

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
		European - From: 1992 To: 1992 This page lists 307 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Â AGREVO; ECFI 1992 - T 0939/92 Â In Re Hartlebury Printers Ltd [1992] ICR 559; [1993] BCLC 902 1992 Morritt J Insolvency, Employment, European Insolvency, at least per se, does not amount to a special circumstance exempting an employer from consulting employees on redundancy. Morritt J noted the distinction in the Directive between contemplated and projected redundancies and section 99 to an employer "proposing to dismiss" and said: "The Union contends that both those sections should be construed to give effect to the Directive so that the duty under section 99 arises when an employer has redundancies in contemplation. That it is the duty of the Court, if possible, to construe United Kingdom legislation so as to comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under an EEC Directive is not in doubt. But that must be achieved, if at all, by proper processes of construction, not so far as the Court is concerned by the equivalent of legislation. Dealing first with the Directive, it seems to me that the word "projected" in Article 3 is used in the sense of "then intended" after the processes of consultation with the Union had been completed." . . Thus the contemplation referred to in Article 2(1) is something less than intention. Nevertheless, the range of mental states included within the word is wide. It would extend from merely "thinking about" to "having in view or expecting". In the latter sense, but not the former, the word would equate with the verb to propose . . Approaching that problem from the wording of section 99 I think it is clear, not least from subsection (5) that the phrase "an employer proposing to dismiss as redundant" cannot include one who is merely thinking about the possibilities of redundancies. Thus I cannot construe the word "proposing" to embrace the full range of the possible meaning of the word "contemplating" but I can construe "contemplating" in a sense equivalent to "proposing". Article 2 (1) of the Directive has not, so far as I know, been construed by the European Court of Justice. Thus I assume, because it is for the Court of Justice and not for me to decide, that section 99 does comply with the United Kingdom's obligations." Employment Protection Act 1975 99 1 Citers Â Â Al-Sabah (Sheikh Mohammed Nasser) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; CA 1992 - [1992] IAR 223; [1992] Imm AR 223 Â Reichart v Dresdner Bank [1992] ECR 1-2149 1992 ECJ European 1 Citers Â Italy v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-1) (Judgment) C-197/90; [1992] EUECJ C-197/90 8 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuhn v Landwirtschaftskammer Weser-Ems (Rec 1992,p I-35) (Judgment) C-177/90; [1992] EUECJ C-177/90 10 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â ISAE and INTERDATA v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-69) (Order) C-130/91 14 Jan 1992 ECJ European Â Commission v France (Rec 1992,p I-75) (Judgment) C-57/90; [1992] EUECJ C-57/90 16 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State v Marichal-Margreve (Rec 1992,p I-101) (Judgment) C-334/90; [1992] EUECJ C-334/90 16 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against X (Rec 1992,p I-131) (Judgment) C-373/90; [1992] EUECJ C-373/90 16 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hochbaum v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-157) (Judgment) C-107/90; [1992] EUECJ C-107/90P 17 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sofrimport v Commission (Rec 1992,P I-153) (Order) C-152/88 17 Jan 1992 ECJ European Â Pressler Weingut-Weingrosskellerei v Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft (Rec 1992,p I-203) (Judgment) C-319/90; [1992] EUECJ C-319/90 21 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Nationale Raad van de Orde der Architecten v Egle (Rec 1992,p I-177) (Judgment) C-310/90; [1992] EUECJ C-310/90 21 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Council (Rec 1992,p I-221) (Judgment) C-301/90; [1992] EUECJ C-301/90 23 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â La Cinq v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1) T-44/90; [1992] EUECJ T-44/90 24 Jan 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-300/90; [1992] EUECJ C-300/90 28 Jan 1992 ECJ European Europa Legislation of a Member State which makes the deductibility of pension and life assurance contributions conditional on those contributions being paid in that State is contrary to Articles 48 and 59 of the Treaty. However, that condition may be justified by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the applicable tax system. That need may exist, for example, where the tax system of a Member State is such that the deductibility of the contributions is offset by the taxation of payments made by insurers pursuant to the contracts, and vice versa, and where it would be impossible to ensure that the deductions were offset by subsequent taxation of payments because payments arising from the deductible contributions were made by a foreign insurer established in another country where there would be no certainty of subjecting them to tax. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Soba v Hauptzollamt Augsburg (Rec 1992,p I-287) (Judgment) C-266/90; [1992] EUECJ C-266/90 28 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Speybrouck v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-33) T-45/90; [1992] EUECJ T-45/90 28 Jan 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Steen v Deutsche Bundespost (Rec 1992,p I-341) (Judgment) C-332/90; [1992] EUECJ C-332/90 28 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Lopez Brea and Hidalgo Palacios (Rec 1992,p I-323) (Judgment) C-330/90; [1992] EUECJ C-330/90 28 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bachmann v Belgian State C-204/90; [1992] EUECJ C-204/90; [1992] ECR I-249 28 Jan 1992 ECJ European Europa Legislation of a Member State which makes the deductibility of sickness and invalidity insurance contributions or pension and life assurance contributions conditional on those contributions being paid in that State is contrary to Articles 48 and 59 of the Treaty. However, that condition may be justified by the need to safeguard the cohesion of the applicable tax system. That need may exist, for example, where the tax system of a Member State is such that the deductibility of the contributions is offset by the taxation of payments made by insurers pursuant to the contracts, and vice versa, and where it would be impossible to ensure that the deductions were offset by subsequent taxation of payments because payments arising from the deductible contributions were made by a foreign insurer established in another country where there would be no certainty of subjecting them to tax. Such legislation is not incompatible with Articles 67 and 106 of the Treaty. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Schonherr v ESC (Rec 1992,p II-63) T-25/90; [1992] EUECJ T-25/90 30 Jan 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-425) (Judgment) C-328/90; [1992] EUECJ C-328/90 30 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sucrest v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen (Rec 1992,p I-441) (Judgment) C-14/91; [1992] EUECJ C-14/91 30 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Finsider and Others v Commission (Rec 1992,P I-359) (Judgment) C-363/88; [1992] EUECJ C-363/88 30 Jan 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-457) (Order) C-272/91 31 Jan 1992 ECJ European Â Rgina v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Smithson C-243/90; [1992] EUECJ C-243/90 4 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â British Aerospace and Rover v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-493) (Judgment) C-294/90; [1992] EUECJ C-294/90 4 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-525) (Order) C-59/91; [1992] EUECJ C-59/91 5 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Castelletti and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-77) T-29/91; [1992] EUECJ T-29/91 6 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-557) (Judgment) C-77/91; [1992] EUECJ C-77/91 6 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1992,p I-531) (Judgment) C-253/90; [1992] EUECJ C-253/90 6 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1992,p I-549) (Judgment) C-75/91; [1992] EUECJ C-75/91 6 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pfloeschner v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-141) T-6/91; [1992] EUECJ T-6/91 12 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Volger v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-121) T-52/90; [1992] EUECJ T-52/90 12 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Netherlands and PTT Nederland v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-565) (Judgment) C-48/90; [1992] EUECJ C-48/90 12 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Leplat v Territoire de la Polynesie francaise (Rec 1992,p I-643) (Judgment) C-260/90; [1992] EUECJ C-260/90 12 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Goldstar v Council (Rec 1992,p I-677) (Judgment) C-105/90; [1992] EUECJ C-105/90 13 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Roquette Freres v Direction generale des impots (Rec 1992,p I-731) (Judgment) C-210/90; [1992] EUECJ C-210/90 13 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-777) (Judgment) C-235/89; [1992] EUECJ C-235/89 18 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v United Kingdom (Rec 1992,p I-829) (Judgment) C-30/90; [1992] EUECJ C-30/90 18 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Weddel v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-871) (Judgment) C-54/90; [1992] EUECJ C-54/90 18 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Di Prinzio v Office national des pensions (Rec 1992,p I-897) (Judgment) C-5/91; [1992] EUECJ C-5/91 18 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Hanning (Rec 1992,p I-949) (Judgment) C-345/90; [1991] EUECJ C-345/90P 20 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gill v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-993) (Order) C-185/90 25 Feb 1992 ECJ European Â Gutshof-Ei v Stadt Buhl (Rec 1992,p I-1003) (Judgment) C-203/90; [1992] EUECJ C-203/90 25 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Schloh v Council (Rec 1992,p II-203) T-11/91; [1992] EUECJ T-11/91 25 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bertelli v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-181) T-42/90; [1992] EUECJ T-42/90 25 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Marcato v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-243) T-64/91; [1992] EUECJ T-64/91 25 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Torre v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-261) T-67/91; [1992] EUECJ T-67/91 25 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Barassi v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-159) T-41/90; [1992] EUECJ T-41/90 25 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Herrmann v CEDEFOP (Rec 1992,p II-233) T-39/91; [1992] EUECJ T-39/91 25 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hacker v Euro-Relais (Rec 1992,p I-1111) (Judgment) C-280/90; [1992] EUECJ C-280/90 26 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Royale Belge v Joris (Rec 1992,p I-1135) (Judgment) C-333/90; [1992] EUECJ C-333/90 26 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Herkenrath and others v Commission T-16/89; [1992] EUECJ T-16/89 26 Feb 1992 ECFI European (Rec 1992,p II-275) [ Bailii ] Â Brazzelli and others v Commission T-17/89; [1992] EUECJ T-17/89 26 Feb 1992 ECFI European (Rec 1992,p II-293) [ Bailii ] Â Bernini v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen (Rec 1992,p I-1071) (Judgment) C-3/90; [1992] EUECJ C-3/90 26 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Raulin v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen (Rec 1992,p I-1027) (Judgment) C-357/89; [1992] EUECJ C-357/89 26 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â BASF and others v Commission T-79/89; [1992] EUECJ T-79/89 27 Feb 1992 ECFI European, Commercial Competition - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Procedure - Competence - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Non-existence of the measure. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1992,p I-1229) (Judgment) C-377/90; [1992] EUECJ C-377/90 27 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bremer Rolandmuhle Erling and others v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1992,p I-1157) (Judgment) C-5/90; [1992] EUECJ C-5/90 27 Feb 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vichy v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-415) T-19/91; [1992] EUECJ T-19/91 27 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Moretti v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-487) T-51/90; [1992] EUECJ T-51/90 28 Feb 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Montedipe v Commission T-14/89; [1992] EUECJ T-14/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European (Rec 1992,p II-1155) [ Bailii ] Â Shell v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-757) (SVXII v II-47 FIXII v II-49) T-11/89; [1992] EUECJ T-11/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Nmb v Commission (Rec 1992,P I-1689) (Judgment) C-188/88; [1992] EUECJ C-188/88 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Huls v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-499) T-9/89; [1992] EUECJ T-9/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Chief Adjudication Officer v Twomey (Rec 1992,p I-1823) (Judgment) C-215/90; [1992] EUECJ C-215/90 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â ICI v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1021) (SVXII v II-183 FIXII v II-175) T-13/89; [1992] EUECJ T-13/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Canon v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1237) (Judgment) C-171/87; [1992] EUECJ C-171/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sanyo Electric v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1535) (Judgment) C-177/87; [1992] EUECJ C-177/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Minolta Camera v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1577) (Judgment) C-178/87; [1992] EUECJ C-178/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sharp Corporation v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1635) (Judgment) C-179/87; [1992] EUECJ C-179/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Lomas and others C-38/90; [1992] EUECJ C-38/90 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European Europa The incomplete state of the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat, which is due in particular to the fact that a support measure, namely the variable slaughter premium, is reserved for producers of a specific region and is liable to improve their competitive position, may call for corrective measures to restore equality between producers in all regions so far as their competitive position is concerned, in particular by charging an amount equivalent to the aforesaid premium ("clawback") upon exportation outside the region concerned of products in respect of which the premium had been granted. The detailed rules for charging the clawback must be such as to ensure that the clawback neutralizes the effect of the premium on departure from the region concerned of the products which benefited from that support measure, without that system working either to the advantage or to the disadvantage of producers in that region. For that reason, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1837/80, as amended by Regulation No 871/84, must be construed as requiring the recovery, upon exportation of the products which benefited from the slaughter premium, of an amount exactly equal to that granted by way of the premium. Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1633/84, adopted by the Commission on an enabling basis in order to ensure its application, permits the charging, by way of the clawback, of an amount based on the rate of the premium fixed for the week during which exportation takes place, whereas the premium actually granted is based on the rate fixed for the week during which the animal was first placed on the market, with the result that in most cases the amount of the premium is not exactly equal to that of the clawback. That is why Article 4(1) is not valid, just as Article 4(2) is invalid in so far as it requires a security to be lodged in order to cover the amount due pursuant to Article 4(1). The invalidity of Article 4(1) and (2) concerns, however, only the detailed rules for calculating the amount of the clawback and does not affect the actual principle of charging the clawback. Accordingly, the Member State concerned is not relieved of the obligation to ensure compliance with such provisions of Regulation No 1633/84 as are valid and are intended to make the charging of the clawback possible; that State is obliged, in particular, to require the production of documents relating to export operations and to impose effective penalties where false statements are made in such documents. 2. If it were possible for the invalidity of Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1633/84 - which relate, under the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat, to the system of charging the clawback - to be relied upon in support of claims concerning the charging of the clawback in respect of periods prior to the date of the judgment establishing such invalidity, it would give rise to significant financial consequences and serious organizational difficulties as a result of the reopening of accounts long since closed and the need for the clawback to be recalculated in respect of the past. In those circumstances, overriding considerations of legal certainty preclude legal situations which have produced all their effects in the past from being called in question. However, it is necessary to derogate from that principle in favour of traders or those entitled through them who have asserted their rights before the date of the judgment by initiating proceedings or by making an equivalent complaint under the applicable national law. [ Bailii ] Â Konishiroku Photo v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1493) (Judgment) C-176/87; [1992] EUECJ C-176/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mita Industrial v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1301) (Judgment) C-172/87; [1992] EUECJ C-172/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ricoh v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1335) (Judgment) C-174/87; [1992] EUECJ C-174/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hoechst v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-629) T-10/89; [1992] EUECJ T-10/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Matsushita v Council (Rec 1992,P I-1409) (Judgment) C-175/87; [1992] EUECJ C-175/87 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Chemie Linz v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1275) T-15/89; [1992] EUECJ T-15/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SIV and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1403) T-68/89; [1992] EUECJ T-68/89 10 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Powell Duffryn v Petereit C-214/89; [1992] EUECJ C-214/89 10 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie commerciale de l'Ouest v Receveur principal des douanes de La Pallice-Port C-78/90; [1992] EUECJ C-78/90; [1992] ECR I-1847 11 Mar 1992 ECJ European A parafiscal charge applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the charge borne by those products, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties prohibited by Article 12 of the EEC Treaty. If, on the other hand, those advantages only partly offset the charge borne by domestic products, the charge in question constitutes discriminatory taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the Treaty, the collection of which is prohibited as regards the proportion of it used to offset the burden of the charge borne by domestic products. Such a parafiscal charge, being governed by Article 12 et seq. or Article 95 of the Treaty, is not governed by Article 30 thereof. A parafiscal charge applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the charge borne by those products, may, depending on how the revenue from it is used, constitute State aid incompatible with the common market if the conditions for the application of Article 92 of the Treaty are met, it being understood that a finding that those conditions are met must be made in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 93 of the Treaty. Article 37 of the Treaty does not prohibit the introduction of a parafiscal charge which is created independently of the rules governing the importation and marketing of petroleum in force in a Member State and is unconnected with the exercise of the exclusive rights provided for by those rules. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal (Rec 1992,p I-1887) (Judgment) C-323/90; [1992] EUECJ C-323/90 11 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Meskens v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1565) T-84/91 12 Mar 1992 ECFI European Â Gavilan v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1555) T-73/91; [1992] EUECJ T-73/91 12 Mar 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1992,p I-1909) (Judgment) C-43/90; [1992] EUECJ C-43/90 13 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vreugdenhil v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-1937) (Judgment) C-282/90; [1992] EUECJ C-282/90 13 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-1971) (Judgment) C-29/90; [1992] EUECJ C-29/90 18 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1992,p I-1989) (Judgment) C-24/91; [1992] EUECJ C-24/91 18 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hierl v Hauptzollamt Regensburg (Rec 1992,p I-2061) (Judgment) C-311/90; [1992] EUECJ C-311/90 19 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Doriguzzi-Zordanin v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben; ECJ 19-Mar-1992 - C-188/90; [1992] EUECJ C-188/90 Â Criminal proceedings against Batista Morais (Rec 1992,p I-2085) (Judgment) C-60/91; [1992] EUECJ C-60/91 19 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Dent (Rec 1992,p I-2009) (Judgment) C-84/90; [1992] EUECJ C-84/90 19 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cimenteries CBR and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1571) T-10/92 23 Mar 1992 ECFI European Â Syndesmos Melon tis Eleftheras Evangelikis Ekklisias v Greek State and others (Rec 1992,p I-2111) (Judgment) C-381/89; [1992] EUECJ C-381/89 24 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Reichert and Kockler v Dresdner Bank C-261/90; [1992] ECR 1-2149; [1992] EUECJ C-261/90 26 Mar 1992 ECJ European, Jurisdiction The case concerned article 16(5) of the Brussels Convention, among other articles. Held: It is necessary to take account of the fact that the essential purpose of the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the place in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is that it is only for the courts of the Member State on whose territory enforcement is sought to apply the rules concerning the action on that territory of the authorities responsible for enforcement. Brussesl Convention 16(5) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â BASF v Commission T-4/89 26 Mar 1992 ECFI European Â Ascasibar Zubizarreta and others v Albani and others (Rec 1992,p II-1599) T-35/89 26 Mar 1992 ECFI European Â Burban v Parliament (Rec 1992,p I-2253) (Judgment) C-255/90; [1992] EUECJ C-255/90P 31 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dansk Denkavit and Poulsen Trading v Skatteministeriet (Rec 1992,p I-2217) (Judgment) C-200/90; [1992] EUECJ C-200/90 31 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-2353) (Judgment) C-362/90; [1992] EUECJ C-362/90 31 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Denmark (Rec 1992,p I-2187) (Judgment) C-52/90; [1992] EUECJ C-52/90 31 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Council v Parliament (Rec 1992,p I-2277) (Judgment) C-284/90; [1992] EUECJ C-284/90 31 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hamlin Electronics v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt C-338/90; [1992] EUECJ C-338/90 31 Mar 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kupka-Floridi v ESC (Rec 1992,p II-1615) T-26/91; [1992] EUECJ T-26/91 1 Apr 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Pitrone v Commission; ECJ 2-Apr-1992 - C-378/90; [1992] EUECJ C-378/90P Â Parliament v Frederiksen (Rec 1992,p I-2399) (Order) C-35/92 3 Apr 1992 ECJ European Â Tancredi v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1645) T-74/91; [1992] EUECJ T-74/91 6 Apr 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-2509) (Judgment) C-45/91; [1992] EUECJ C-45/91 7 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Compagnia Italiana Alcool v Commission; ECJ 7-Apr-1992 - C-358/90; [1990] EUECJ C-358/90R Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-2407) (Judgment) C-61/90; [1992] EUECJ C-61/90 7 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Beirafrio v Servico da Conferencia final da Alfandega do Porto (Rec 1992,p I-2715) (Judgment) C-371/90; [1992] EUECJ C-371/90 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wagner v Fonds d'intervention and de regularisation du marche du sucre (Rec 1992,p I-2765) (Judgment) C-94/91; [1992] EUECJ C-94/91 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Feilhauer (Rec 1992,p I-2613) (Judgment) C-209/90; [1992] EUECJ C-209/90 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mignini v AIMA (Rec 1992,p I-2651) (Judgment) C-256/90; [1992] EUECJ C-256/90 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gray v Adjudication Officer (Rec 1992,p I-2737) (Judgment) C-62/91; [1992] EUECJ C-62/91 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1992,p I-2575) (Judgment) C-62/90; [1992] EUECJ C-62/90 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cato v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-2533) (Judgment) C-55/90; [1992] EUECJ C-55/90 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Costacurta Gelabert v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1655) T-18/91; [1992] EUECJ T-18/91 8 Apr 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bauer v Council national de l'ordre des architectes (Rec 1992,p I-2797) (Judgment) C-166/91; [1992] EUECJ C-166/91 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â F v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-2691) (Judgment) C-346/90; [1992] EUECJ C-346/90P 8 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Opinion 1/92 (Rec 1992,p I-2821) (Opinion) C-1/92; [1992] EUECJ C-1/92 10 Apr 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bollendorf v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1679) T-15/91; [1992] EUECJ T-15/91 10 Apr 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ventura v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1697) T-40/91; [1992] EUECJ T-40/91 10 Apr 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Jong v Staatssecretaris van Financien (Rec 1992,p I-2847) (Judgment) C-20/91; [1992] EUECJ C-20/91 6 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Aguirre Borrell and others (Rec 1992,p I-3003) (Judgment) C-104/91; [1992] EUECJ C-104/91 7 May 1992 ECJ European Europa Articles 52 and 57 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that: - in the absence of a directive on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications relating to the profession of estate agent, the authorities of a Member State, in response to a request for permission to practice that profession from a national of another Member State who holds a diploma or qualification relating to the pursuit of that profession in his State of origin, must assess the extent to which the knowledge and skills certified by the diplomas or professional qualifications obtained by the person concerned in his State of origin correspond to those required by the rules of the host State; - where there is only partial equivalence between the diplomas or qualifications, the authorities of the host State are entitled to require the person concerned