a private occupational scheme has been set up in the form of a trust and is administered by trustees who are technically independent of the employer does not affect that interpretation of Article 119 since that provision also applies to consideration received indirectly from the employer. 3. Article 119 of the Treaty prohibits any discrimination with regard to pay as between men and women, whatever the system which gives rise to such inequality. Accordingly, it is contrary to that provision to impose an age condition which differs according to sex for the purposes of entitlement to a pension under a private occupational scheme which operates in part as a substitute for the statutory scheme, even if the difference between the pensionable age for men and that for women is based on the one provided for by the national statutory scheme. 4. With regard to equal pay for men and women, genuine transparency, permitting an effective review by the national court, is assured only if the principle of equal pay must be observed in respect of each of the elements of remuneration granted to men and women, and not on a comprehensive basis in respect of all the consideration granted to men and women. 5. Article 119 of the 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 that provision, without national or Community measures being required to define them with greater precision. The national court before which that provision is relied upon must safeguard the rights which it confers on individuals, in particular where a private occupational pension scheme which operates in part as a substitute for the statutory scheme refuses to pay to a man on redundancy an immediate pension such as would be granted in a similar case to a woman. 6. Since the Member States and the circles concerned may, in the light of Directives 79/7 and 86/378, have misunderstood the precise extent of their obligations with regard to the implementation of the principle of equality between men and women for the purposes of the grant of certain retirement benefits, overriding considerations of legal certainty preclude the direct effect of Article 119 of the Treaty from being relied upon in order to claim, under a private occupational pension scheme which operates as a substitute for the statutory scheme, entitlement to a pension with effect from a date prior to that of the judgment upholding, in proceedings for a preliminary ruling, the applicability of that article to pensions of that type, except in the case of workers or those claiming under them who have before that date initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national law.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Directeur general des douanes and droits indirects v Powerex-Europe (Rec 1990,p I-1959) (Judgment) C-66/89; [1990] EUECJ C-66/89
17 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sparr v Commission T-50/89; [1990] EUECJ T-50/89
22 May 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Blot and Front National v Parliament (Rec 1990,p I-2101) (Order) C-68/90; [1990] EUECJ C-68/90
22 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alimenta v Doux (Rec 1990,P I-2077) (Judgment) C-332/88
22 May 1990
ECJ

European


 
Alimenta Sa v Doux Sa. R-332/88; [1990] EUECJ R-332/88
22 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Parliament v Council (Rec 1990,P I-2041) (Sv90-425 Fi90-425) (Judgment) C-70/88; [1990] EUECJ C-70/88; [1991] EUECJ C-70/88
22 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Criminal proceedings against Van den Burg (Rec 1990,p I-2143) (Judgment) C-169/89; [1990] EUECJ C-169/89
23 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Comos Tank and others v Commission (Rec 1990,p I-2167) (Order) C-51/90; [1990] EUECJ C-51/90
23 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Blot and Front National v Parliament (Rec 1990,p I-2177) (Order) C-68/90
23 May 1990
ECJ

European
Europa 1 By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 March 1990, Mr Y . Blot, a Member of the European Parliament belonging to the Group of the European Right, and the Front national, a non-profit-making association governed by the French Law of 18 July 1901, represented by its chairman Mr Le Pen, sought the annulment, under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, of three measures adopted by the European Parliament concerning, respectively, the calling of a meeting on 16 January 1990 of the European Parliament's Interparliamentary Delegation for relations with Switzerland, the procedure for the appointment of the chairman of that delegation, and the appointment on 16 January 1990 of G. Topmann as chairman of the delegation.
2 By a separate document lodged at the Court Registry on the same date, the applicants also applied, pursuant to Article 185 of the EEC Treaty and Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure, for interim measures suspending the operation of the three contested measures until such time as the Court had given its ruling on the main application.
3 The defendant submitted its written observations on 20 April 1990. The parties presented oral argument on 14 May 1990.
4 However, by an order of 22 May 1990 made pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court dismissed the main application as inadmissible.
5 The application for interim measures is therefore inadmissible and must be dismissed.