to show that he has acquired the knowledge and skills which are lacking by requiring him to pass an examination if necessary; - the decision to deny a national of another Member State recognition or equivalent treatment of the diploma or professional qualification awarded to him by the Member State of which he is a national must be capable of being the subject of judicial proceedings in which its legality under Community law can be reviewed and the person concerned must be able to ascertain the reasons for the decision taken. Subject to the obligation on the part of the authorities of the host State, in the absence of a directive on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications relating to a regulated profession, to examine whether the diploma or professional qualification awarded by another Member State to a Community national is equivalent to the diploma or qualification required by the legislation of the first State, and to the requirement that the examination procedure must fulfil certain conditions with regard, in particular, to the statement of reasons for an adverse decision and the remedies available against such a decision, Articles 52 and 57 of the Treaty do not preclude a Member State from imposing criminal penalties in respect of the pursuit of that regulated profession by a national of another Member State who does not fulfil the conditions laid down by the legislation of the host Member State. [ Bailii ] Â Pesquerias De Bermeo and Naviera Laida v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-2901) (Judgment) C-258/90; [1992] EUECJ C-258/90 7 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Council v Brems (Rec 1992,p I-2973) (Judgment) C-70/91; [1992] EUECJ C-70/91P 7 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Wood and Cowie (Rec 1992,p I-2873) (Judgment) C-251/90; [1992] EUECJ C-251/90 7 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bozzi v Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli avvocati e dei procuratori legali (Rec 1992,p I-2947) (Judgment) C-347/90; [1992] EUECJ C-347/90 7 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission T-24/92; [1992] EUECJ T-24/92R 8 May 1992 ECFI European, Commercial Competition - Procedure for interim relief - Intervention - Confidentiality - Protective measures. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Langnese-Iglo and Scholler Lebensmittel v Commission T-24/92; [1992] EUECJ T-24/92R 8 May 1992 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Where both granting a suspension of operation of a Commission decision prescribing interim measures relating to competition and refusing to grant such suspension would in practice have the effect of depriving the final decision of the Court of First Instance of any effects in so far as such a decision could not in all likelihood be arrived at until a time at which the Commission decision had already produced, or failed to produce, its effects, depending on whether or not the suspension of operation requested is granted, it is necessary to strike a balance between the interests of sound administration of justice, on the one hand, and, on the other, the interests of the parties, including the Commission' s interest in bringing to an end forthwith the infringement of the competition rules contained in the Treaty which it claims to have ascertained. In order to avoid both the creation of an irreversible situation and serious and irreparable damage to one of the parties to the proceedings, a temporary solution, ensuring that the market does not develop in an irreversible manner and requiring the applicant to remove certain barriers to access to the market, must be imposed, without thereby appreciably harming the exclusive distribution system which the applicant has set up over a period of many years. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Edward P. Whitehead v Commission of the European Communities T-34/91; [1992] EUECJ T-34/91 11 May 1992 ECFI European Europa Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations make the admissibility of an action brought by an official conditional on the proper observance of the prior administrative procedure laid down in those articles. If an official wishes the appointing authority to take a decision relating to him, the administrative procedure must be opened by a request from that official to the authority to take the decision which he seeks, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. It is only against a decision rejecting that request, which, in the absence of a reply from the administration, is deemed to have been given after a period of four months, that the person concerned may, within a further period of three months, submit a complaint to the appointing authority in accordance with Article 90(2). On the other hand, where a decision has already been taken by the appointing authority and it adversely affects the official, he must use the complaints procedure provided for in Article 90(2) if he intends to seek the annulment, reversal or withdrawal of the decision which adversely affects him. The rules laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are mandatory and the parties may not waive them. It is thus for the Court of First Instance alone, whatever the position adopted by the parties, to determine whether there is indeed an act adversely affecting the official, which thus constitutes the starting point of the pre-litigation phase provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and, to determine the legal nature of the documents sent by the official to the institution to which he belongs. The classification of a letter as a request or complaint is a matter for the Court alone and is not in the discretion of the parties. Only acts which are capable of directly and immediately affecting an official' s legal situation and his position under the Staff Regulations can be regarded as adversely affecting him. Such an act must emanate from the appointing authority and be in the nature of a decision. A measure, addressed to an official by his immediate superior, and not by the appointing authority, and informing him of his pending reassignment, does not constitute such an act. It is to be regarded as a measure preparatory to the decision to reassign him which, adopted by the appointing authority, constitutes the decision adversely affecting him against which it is for him to submit an administrative complaint under the conditions laid down in Articles 90(2) and 91 of the Staff Regulations. In order for an official' s act to be regarded as a prior administrative complaint for the purposes of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, it is necessary that, even without express reference to that provision, it should show sufficiently clearly the official' s desire to obtain satisfaction on his complaints. That is not the case where an official sends to the administration a request for information and a hearing which, having none of the formal characteristics of a complaint, has not, as required by Article 90(3) of the Staff Regulations, been forwarded through official channels to the appointing authority and is not, by virtue of its content and object, in the nature of a complaint. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-3033) (Judgment) C-327/90; [1992] EUECJ C-327/90 12 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Redmond Stichting v Bartol and others (Judgment) C-29/91; [1992] ECR I-3189; [1992] EUECJ C-29/91 19 May 1992 ECJ European, Employment Europa Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression "legal transfer" covers a situation in which a public authority decides to terminate the subsidy paid to one legal person, as a result of which the activities of that legal person are fully and definitively terminated, and to transfer it to another legal person with a similar aim. The expression "transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business" contained in Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 refers to the case in which the entity in question has retained its identity. In order to ascertain whether or not there has been such a transfer, it is necessary to determine, having regard to all the factual circumstances characterizing the operation in question, whether the functions performed are in fact carried out or resumed by the new legal person with the same or similar activities, it being understood that activities of a special nature which constitute independent functions may, where appropriate, be equated with a business or part of a business within the meaning of the directive. Directive 77/187 1(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1992,p I-3141) (Judgment) C-195/90; [1992] EUECJ C-195/90 19 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Mulder and others v Council and Commission (Rec 1992,p I-3061) (Judgment) C-104/89 19 May 1992 ECJ European Â Greece v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-3225) (Judgment) C-385/89; [1990] EUECJ C-385/89R 20 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ramrath v Ministre de la Justice (Rec 1992,p I-3351) (Judgment) C-106/91; [1992] EUECJ C-106/91 20 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1992,p I-3317) (Judgment) C-290/90; [1992] EUECJ C-290/90 20 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1992,p I-3265) (Judgment) C-190/90; [1992] EUECJ C-190/90 20 May 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Almeida Antunes v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1739) T-54/91; [1992] EUECJ T-54/91 21 May 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Fascilla v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1757) T-55/91; [1992] EUECJ T-55/91 21 May 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Moat v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1771) T-72/91; [1992] EUECJ T-72/91 22 May 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v United Kingdom (Rec 1992,p I-3389) (Order) C-40/92 22 May 1992 ECJ European Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-3401) (Judgment) C-360/89; [1992] EUECJ C-360/89 3 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-3515) (Judgment) C-287/91; [1992] EUECJ C-287/91 3 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Mannheim v Boehringer (Rec 1992,p I-3495) (Judgment) C-318/90; [1992] EUECJ C-318/90 3 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Paletta v Brennet (Rec 1992,p I-3423) (Judgment) C-45/90; [1992] EUECJ C-45/90 3 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parma v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall C-246/90; [1992] EUECJ C-246/90 3 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Infortec v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-3525) (Judgment) C-157/90; [1992] EUECJ C-157/90 4 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Cipeke v Commission; ECJ 4-Jun-1992 - C-189/90; [1992] EUECJ C-189/90 Â Consorgan v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-3557) (Judgment) C-181/90; [1992] EUECJ C-181/90 4 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Debus Pretura circondariale di Pordenone et Pretura circondariale di Vigevano (Rec 1992,p I-3617) (Judgment) C-113/91; C-13/91; [1992] EUECJ C-13/91 4 Jun 1992 ECJ European, Agriculture Europa 1. In view of the uncertainties in the present state of scientific research in the matter of food additives and of the absence of complete harmonization of national legislation, Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty do not preclude national legislation restricting the use of such substances and laying down a maximum limit on the use of a specific additive in certain products. In applying such legislation to imported products containing a quantity of additives exceeding the limit authorized by the legislation of the importing Member State when that quantity is authorized in the Member State of production, the national authorities must, however, having regard to the principle of proportionality on which the last sentence of Article 36 is based, be restricted to that which is actually necessary for the protection of public health. Accordingly, the use of a specific additive which is authorized in one Member State must be authorized as regards products imported from that State where, both in view of the findings of international scientific research, in particular the work of the Community Scientific Committee for Food and the FAO Codex Alimentarius Committee and of the World Health Organization, and in the light of eating habits in the importing Member State, that additive does not represent a danger to public health and fulfils a real need, in particular of a technological nature. That concept has to be assessed in the light of the raw materials used, having regard to the assessment made by the authorities in the Member State of production and the findings of international scientific research. It follows that Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty preclude national legislation which prohibits, generally and absolutely, the marketing of beers imported from another Member State in which they are lawfully marketed if they contain a quantity of sulphur dioxide exceeding 20 mg per litre, where it is agreed that the absorption of sulphur dioxide on account of the consumption of certain such beers does not entail a serious risk of exceeding the limits on the maximum daily dose of sulphur dioxide allowed by the FAO and the WHO, and that the legislation of the importing Member State authorizes the use of sulphur dioxide in much higher proportions in other beverages, one of which is consumed in much higher quantities than beer in the Member State in question. 