 
Commission v Germany (Rec 1990,P I-2107) (Judgment) C-251/88; [1990] EUECJ C-251/88
23 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Asia Motor France v Commission (Rec 1990,p I-2181) (Order) C-72/90; [1990] EUECJ C-72/90
23 May 1990
ECJ

European
Europa Action for failure to act - Natural and legal persons - Failure to act as ground of action - Failure to initiate Treaty infringement proceedings - Inadmissibility
(EEC Treaty, Art 169, second paragraph, and Art . 175, third paragraph)
Action for damages - Subject-matter - Claim for compensation for damage caused by national authorities acting in breach of Community law - Jurisdiction of the national courts
(EEC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215, second paragraph)
Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Application made by a natural or legal person under the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty and concerning the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, together with an application for damages - Referral to the Court of First Instance
(Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3(1)(c) and Art. 3(2); Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 47, as amended)
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Rec 1990,p I-2139,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-31/89; [1990] EUECJ C-31/89
23 May 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Van Sillevoldt Bv And Others v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten. R-159/88; [1990] EUECJ R-159/88
6 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gouvras-Laycock v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-217) T-44/89; [1990] EUECJ T-44/89
6 Jun 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Unifert Handels GmbH, Warendorf v Hauptzollamt Munster; ECJ 6-Jun-1990 - C-11/89; [1990] EUECJ C-11/89
 
Rijksdienst Voor Pensioenen v Spits (Rec 1990,P I-2259) (Judgment) C-342/88
6 Jun 1990
ECJ

European



 
 Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal For England and Wales, Ex Parte Hall and Sons; ECJ 6-Jun-1990 - C-174/88; R-174/88
 
Van Sillevoldt and Others v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten (Rec 1990,P I-2215) (Judgment) C-159/88
6 Jun 1990
ECJ

European


 
Aerpo and Others v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-2189) (Judgment) C-119/88; [1990] EUECJ C-119/88
6 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost v Deutsche Olivetti; ECJ 6-Jun-1990 - C-17/89; [1990] EUECJ C-17/89
 
Germany v Commission C-8/88; [1990] EUECJ C-8/88
12 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Commission v Ireland; ECJ 12-Jun-1990 - C-158/88; [1990] EUECJ C-158/88
 
Commission v Belgium C-162/89; [1990] EUECJ C-162/89
13 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Weiser v Caisse nationale des barreaux francais (Rec 1990,p I-2395) (Judgment) C-37/89; [1990] EUECJ C-37/89
14 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec 1990,p I-2425,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-48/89; [1990] EUECJ C-48/89
14 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec 1990,p I-2429,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-177/89; [1990] EUECJ C-177/89
19 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame; ECJ 19-Jun-1990 - [1990] 2 Lloyds Rep 351; [1990] 3 CMLR 1; C-213/89; [1990] EUECJ C-213/89
 
Marcato v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-231) T-47/89; [1990] EUECJ T-47/89
20 Jun 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Burban v Parliament (Rec 1990,p II-245) T-133/89; [1990] EUECJ T-133/89
20 Jun 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sabbatucci v Parliament (Rec 1990,p II-265,Summ pub ) T-31/89; [1990] EUECJ T-31/89
21 Jun 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sklias v Court of Justice (Rec 1990,p II-269) T-27/89; [1990] EUECJ T-27/89
22 Jun 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Marcopoulos v Court of Justice (Rec 1990,p II-281) T-32/89; [1990] EUECJ T-32/89
22 Jun 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sofrimport v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-2477) (Judgment) C-152/88; [1988] EUECJ C-152/88R; [1990] EUECJ C-152/88; [1992] EUECJ C-152/88
26 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hauptzollamt Giessen v Deutsche Fernsprecher (Rec 1990,p I-2535) (Judgment) C-64/89; [1990] EUECJ C-64/89
26 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Staatssecretaris van Financien v Velker International Oil Company (Rec 1990,p I-2561) (Judgment) C-185/89; [1990] EUECJ C-185/89
26 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Zardi v Consorzio agrario provinciale di Ferrara (Rec 1990,p I-2515) (Judgment) C-8/89; [1990] EUECJ C-8/89
26 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Berkenheide v Hauptzollamt Munster (Rec 1990,p I-2615) (Judgment) C-67/89; [1990] EUECJ C-67/89
27 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Maria Kowalska v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg C-33/89; [1990] ECR I-2591; [1990] EUECJ C-33/89
27 Jun 1990
ECJ