2. A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means. [ Bailii ] Â Â Wunsche v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas; ECJ 4-Jun-1992 - C-21/91; [1992] EUECJ C-21/91; [1992] ECR I-3647 Â Arbeiterwohlfahrt der Stadt Berlin v Botel (Rec 1992,p I-3589) (Judgment) C-360/90; [1992] EUECJ C-360/90 4 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Finsider v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1789) T-26/90; [1992] EUECJ T-26/90 5 Jun 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Delhaize Freres v Promalvin and others (Rec 1992,p I-3669) (Judgment) C-47/90; [1992] EUECJ C-47/90 9 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Feltz v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-1827) T-81/91; [1992] EUECJ T-81/91 9 Jun 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Lestelle v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-3755) (Judgment) C-30/91; [1992] EUECJ C-30/91P 9 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Simba and others v Ministero delle finanze (Rec 1992,p I-3713) (Judgment) C-228/90; [1992] EUECJ C-228/90 9 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1992,p I-3789) (Judgment) C-96/91; [1992] EUECJ C-96/91 9 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Sanders Adour and Guyomarc'h Orthez v Directeur des services fiscaux des Pyrenees-Atlantiques; ECJ 11-Jun-1992 - C-149/91; [1992] EUECJ C-149/91; [1992] ECR I-3899 Â Office national des pensions v Di Crescenzo and Casagrande (Rec 1992,p I-3851) (Judgment) C-90/91; [1992] EUECJ C-90/91 11 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Extramet Industrie v Council (Rec 1992,p I-3813) (Judgment) C-358/89 11 Jun 1992 ECJ European Â Asia Motor France v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-3935) (Order) C-29/92; [1992] EUECJ C-29/92 12 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-3929) (Order) C-272/91 12 Jun 1992 ECJ European Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1992,p I-3945) (Judgment) C-351/90; [1992] EUECJ C-351/90 16 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Handte v TMCS C-26/91; [1992] EUECJ C-26/91 17 Jun 1992 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Turner v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1855) T-49/91; [1992] EUECJ T-49/91 18 Jun 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â V v Parliament (Rec 1992,p I-3997) (Judgment) C-18/91; [1992] EUECJ C-18/91P 19 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-4023) (Judgment) C-137/91; [1992] EUECJ C-137/91 24 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Federconsorzi v AIMA (Rec 1992,p I-4035) (Judgment) C-88/91; [1992] EUECJ C-88/91 25 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area v British Gas plc C-116/91; [1992] ECR I-4071; [1992] EUECJ C-116/91 25 Jun 1992 ECJ European, Road Traffic Europa The derogation from the requirement to install and use a tachograph in vehicles registered in a Member State which are used for the carriage of passengers or goods by road, laid down for vehicles used in connection with the gas service under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport in conjunction with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, applies solely to vehicles used, at the relevant time, for carriage wholly and exclusively in connection with the production, transport or distribution of gas, or the maintenance of the necessary installations for that purpose. However, that derogation does not apply to vehicles wholly or partly used at the relevant time in connection with the carriage of domestic gas appliances. "In that respect it is apparent from the list in Article 4(6) that the services envisaged by that provision are all general services performed in the public interest." and "The derogation from the requirement to install and use a tachograph . . . applies solely to vehicles used, at the relevant time, for carriage wholly and exclusively in connection with the production, transport or distribution of gas, or the maintenance of the necessary installations for that purpose. However, that derogation does not apply to vehicles wholly or partly used at the relevant time in connection with the carriage of domestic gas appliances." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Ferrer Laderer (Rec 1992,p I-4097) (Judgment) C-147/91; [1992] EUECJ C-147/91 25 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-4145) (Judgment) C-47/91; [1992] EUECJ C-47/91 30 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Arto Hijos v Council (Rec 1992,p II-1907) T-25/91; [1992] EUECJ T-25/91 30 Jun 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-4117) (Judgment) C-312/90; [1992] EUECJ C-312/90 30 Jun 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gomez Gonzalez and others v Council (Rec 1992,p II-1881) T-24/91; [1992] EUECJ T-24/91 30 Jun 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Haneberg v BALM (Rec 1992,p I-4165) (Judgment) C-28/91; [1992] EUECJ C-28/91 1 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dansk Pelsdyravlerforening v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1931) (SVXIII v II-1 FIXIII v II-1) T-61/89; [1992] EUECJ T-61/89 2 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte the Equal Opportunities Commission [1992] ECR I 4297; C-9/91; [1992] EUECJ C-9/91 7 Jul 1992 ECJ European Europa Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as authorizing the determination of a statutory pensionable age which differs according to sex for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and also forms of discrimination which are necessarily linked to that difference. Inequality between men and women with respect to the length of contribution periods required in order to obtain a pension of an identical amount constitutes such discrimination where, having regard to the financial equilibrium of the national pension system in the context of which it appears, it cannot be disassociated from a difference in pensionable age. In view of the advantages allowed to women by national pension systems, in particular as regards statutory pensionable age and length of contribution periods, and the disruptions which would necessarily be caused to the financial equilibrium of those systems if the principle of equality between the sexes were to be applied from one day to the next in respect of those periods, the Community legislature intended to authorize the progressive implementation of that principle by the Member States and that progressive nature could not be ensured if the scope of the derogation authorized by Article 7(1)(a) were to be interpreted restrictively. LMA The pensionable age in the UK was 65 for men and 60 for women.. The EOC sought judicial review of the contributory state pension scheme, claiming that it discriminated against men on the grounds of sex, by requiring them to pay contributions for 44 years and women for 39 years in order to qualify for a full basic pension. Further, men working between the ages of 60 and 64 paid pension contributions whereas women working between those ages did not. The UK Government argued that the differences in treatment could be justified under the derogation in Art.7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council (Rec 1992,p I-4193) (Judgment) C-295/90; [1992] EUECJ C-295/90 7 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department; ECJ 7-Jul-1992 - [1993] Fam Law 294; [1993] 1 FLR 798; [1992] 3 CMLR 358; Times, 31 August 1992; [1992] ECR I-4265; C-370/90; [1992] EUECJ C-370/90; [1992] Imm AR 565; [1992] 3 All ER 798 Â Micheletti and others v Delegacion del Gobierno en Cantabria (Rec 1992,p I-4239) (Judgment) C-369/90; [1992] EUECJ C-369/90 7 Jul 1992 ECJ European Europa The provisions of Community law concerning freedom of establishment preclude a Member State from withholding that freedom from a national of another Member State who at the same time possesses the nationality of a non-member country, on the ground that the legislation of the host State deems him to be a national of the non-member country. Whenever a Member State, having due regard to Community law, has granted its nationality to a person, another Member State may not, by imposing an additional condition for its recognition, restrict the effects of the grant of that nationality with a view to the exercise of a fundamental freedom provided for in the Treaty, particularly since the consequence of allowing such a possibility would be that the class of persons to whom the Community rules on freedom of establishment were applied might vary from one Member State to another. [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State v Taghavi (Rec 1992,p I-4401) (Judgment) C-243/91; [1992] EUECJ C-243/91 8 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-4421) (Judgment) C-270/91; [1992] EUECJ C-270/91 8 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Knoch v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Rec 1992,p I-4341) (Judgment) C-102/91; [1992] EUECJ C-102/91 8 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1992,p I-4431) (Judgment) C-2/90; [1992] EUECJ C-2/90 9 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â 'K' Line Air Service Europe v Eulaerts and Belgian State C-131/91; [1992] EUECJ C-131/91 9 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Maier v Freistaat Bayern (Rec 1992,p I-4483) (Judgment) C-236/90; [1992] EUECJ C-236/90 9 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Publishers Association v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-1995) T-66/89; [1992] EUECJ T-66/89 9 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Barbi v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2127) T-68/91; [1992] EUECJ T-68/91 10 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pasetti Bombardella v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-2111) T-66/91; [1992] EUECJ T-66/91 10 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Benzler v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2095) T-63/91; [1992] EUECJ T-63/91 10 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Eppe v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2061) T-59/91; [1992] EUECJ T-59/91 10 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mergen v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2041) T-53/91; [1992] EUECJ T-53/91 10 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council (Rec 1992,p I-4593) (Judgment) C-65/90; [1992] EUECJ C-65/90 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European Europa 1. An action for annulment brought by the Parliament against an act of the Council or Commission is admissible provided that the action seeks only to safeguard the Parliament' s prerogatives and is founded only on submissions alleging their infringement, since those prerogatives include, in particular, participation in the drafting of legislative measures. 2. Due consultation of the European Parliament in the cases provided for by the Treaty is one of the means enabling the Parliament to participate effectively in the Community' s legislative procedure. That duty of consultation includes the requirement that the Parliament be reconsulted whenever the final text, viewed as a whole, departs substantially from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted, except in cases where the amendments correspond essentially to the wishes expressed by the Parliament itself. 3. A comparison between the Commission' s original proposal for Regulation No 4059/89 and the content of that regulation as adopted by the Council shows that temporary authorization within the framework of a Community quota has been substituted for the principle of freedom of cabotage in Member States for carriers established in another Member State. Those substantive amendments, which do not reflect any wish of the Parliament and which affect the whole scheme, are sufficient to require fresh consultation of the Parliament. The fact that the latter was not consulted a second time in the legislative procedure provided for in Article 75 of the Treaty constitutes an infringement of essential procedural requirements, justifying the annulment of Regulation No 4059/89. [ Bailii ] Â Administration des douanes and droits indirects v Legros and others (Judgment) C-163/90; [1992] EUECJ C-163/90 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-4545) (Judgment) C-95/89; [1992] EUECJ C-95/89 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-4577) (Judgment) C-293/89; [1992] EUECJ C-293/89 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Della Pietra v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2145) T-1/91; [1992] EUECJ T-1/91 16 Jul 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Direccion General de Defensa de la Competencia v Asociacion Espanola de Banca Privada and others (Rec 1992,p I-4785) (Judgment) C-67/91; [1992] EUECJ C-67/91 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Meilicke v ADV-ORGA (Rec 1992,p I-4871) (Judgment) C-83/91; [1992] EUECJ C-83/91 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jackson and Cresswell v Chief Adjudication Officer (Judgment) C-63/91; [1992] EUECJ C-63/91 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European, Benefits, Discrimination Europa Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, which defines the matters covered by the directive, is to be interpreted as not referring to a statutory scheme which, on certain conditions, provides persons with means below a legally defined limit with a special benefit designed to enable them to meet their needs. That interpretation is not affected by the circumstance that the claimant is suffering from one of the risks listed in Article 3 of the directive. Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, under a social security scheme which, on certain conditions, provides persons with means below a legally defined limit with a special benefit designed to enable them to meet their needs, the conditions of entitlement for receipt of the benefits may be such as to affect the ability of a single parent to take up access to vocational training or part-time employment is not sufficient to bring that scheme within its scope. [ Bailii ] Â Hughes v Chief Adjudication Officer (Judgment) C-78/91; [1992] EUECJ C-78/91 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European, Benefits Europa Social security for migrant workers ° Community rules ° Scope ratione materiae ° Benefits covered and benefits excluded ° Criteria for distinguishing ° Benefit intended to meet the claimant' s family expenses and granted on the basis of objective, legally-defined criteria ° Included ° Non-contributory benefit ° No effect (Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 4(1)(h)) 2. Social security for migrant workers ° Family benefits ° Employed person subject to the legislation of one Member State but resident with his family in another Member State ° Derived right of spouse to the family benefits provided for by the legislation to which the worker is subject ° Conditions (Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 73). [ Bailii ] Â SPO and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2161) T-29/92 16 Jul 1992 ECFI European Â Belgian State v Belovo (Rec 1992,p I-4937) (Judgment) C-187/91; [1992] EUECJ C-187/91 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1992,p I-4719) (Judgment) C-344/90; [1992] EUECJ C-344/90 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lourenco Dias v Director da Alfandega do Porto C-343/90; [1992] EUECJ C-343/90 16 Jul 1992 ECJ European Europa 1. In the framework of the procedure for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the courts of the Member States provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, the national court, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts of the case, is in the best position to assess, having regard to the particular features of the case, whether a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment. Consequently, where the questions put by the national court concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. Nevertheless, it is a matter for the Court of Justice, in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction, to examine the conditions in which the case has been referred to it. The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the preliminary-ruling procedure requires the national court to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions. 2. In order to enable the Court of Justice to provide a useful interpretation of Community law under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is appropriate that, before making the reference to the Court, the national court should establish the facts of the case and settle the questions of purely national law. By the same token, it is essential for the national court to explain the reasons why it considers that a reply to its questions is necessary to enable it to give judgment. 3. The fact that certain elements or certain rules for the application of a system of internal taxation are discriminatory and consequently prohibited by Article 95 of the Treaty does not necessarily mean that the whole of the tax system of which those elements or rules form a part has to be considered to be incompatible with that article. In a situation in which, in most Member States, the tax systems are characterized by the extreme diversity with which some products are taxed or qualify for abatements or deductions, the fact that some categories of products may suffer discriminatory treatment cannot have any bearing on the compatibility with Community law of internal taxes charged on other categories of products where those taxes are themselves applied in a non-discriminatory manner. 4. A motor-vehicle tax applied without distinction to vehicles assembled and manufactured in the Member State where it is levied and to both new and used imported vehicles cannot be considered to be a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports prohibited by Article 12 of the Treaty where it forms part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products. It constitutes internal taxation within the meaning of Article 95. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â NBV and NVB v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2181) T-138/89; [1992] EUECJ T-138/89 17 Sep 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Asia Motor France and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2285) T-28/90; [1992] EUECJ T-28/90 18 Sep 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â X v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2195) T-121/89; [1992] EUECJ T-121/89 18 Sep 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Automec SRL v Commission T-24/90; [1992] EUECJ T-24/90; [1992] ECR II-02223 18 Sep 1992 ECFI European, Commercial Europa Among the civil-law consequences which an infringement of the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty may have, only one is expressly provided for in Article 85(2), namely the nullity of the agreement. The other consequences attaching to an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty, such as the obligation to make good the damage caused to a third party or a possible obligation to enter into a contract are to be determined under national law. It is therefore the national courts which, where appropriate, may, in accordance with the rules of national law, order one trader to enter into a contract with another. So far as the Commission is concerned, since freedom of contract must remain the rule, it cannot in principle be considered to have among the powers to issue orders which it has for the purpose of bringing to an end infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty ° the power to order an undertaking to enter into contractual relations, since in general it has appropriate means at its disposal for requiring an undertaking to terminate an infringement. In particular, there cannot be held to be any justification for such a restriction on freedom of contract where there are several ways of bringing an infringement to an end. This is true of infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty arising from the application of a distribution system. Such infringements can also be eliminated by the abandonment or amendment of the distribution system. Consequently, the Commission undoubtedly has the power to find that an infringement exists and to order the undertakings concerned to bring it to an end, but it is not for the Commission to impose upon them its own choice from among all the various potential courses of action which are in conformity with the Treaty. Where a complaint has been submitted to the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, it is not bound either to give a decision on the existence of the alleged infringement unless the subject-matter of the complaint falls within its exclusive purview, as in the case of the withdrawal of an exemption granted under Article 85(3) of the Treaty, or to conduct an investigation. Since the Commission has been entrusted with an extensive and general supervisory and regulatory task in the field of competition, it is consistent with its obligations under Community law for it to apply different degrees of priority to the cases submitted to it. However, on the one hand, the procedural safeguards provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 17 and Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 oblige it to examine carefully the factual and legal particulars brought to its notice by the complainant in order to assess whether they disclose conduct of such a kind as to distort competition in the common market and affect trade between Member States and, on the other, every decision closing the file relating to a complaint must state reasons, so that the Community judicature is able to carry out a review of its legality. The Commission is entitled to refer to the Community interest in order to determine the degree of priority to be applied to a case brought to its notice. In assessing the Community interest, it should take account of the facts of the case in question, and in particular of the legal and factual considerations which have been adduced. In particular, it should balance the significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the common market, the probability of establishing the existence of the infringement and the scope of the investigation required in order to fulfil, under the best possible conditions, its task of ensuring that Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty are complied with. Where the Commission gives as its reason for closing, without taking action, the file on a complaint from an undertaking alleging infringement of the Community competition rules the fact that the complainant can assert his rights before the national courts, the Community court called on to review the legality of the decision closing the file should check whether the extent of the protection which national courts can provide in respect of the complainant' s rights under provisions of the Treaty was properly assessed by the Commission. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Petit v Office national des pensions (Rec 1992,p I-4973) (Judgment) C-153/91; [1992] EUECJ C-153/91 22 Sep 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Landbouwschap v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-5003) (Order) C-295/92; [1992] EUECJ C-295/92 30 Sep 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sebastiani v Parliament (Rec 1992,p I-4997) (Order) C-294/91; [1992] EUECJ C-294/91P 30 Sep 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Grisvard and Kreitz v Assedic (Rec 1992,p I-5009) (Judgment) C-201/91; [1992] EUECJ C-201/91 1 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Moretto v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2321) T-70/91; [1992] EUECJ T-70/91 1 Oct 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Schavoir v Council (Rec 1992,p II-2307) T-7/91; [1992] EUECJ T-7/91 1 Oct 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Van der Tas (Rec 1992,p I-5045) (Judgment) C-143/91; [1992] EUECJ C-143/91 8 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Meskens v Parliament (Rec 1992,p II-2335) T-84/91; [1992] EUECJ T-84/91 8 Oct 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Persio v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2365) T-50/91; [1992] EUECJ T-50/91 9 Oct 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Landbouwschap v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-5069) (Order) C-295/92 12 Oct 1992 ECJ European Â Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5191) (Judgment) C-73/90; [1992] EUECJ C-73/90 13 Oct 1992 ECJ European Eiropa 1. The requirement of relative stability in the allocation among the Member States of the catches available to the Community, in the event of limitation of fishing activities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83, must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. The distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty. The principle of relative stability of fishing activities cannot be interpreted as placing the Council under an obligation to effect a fresh distribution whenever an increase of a particular stock is established, where that stock was already covered by the initial allocation. 2. Article 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal provides that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities before accession are to be binding on the new Member States and are to apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in the Act of Accession itself. With respect to fisheries and, in particular, external resources, the Act of Accession (Article 167 in the case of Spain) provides for a system of integration whereby the Community merely takes over the management of fisheries agreements previously concluded with non-member countries by the new Member States, and provisionally maintains, in their case, the rights and obligations resulting therefrom, pending the adoption by the Council of appropriate decisions concerning the continuation of fishing activities under those agreements. In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the existing Community rules must be applied, in particular the principle of relative stability as laid down by Regulation No 170/83 and interpreted by the Court. However, although the Act of Accession did not affect the existing situation regarding the distribution of external fishery resources, the fact nevertheless remains that, since accession, Spain has been in the same position as those Member States that did not benefit from the initial allocation. It follows that that Member State is entitled to participate in the allocation of any new fishing possibilities that become available under agreements with non-member countries concluded after accession and that, if and when the system is reviewed, it may put forward its claims on the same footing as all the other Member States. The exclusion by Regulations Nos 4051/89 and 4057/89 of Spain from the allocation for 1989 and 1990 of the Community' s catch quotas in Swedish waters does not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 7 of the Treaty since, in view of the fact that the arrangements for the integration of the new Member States into the common fisheries policy laid down by the 1985 Act of Accession imply, in conformity with the existing Community rules, observance of the principle of relative stability in the distribution of resources, Spain' s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States already included in the allocation decided on in 1983. The position would be different if the contested regulations had distributed new fishing possibilities in respect of stocks which were not previously accessible and had been obtained by the Community under agreements concluded with non-member countries after accession and had not therefore been allocated at the time of accession. [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5159) (Judgment) C-70/90; [1992] EUECJ C-70/90 13 Oct 1992 ECJ European Europa 1. The requirement of relative stability in the allocation among the Member States of the catches available to the Community, in the event of limitation of fishing activities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83, must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. The distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty. Europa 2. Article 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal provides that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities before accession are to be binding on the new Member States and are to apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in the Act of Accession itself. With respect to fisheries and, in particular, external resources, the Act of Accession (Article 167 in the case of Spain) provides for a system of integration whereby the Community merely takes over the management of fisheries agreements previously concluded with non-member countries by the new Member States, and provisionally maintains, in their case, the rights and obligations resulting therefrom, pending the adoption by the Council of appropriate decisions concerning the continuation of fishing activities under those agreements. In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the existing Community rules must be applied, in particular the principle of relative stability as laid down by Regulation No 170/83 and interpreted by the Court. However, although the Act of Accession did not affect the existing situation regarding the distribution of external fishery resources, the fact nevertheless remains that, since accession, Spain has been in the same position as those Member States that did not benefit from the initial allocation. It follows that that Member State is entitled to participate in the allocation of any new fishing possibilities that become available under agreements with non-member countries concluded after accession and that, if and when the system is reviewed, it may put forward its claims on the same footing as all the other Member States. Europa 3. The exclusion by Regulation No 4053/89 of Spain from the allocation for 1990 of certain Community catch quotas in the waters of the Faroe Islands does not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 7 of the Treaty since Spain' s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States included in that allocation if account is taken of the provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession concerning the integration of the new Member States in the common fisheries policy. Firstly, the new Member States cannot rely on circumstances antedating accession, in particular their fishing activities during the reference period, in order to call in question the existing Community rules, since the Act of Accession did not change the existing situation regarding the distribution of external resources. Secondly, since their accession, even if accession deprived them of the power to conclude their own agreements and even if they did not receive anything in return for the external resources which they brought into the Community, they have been in the same position as the Member States excluded from the distributions under the principle of relative stability of fishing activities, which was reflected, as far as the agreements concluded before accession are concerned, in the distribution effected in 1983. [ Bailii ] Â Commerz-Credit-Bank v Finanzamt Saarbrucken (Rec 1992,p I-5225) (Judgment) C-50/91; [1992] EUECJ C-50/91 13 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Weber Haus v Finanzamt Freiburg-Land (Rec 1992,p I-5207) (Judgment) C-49/91; [1992] EUECJ C-49/91 13 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Portugal and Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5073) (Judgment) C-63/90; [1992] EUECJ C-63/90 13 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Council (Rec 1992,p I-5175) (Judgment) C-71/90; [1992] EUECJ C-71/90 13 Oct 1992 ECJ European Europa 1. The requirement of relative stability of the allocation among the Member States of the catches available to the Community, in the event of limitation of fishing activities under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 170/83, must be understood as meaning that in that distribution each Member State is to retain a fixed percentage. The distribution formula originally laid down under Article 4(1), on the basis of Article 11, is to continue to apply until an amending regulation is adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty. Europa 2. Article 2 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal provides that, from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities before accession are to be binding on the new Member States and are to apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in the Act of Accession itself. With respect to fisheries and, in particular, external resources, the Act of Accession (Article 167 in the case of Spain) provides for a system of integration whereby the Community merely takes over the management of fisheries agreements previously concluded with non-member countries by the new Member States, and provisionally maintains, in their case, the rights and obligations resulting therefrom, pending the adoption by the Council of appropriate decisions concerning the continuation of fishing activities under those agreements. In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, the existing Community rules must be applied, in particular the principle of relative stability as laid down by Regulation No 170/83 and interpreted by the Court. However, although the Act of Accession did not affect the existing situation regarding the distribution of external fishery resources, the fact nevertheless remains that, since accession, Spain has been in the same position as those Member States that did not benefit from the initial allocation. It follows that that Member State is entitled to participate in the allocation of any new fishing possibilities that become available under agreements with non-member countries concluded after accession and that, if and when the system is reviewed, it may put forward its claims on the same footing as all the other Member States. Europa 3. The exclusion by Regulation No 4049/89 of Spain from the allocation for 1990 of certain Community catch quotas in the waters of the Norwegian exclusive economic zone around Jan Mayen does not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 7 of the Treaty since Spain' s situation is not comparable with that of the Member States included in that allocation if account is taken of the provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession concerning the integration of the new Member States in the common fisheries policy. Firstly, the new Member States cannot rely on circumstances antedating accession, in particular their fishing activities during the reference period, in order to call in question the existing Community rules, since the Act of Accession did not change the existing situation regarding the distribution of external resources. Secondly, since their accession, even if accession deprived them of the power to conclude their own agreements and even if they did not receive anything in return for the external resources which they brought into the Community, they have been in the same position as the Member States excluded from the distributions under the principle of relative stability of fishing activities, which was reflected, as far as the agreements concluded before accession are concerned, in the distribution effected in 1983. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-5245) (Judgment) C-65/91; [1992] EUECJ C-65/91 14 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1992,p I-5269) (Judgment) C-262/91; [1992] EUECJ C-262/91 14 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Tenuta in Bosco v Ministero delle finanze dello Stato (Rec 1992,p I-5279) (Judgment) C-162/91; [1992] EUECJ C-162/91 15 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Council v Parliament and others (Rec 1992,p I-5299) (Judgment) C-295/90 20 Oct 1992 ECJ European Â Maurissen v Court of Auditors (Rec 1992,p II-2377) T-23/91; [1992] EUECJ T-23/91 21 Oct 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â William Dowling v Ireland, Attorney General and Minister for Agriculture and Foods C-85/90; [1992] EUECJ C-85/90 22 Oct 1992 ECJ European Europa The combined provisions of Articles 3(3) and 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89 and subsequently by Regulation No 1639/91, do not provide for any possibility of granting a reference quantity to a producer whose conversion period, in performance of an undertaking given under Regulation No 1078/77, expired before 1 January 1983, even though that producer was prevented by an occupational incapacity from delivering milk between the expiry of his undertaking and the end of 1983, the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned. The rules, thus construed, do not infringe the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, since that principle does not require the grant of a reference quantity to be made available to a producer who did not, on the expiry of his conversion period, resume milk production as a result of an occupational incapacity and consequently did not make any milk deliveries during the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned. Nor can such a producer rely, for the purpose of obtaining a reference quantity, on the quantity of milk that he would have delivered during either of the remaining two years within the period 1981 to 1983 if, during those years, he had not been bound by his undertaking. Those rules likewise do not infringe the prohibition of discrimination, since the difference of treatment suffered by such a producer by virtue of his being unable to prove deliveries during 1981 and 1982 and therefore not being entitled to request that another reference year be taken into account, stems from the fact that the rules in question do not allow account to be taken of a reference year outside the period 1981 to 1983 or of a theoretical quantity calculated on the basis of milk deliveries made during a period prior to 1981. Such an exclusion is objectively justified by the need to limit the number of years which may be taken as reference years, in the interests of both legal certainty and the effectiveness of the additional levy system. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1992,p I-5437) (Judgment) C-74/91; [1992] EUECJ C-74/91 27 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgian State v Suiker Export (Rec 1992,p I-5473) (Judgment) C-284/91; [1992] EUECJ C-284/91 27 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Commission C-240/90; [1992] EUECJ C-240/90 27 Oct 1992 ECJ European Europa 1. In the context of the common agricultural policy the Community has power under Article 40(3) of the Treaty to provide for penalties such as exclusions from the scheme of subsidies established by Article 6(6) of Regulation No 3007/84 and by Article 13(3)(c) of Regulation No 3813/89. In fact, exclusions which do not differ in kind from other penalties such as surcharges on amounts wrongly received and having to be repaid, provided for in the agricultural legislation, are necessary in order to combat irregularities committed in the context of agricultural aid which, because they weigh heavily on the Community budget, are likely to compromise Community action in the agricultural sector. 2. In the context of the common agricultural policy the Commission has power to provide for penalties such as exclusions from the scheme of subsidies and surcharges on amounts wrongly received and having to be repaid, provided for by Article 6(6) of Regulation No 3007/84 and Article 13(3)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 3813/89. Those penalties in fact come within the implementing powers which the Council may delegate to the Commission under Articles 145 and 155 of the Treaty. Articles 145 and 155 establish a distinction between rules which, since they are essential to the subject-matter envisaged, must be reserved to the Council' s power, and those which, being merely of an implementing nature, may be delegated to the Commission. In the agricultural sector only provisions intended to give concrete shape to the fundamental guidelines of Community policy may be classified as essential. That is not true of penalties, such as a surcharge on the reimbursement, with interest of a subsidy paid, or exclusion for a certain period of a trader from the subsidies scheme, which are intended to underpin the policy options chosen by ensuring the proper financial management of the Community funds designated for their attainment. Europa 3. In order to delegate to the Commission the power to provide for penalties in the sector of the common agricultural policy a delegation of power couched in general terms is sufficient. In fact once the Council has laid down in a basic regulation the essential rules governing the matter in question, it may delegate to the Commission a general implementing power without having to specify the essential components of the delegated powers. That principle is not affected by Council Decision 87/373 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. As a measure of secondary law it cannot add to the rules of the Treaty, which do not require the Council to specify the essential components of the implementing powers delegated to the Commission. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Generics and Harris Pharmaceuticals v Smith Kline and French Laboratories; ECJ 27-Oct-1992 - Times, 08 December 1992; [1992] ECR I-5335; C-191/90; [1992] EUECJ C-191/90 Â Criminal proceedings against Ter Voort (Rec 1992,p I-5485) (Judgment) C-219/91; [1992] EUECJ C-219/91 28 Oct 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â DSM v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2399) T-8/89 4 Nov 1992 ECFI European Â Montedipe v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2409) T-14/89 4 Nov 1992 ECFI European Â Exportur v LOR and Confiserie du Tech (Rec 1992,p I-5529) (Judgment) C-3/91; [1992] EUECJ C-3/91 10 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hansa Fleisch v Landrat des Kreises Schleswig-Flensburg (Rec 1992,p I-5567) (Judgment) C-156/91; [1992] EUECJ C-156/91 10 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1992,p I-5517) (Judgment) C-326/90; [1992] EUECJ C-326/90 10 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Teulie v Cave cooperative 'les Vignerons de Puissalicon' (Rec 1992,p I-5599) (Judgment) C-251/91; [1992] EUECJ C-251/91 11 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Minalmet v Brandeis (Rec 1992,p I-5661) (Judgment) C-123/91; [1992] EUECJ C-123/91 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â CNTA v Ministere de l'Agriculture (Rec 1992,p I-5681) (Judgment) C-127/91; [1992] EUECJ C-127/91 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ann Watson Rask and Christensen v ISS Kantineservice A/S C-209/91; [1992] EUECJ C-209/91; [1992] ECR I-5755 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European, Employment Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the directive may apply in a situation in which one businessman, by a contract, assigns to another businessman responsibility for running a facility for staff, which was formerly managed directly, in return for a fee and various advantages, details of which are laid down by the agreement between them. Article 3 of Directive 77/187 is to be interpreted as meaning that that upon a transfer the terms and conditions of the contract of employment or employment relationship relating to wages, in particular those relating to the date of payment and the composition of wages, cannot be altered even if the total amount of the wages remains the same. The directive does not, however, preclude an alteration of the employment relationship with the new employer in so far as the applicable national law allows such an alteration to be made in situations other than the transfer of an undertaking. Furthermore, the transferee is also bound to continue to observe the terms and conditions of employment agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under that agreement, until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement or the entry into force or application of another collective agreement. Directive 77/187 1(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Fournier v Van Werven and others (Rec 1992,p I-5621) (Judgment) C-73/89; [1992] EUECJ C-73/89 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kerafina-Keramische v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-5699) (Judgment) C-134/91; [1992] EUECJ C-134/91 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Van Ginkel Waddinxveen v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting (Rec 1992,p I-5723) (Judgment) C-163/91; [1992] EUECJ C-163/91 12 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1992,p I-5933) (Judgment) C-236/91; [1992] EUECJ C-236/91 17 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spain and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-5833) (Judgment) C-271/90; [1992] EUECJ C-271/90 17 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1992,p I-5917) (Judgment) C-235/91; [1992] EUECJ C-235/91 17 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1992,p I-5871) (Judgment) C-105/91; [1992] EUECJ C-105/91 17 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v United Kingdom (Rec 1992,p I-5785) (Judgment) C-279/89; [1992] EUECJ C-279/89 17 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1992,p I-5899) (Judgment) C-157/91; [1992] EUECJ C-157/91 17 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rendo and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2417) T-16/91; [1992] EUECJ T-16/91 18 Nov 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Campogrande v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2459) T-80/91; [1992] EUECJ T-80/91 19 Nov 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Molenbroek v Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Rec 1992,p I-5943) (Judgment) C-226/91; [1992] EUECJ C-226/91 19 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Anklagemindigheden v Poulsen and Diva Navigation (Rec 1992,p I-6019) (Judgment) C-286/90; [1992] EUECJ C-286/90 24 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Buckl and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-6061) (Judgment) C-15/91; [1992] EUECJ C-15/91 24 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1992,p I-5973) (Judgment) C-237/90; [1992] EUECJ C-237/90 24 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v United Kingdom (Rec 1992,p I-6103) (Judgment) C-337/89; [1992] EUECJ C-337/89 25 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1992,p I-6153) (Judgment) C-376/90; [1992] EUECJ C-376/90 25 Nov 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â S F E I and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2479) T-36/92; [1992] EUECJ T-36/92 30 Nov 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SGEEM and Etroy v EIB (Rec 1992,p I-6211) (Judgment) C-370/89; [1992] EUECJ C-370/89 2 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1992,p I-6185) (Judgment) C-280/89; [1992] EUECJ C-280/89 2 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Suffritti and others v INPS (Rec 1992,p I-6337) (Judgment) C-140/91; [1992] EUECJ C-140/91 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Moat v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-6379) (Order) C-32/92; [1992] EUECJ C-32/92P 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â TAO/AFI v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-6373) (Order) C-322/91; [1992] EUECJ C-322/91 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Prefetto di Ravenna v Contarini (Rec 1992,p I-6359) (Judgment) C-283/91; [1992] EUECJ C-283/91 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wehrs v Hauptzollamt Luneburg (Rec 1992,p I-6285) (Judgment) C-264/90; [1992] EUECJ C-264/90 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Oleificio Borelli v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-6313) (Judgment) C-97/91; [1992] EUECJ C-97/91 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â O'Brien v Ireland and others (Judgment) C-86/90; [1992] EUECJ C-86/90 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â TAO/AFI v Commission (Rec 1992,p I-6387) (Order) C-44/92; [1992] EUECJ C-44/92 3 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â McMenamin v Adjudication Officer (Rec 1992,p I-6393) (Judgment) C-119/91; [1992] EUECJ C-119/91 9 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Annuss v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1992,p I-6433) (Judgment) C-231/91; [1992] EUECJ C-231/91 10 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Williams v Court of Auditors of the European Communities T-33/91; [1992] EUECJ T-33/91 10 Dec 1992 ECFI European, Administrative ECJ 1. The action before the Court, even if formally directed against the rejection of the official' s complaint, has the effect of bringing before the Court the decision adversely affecting the applicant against which the complaint was submitted. 2. The fact that in the staff reports, under the heading "Knowledge required for post occupied", two officials occupying comparable posts receive identical assessments even though only one of them has specific training corresponding to the duties performed does not, in the absence of other factors, constitute proof of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The evaluation of the knowledge required for the post occupied calls for a specific assessment, taking account of all the actual knowledge of the official concerned, in particular his specific knowledge corresponding to the post which he occupies, not an abstract assessment of the level of his training, purely in terms of his qualifications and diplomas. 3. It is not for the Court to determine whether the assessment made by the administration in the context of a staff report of the occupational ability of an official is well founded when it involves complex value judgments which, by their very nature, are not capable of objective proof. However, the Court is required to carry out a review concerning any irregularities of form or procedure, manifest errors of fact vitiating the assessments made by the administration and any misuse of power. 4. The freedom of trade union activity recognized under Article 24a of the Staff Regulations means not only that officials have the right without hindrance to form associations of their choosing, but also that those associations are free to do anything lawful to protect the interests of their members as employees, in particular by means of bringing court proceedings. Furthermore, the Community institutions, and the bodies treated as such for the application of the Staff Regulations of Officials by virtue of Article 1 thereof, must refrain from doing anything which might impede the freedom of trade union activity recognized by Article 24a of the said regulations. 5. Where an internal directive of an institution concerning the reports procedure, such as a guide to staff reports, provides that the official assessed must be put in a position to state his point of view regarding all the information on the basis of which the appeal assessor adopts his final decision, a reports procedure in which that rule has been disregarded is irregular and the staff report subsequently adopted must be annulled. [ Bailii ] Â Lenz and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2523) T-47/92; [1992] EUECJ T-47/92 14 Dec 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Scaramuzza v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2557) T-75/91; [1992] EUECJ T-75/91 15 Dec 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â CCE Grandes Sources and others v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2579) T-96/92 15 Dec 1992 ECFI European Â Auzat v Commission (Rec 1992,p II-2535) T-47/91; [1992] EUECJ T-47/91 15 Dec 1992 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Reading Borough Council v Payless DIY Ltd, Wickes Building Supplies Ltd, Great Mills (South) Ltd, Homebase Ltd, B and Q plc [1992] ECR I-6493; [1992] EUECJ C-304/90 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Commercial ECJ Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition which it lays down does not apply to national legislation prohibiting retailers from opening their premises on Sundays. Any measure which is capable of directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, hindering intra-Community trade constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction, prohibited between Member States by Article 30 of the Treaty. That definition covers obstacles to the free movement of goods which, in the absence of harmonization of legislation, are the consequence of applying to goods coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, rules that lay down requirements to be met by such goods (such as those relating to designation, form, size, weight, composition, presentation, labelling, packaging). This is so even if those rules apply without distinction to all products unless their application can be justified by a public-interest objective taking precedence over the free movement of goods. By contrast, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder trade between Member States, within the meaning of that definition, so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the requirements laid down by that State is not by nature such as to prevent their access to the market or to impede access any more than it impedes the access of domestic products. Such rules therefore fall outside of Article 30 of the Treaty. It follows that Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State imposing a general prohibition on resale at a loss. EEC Treaty Art 30 [ Bailii ] Â Lornoy and others v Belgian State (Rec 1992,p I-6523) (Judgment) C-17/91; [1992] EUECJ C-17/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kazim Kus v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden C-237/91; [1992] EUECJ C-237/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Immigration, Employment 1. The third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker does not fulfil the requirement, laid down in that provision, of having been engaged in legal employment for at least four years, where he was employed on the basis of a right of residence conferred on him only by the operation of national legislation permitting residence in the host country pending completion of the procedure for the grant of a residence permit, even though his right of residence has been upheld by a judgment of a court at first instance against which an appeal is pending. 2. The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish national who obtained a permit to reside on the territory of a Member State in order to marry there a national of that Member State and has worked there for more than one year for the same employer under a valid work permit is entitled under that provision to renewal of his work permit even if at the time of determination of his application his marriage has been dissolved. 3. A Turkish worker who fulfils the requirements of the first or third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of Association may rely directly on those provisions in order to obtain the renewal not only of his work permit but also of his residence permit, since the right of residence is indispensable to access to and engagement in paid employment. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the consideration that, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Decision No 1/80, the procedures for applying paragraph (1) are to be established under national rules. Article 6(3) merely clarifies the obligation incumbent on Member States to take such administrative measures as may be necessary for the implementation of that provision, without empowering them to make conditional or restrict the application of the precise and unconditional right which it grants to Turkish workers. [ Bailii ] Â Katsikas and others v Konstantinidis and others C-132/91; [1992] EUECJ C-132/91; [1992] ECR I - 6577; [1993] IRLR 179; C-138/91; C-139/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Employment ECJ Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings is to be interpreted as not precluding an employee of the transferor on the date of the transfer of the undertaking, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the directive, from objecting to the transfer of his contract of employment or employment relationship to the transferee. The directive does not, however, require Member States to provide that, in the event of the employee deciding of his own accord not to continue with the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferee, the contract or relationship should be maintained with the transferor. Neither does the directive preclude this. In such a case, it is for the Member States to determine what the fate of the contract of employment or employment relationship with the transferor should be. The expression "laws, regulations or administrative provisions" within the meaning of Article 7 of Council Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings must be understood as meaning the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State as they are interpreted by the courts of that State. The claimant employees objected to becoming employees of the transferee, an attitude which the transferor (who then dismissed them) argued was not open to them in the light of the Directive. Held: The Directive did not have the purpose or effect of compulsorily transferring an employee's employment contract or relationship against his or her will, but that, in such a case, it was for the law of the relevant Member State to determine whether the contract or relationship was to be regarded as terminated by the transferor or transferee or to be maintained with the transferor. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Rochdale Borough Council v Stewart John Anders (Judgment) C-306/88; R-306/88; [1992] EUECJ R-306/88 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Commercial Europa Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition which it lays down does not apply to national legislation prohibiting retailers from opening their premises on Sundays. [ Bailii ] Â Koua Poirrez v Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Seine-Saint-Denis [1992] ECR I-6685; [1992] EUECJ C-206/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Articles 7 and 48(2) of the Treaty and the regulations adopted to implement those provisions are applicable only in situations which come within a field to which Community law applies, in this case that of freedom of movement for workers, and therefore cannot be applied to situations all the elements of which are purely internal to a single Member State. For that reason a member of the family of a worker who is a national of a Member State cannot rely on Community law in order to claim one of the social security advantages granted to migrant workers and members of their families, when the worker of whose family he is a member has never exercised the right to freedom of movement within the Community. [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Claeys [1992] ECR I-6559; C-114/91; [1992] EUECJ C-114/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Commercial ECJ (Judgment) 1. A compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge, applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the burden borne by those products, constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties prohibited by Article 12 of the Treaty. If those advantages only partly offset the burden borne by domestic products, such a charge constitutes discriminatory taxation within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty, the collection of which is prohibited as regards the proportion used to offset the burden borne by domestic products. 2. Articles 12, 13 and 95 of the Treaty have direct effect and create rights for individuals which the national courts must protect. 3. A compulsory contribution constituting a parafiscal charge, applied under the same conditions as regards its collection to both domestic and imported products, the revenue from which is used for the benefit of domestic products only, so that the advantages accruing from it wholly offset the burden borne by those products, may, depending on how the revenue from it is used, constitute State aid incompatible with the common market if the conditions for the application of Article 92 of the Treaty are met, that being a matter for the Commission to determine in accordance with the procedure laid down for that purpose in Article 93 of the Treaty. In that respect, regard must be had to the jurisdiction of the national courts where, in introducing that charge, the Member State concerned failed to comply with its obligations under Article 93(3) of the Treaty, and where a Commission decision under Article 93(2) of the Treaty has found the levying of the charge as a method of financing State aid to be incompatible with the common market. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-211/91 [1992] ECR I-6757; [1992] EUECJ C-211/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Media ECJ (Judgment) 1. By prohibiting cable television companies from broadcasting on their networks programmes from radio or television broadcasting stations in other Member States, where the programmes are not transmitted in the language or one of the languages of the Member State in which the station is established, a Member State is in breach of its obligations under Article 59 of the Treaty. Such a restriction, which is discriminatory in that it is not applicable to services without distinction as regards their origin, cannot be brought within any of the grounds for exemption from the freedom to provide services permitted by Community law, that is to say those laid down in Article 56 of the Treaty. 2. While it is true that a Member State cannot be denied the right to take measures to prevent a provider of services whose activity is entirely or principally directed towards its territory from exercising the freedom guaranteed by Article 59 of the Treaty for the purpose of avoiding the professional rules of conduct which would be applicable to him if he were established within that State, it does not follow that it is permissible for a Member State to prohibit altogether the provision of certain services by operators established in other Member States. [ Bailii ] Â Â Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic v Greece; ECJ 16-Dec-1992 - C-210/91; [1992] EUECJ C-210/91 Â Beaulande v Directeur des services fiscaux de Nantes C-208/91; [1992] EUECJ C-208/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, VAT ECJ Judgment - Although Article 33 of the Sixth Directive prohibits the maintenance or introduction of taxes which have the essential characteristics of VAT, with a view to preventing the introduction of taxes, duties and charges which, through being levied on the movement of goods and services in a way comparable to VAT, would jeopardize the functioning of the common system of VAT, it does not preclude the maintenance or introduction of other kinds of taxes, duties or charges, and in particular stamp duties, which do not have those characteristics. It follows that the aforesaid provision must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the introduction or maintenance of a national tax such as French stamp duty charged on the acquisition of building land in the event of a breach of the undertaking to build within the time-limit set by the relevant legislation. That duty is not a general tax; it is not applied at the different stages of a production and distribution process since it is charged only when the real estate passes into the ownership of the final consumer; it is not deductible from duty of the same kind paid on subsequent conveyances and the levying of the duty does not take account of the added value but is based on the full value of the property. [ Bailii ] Â Demoor and others v Belgian State (Rec 1992,p I-6613) (Judgment) C-144/91; [1992] EUECJ C-144/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Council of the City of Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich City Council v B and Q Plc (Rec 1992,p I-6635) (Judgment) [1992] EUECJ C-169/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Commercial ECJ Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition which it lays down does not apply to national legislation prohibiting retailers from opening their premises on Sundays. Such legislation, which is not intended to regulate the flow of goods and affects the sale of both domestic and imported products, pursues an aim which is justified under Community law; it reflects certain choices relating to particular national or regional socio-cultural characteristics and it is for the Member States to make those choices in compliance with the requirements of Community law, in particular the principle of proportionality. As far as that principle is concerned, the restrictive effects on Community trade which might result from such rules would not appear to be excessive in relation to the aim pursued. EEC Treaty 30 [ Bailii ] Â Krohn v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1992] ECR I-6661; [1992] EUECJ C-194/91 16 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Customs and Excise ECJ The last sentence of Article 1 of Regulation No 482/74 on the classification of goods under subheading No 23.04 B of the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that the products resulting from the extraction of maize oil fall under that subheading even when they contain, in addition to the residues resulting from the extraction of oil from the actual maize germs, other substances deriving in particular from the whole of the maize plant, other cereals or soya, in so far as those substances extraneous to maize grain are present in very small quantities and it is established that it is technically impossible to avoid their presence under normal conditions of production, processing, transport, transshipment and storage, save by incurring cost disproportionate to the commercial value of the derived products in question. Since the Community legislature has not set a maximum permitted level for matter extraneous to maize grains, it is for the national court, in resolving the case before it, to fix the permissible level of such matter. [ Bailii ] Â Knufer and Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland v Buchmann [1992] ECR I-6895; [1992] EUECJ C-79/91 17 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ (Judgment) The expression "areas used for milk production" in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1371/84 and in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1546/88, which in the context of the scheme imposing a levy on milk relate to the transfer of reference quantities exempt from the levy when one or more parts of a holding are transferred, must be interpreted as also comprising the yard, buildings and road areas of the holding, provided that they contribute directly or indirectly to the milk production of the holding. [ Bailii ] Â Holtbecker v Commission T-20/91; [1992] EUECJ T-20/91 17 Dec 1992 ECFI European ECJ 1. Both Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities take as their starting point the idea that, as far as possible, an official' s spouse who is in gainful employment must seek reimbursement of his or her medical expenses under the sickness insurance scheme which covers him or her, by virtue of his or her own employment, against the risks of sickness, since only supplementary cover is provided under the Community scheme. Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules makes the spouse' s supplementary cover under the joint scheme, where he or she is gainfully employed, subject to the condition that, by the very fact of the occupation in question, compulsory insurance against the same risks is also provided by virtue of other legal provisions or regulations. On the contrary, Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules must be interpreted as referring to both the case where the spouse' s occupation gives rise in itself, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, to an obligation to insure against sickness and also the case where the occupation only makes it possible for him or her to benefit, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, from voluntary insurance against the same risks. 2. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it appears that the conduct of the Community administration has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. An official may not plead a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations unless the administration has given him precise assurances. Promises which do not take account of the provisions of the Staff Regulations cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person concerned. [ Bailii ] Â Heinz-Jorg Moritz v Commission of the European Communities C-68/91; [1992] EUECJ C-68/91P 17 Dec 1992 ECJ European, Administrative ECJ (Judgment) 1. The periodic report constitutes an indispensable criterion of assessment each time the official' s career is taken into consideration by the administration and a promotion procedure is tainted with irregularity in so far as the appointing authority has not been able to consider the comparative merits of the candidates because there has been a substantial delay on the part of the administration in drawing up the periodic reports of one or more of them. It does not follow that all the candidates must be at exactly the same stage regarding the state of their periodic reports when the appointment decision is taken or that the appointing authority must postpone its decision if the most recent report on one or other of the candidates is not yet final because it has been referred to the appeal assessor or to the Joint Committee. In exceptional circumstances the absence of a periodic report may be compensated for by the existence of other information on an official' s merits. 2. If, in dismissing a plea by an official contesting the legality of a promotion procedure on the ground that the appointing authority assessed his merits in the absence of his periodic report and on the basis of a hearing of his Director-General at which he was not heard, the Court of First Instance merely holds that that hearing did not make that procedure unlawful but does not mention the reasons justifying recourse to information other than the periodic report or the reasons why hearing the Director-General was sufficient to compensate for the absence of that periodic report, it has failed to state sufficient reasons for its judgment. 3. It is for the Court of First Instance to respond to the pleas and claims as they were raised before it by the parties. It does not fulfil that obligation where it rejects a claim for compensation on the ground that a claim based on the same allegedly wrongful conduct of the administration was dismissed by a judgment given in another case between the same parties when the two claims are not identical, in so far as they are based on separate causes of damage, namely the fault consisting in the appointment of a candidate following an irregular promotion procedure, on the ground that the appointing authority assessed the respective merits of the candidates in the absence of the appellant' s periodic report, and the fault consisting in the fact that the periodic report in question was drawn up late by the appointing authority. [ Bailii ] Â Josu