European, Discrimination
Europa Compensation paid to a worker on termination of the employment relationship is a form of deferred pay to which the worker is entitled by reason of his employment but which is paid to him on termination of the employment relationship with a view to enabling him to adjust to the new circumstances arising from such termination. It follows that such compensation falls within the definition of pay for the purposes of Article 119 of the Treaty. Article 119 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of a clause in a collective wage agreement applying to the national public service under which the employers may exclude part-time employees from the payment of a severance grant when in fact a considerably lower percentage of men than of women work part-time, unless the employer shows that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. Where there is indirect discrimination in a clause in a collective wage agreement, the class of persons placed at a disadvantage, whether men or women, must be treated in the same way and made subject to the same scheme, proportionately to the number of hours worked, as other workers, such scheme remaining, for want of correct transposition of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty into national law, the only valid point of reference.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lingenfelser v Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft (Rec 1990,p I-2637) (Judgment) C-118/89; [1990] EUECJ C-118/89
27 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Maizena v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Rec 1990,p I-2587,Summ pub ) (Judgment) C-18/89; [1990] EUECJ C-18/89
27 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Behn Verpackungsbedarf v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe (Rec 1990,p I-2659) (Judgment) C-80/89; [1990] EUECJ C-80/89
28 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec 1990,p I-2715) (Order) C-195/90
28 Jun 1990
ECJ

European


 
Hoche v BALM (Rec 1990,p I-2681) (Judgment) C-174/89; [1990] EUECJ C-174/89
28 Jun 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec 1990,P I-2721,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-288/88; [1990] EUECJ C-288/88
3 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Isabelle Lancray Sa v Peters Und Sickert Kg. (Convention On Jurisdiction And The Enforcement Of Judgments ) C-305/88; R-305/88; [1990] EUECJ R-305/88
3 Jul 1990
ECJ

European
1. The conditions laid down in Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, that a defendant who fails to appear must have been served with the document instituting the proceedings in due form and in sufficient time, must both be met in order for a foreign judgment given against that defendant to be recognized. That provision is therefore to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment given in default of appearance may not be recognized where the document instituting the proceedings was not served on the defendant in due form, even though it was served in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence. 2. Article 27(2) of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that questions concerning the curing of defective service are governed by the law of the State in which judgment was given, including any relevant international agreements.
[ Bailii ]
 
Roermond and Others v Produktschap Voor Vee En Vlees (Rec 1990,P I-2753) (Judgment) C-354/88
4 Jul 1990
ECJ

European


 
Kracht v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Rec 1990,p I-2781) (Judgment) C-117/89; [1990] EUECJ C-117/89
4 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Parliament v Yorck von Wartenburg (Rec 1990,p II-299) T-42/89
4 Jul 1990
ECFI

European


 
Vleeswarenbedrijf Roermond Bv And Others v Produktschap Voor Vee En Vlees. R-354/88; [1990] EUECJ R-354/88
4 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium C-304/88 C-304/88; [1990] EUECJ C-304/88
5 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium C-42/89; [1990] EUECJ C-42/89
5 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Filtrona Espanola v Commission T-125/89; [1990] EUECJ T-125/89
10 Jul 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Greece v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-2845,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-259/87; [1990] EUECJ C-259/87
10 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
TetraPak v Commission T-51/89; [1990] EUECJ T-51/89
10 Jul 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Greece v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-2875,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-335/87; [1990] EUECJ C-335/87
10 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Greece v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-2849,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-334/87; [1990] EUECJ C-334/87
10 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec 1990,P I-2879) (Sv90-447 Fi90-447) (Judgment) C-217/88; [1990] EUECJ C-217/88
10 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Anklagemyndigheden v Hansen and Soen I/S. (Member States ) R-543/69; [1990] EUECJ R-543/69
10 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Criminal Proceedings Against Hansen (Rec 1990,P I-2911) (Sv90-459 Fi90-459) (Judgment) C-326/88
10 Jul 1990
ECJ

European


 
Automec v Commission T-64/89; [1990] EUECJ T-64/89
10 Jul 1990
ECFI

European

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sermes v Directeur Des Services Des Douanes De Strasbourg (Rec 1990,P I-3027) (Judgment) C-323/88
11 Jul 1990
ECJ

European



 
 Quietlynn and Richards v Southend Borough Council; ECJ 11-Jul-1990 - C-23/89; [1990] EUECJ C-23/89
 
Enital v Commission and Council (Rec 1990,P I-2939,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-304/86; [1987] EUECJ C-304/86R; [1987] EUECJ C-304/86; [1990] EUECJ C-304/86
11 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council (Rec 1990,P I-2945) (Judgment) C-305/86; [1990] EUECJ C-305/86
11 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanko France v Commission and Council (Rec 1990,P I-3013,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-320/86; [1990] EUECJ C-320/86
11 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Electroimpex and Others v Council (Rec 1990,P I-3021,Summ Pub ) (Judgment) C-157/87; [1990] EUECJ C-157/87
11 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sa Sermes v Directeur Des Services Des Douanes De Strasbourg. (Common Commercial Policy ) R-323/88; [1990] EUECJ R-323/88
11 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgian State v Philipp Brothers (Rec 1990,p I-3265) (Judgment) C-155/89; [1990] EUECJ C-155/89
12 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Scheiber v Council (Rec 1990,p II-429) T-111/89; [1990] EUECJ T-111/89
12 Jul 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-128/89; [1990] ECR 1-3239; [1990] EUECJ C-128/89
12 Jul 1990
ECJ

European
The Italian Government was held to have infringed Article 30 by closing all inland frontier posts at which imported grape fruit could be inspected and allowing importation only through certain seaports.
EC Teaty 30
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Albani v Commission (Rec 1990,p II-395) T-35/89; [1990] EUECJ T-35/89
12 Jul 1990
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec 1990,P I-3163) (Sv90-469 Fi90-469) (Judgment) C-236/88; [1990] EUECJ C-236/88
12 Jul 1990
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Cdf Chimie and Fertilisants v Commission (Rec 1990,P I-3083) (Judgment) C-169/84
12 Jul 1990
ECJ

European


 
Foster and others v British Gas plc [1991] 2 WLR 258; [1990] 2 CMLR 833; 2 CMLR 833 ECJ; C-188/89; [1990] ECR I-3313; [1990] EUECJ C-188/89; [1990] IRLR 353; [1990] 3 All ER 897; [1991] 1 QB 405; [1991] ICR 84
12 Jul 1990
ECJ
Sir Gordon Slynn, P
European, Utilities, Employment, Company
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. The statutory objective set was the development and maintenance of an efficient, co-ordinated and economical supply of gas for Great Britain. In conjunction with the Secretary of State it was to settle a research programme into matters which affected the supply of gas. Additionally, the Secretary of State had power to require BGC to report to him and comply with any directions he might give. The court asked whether British Gas was part of the State before it was privatised? Held: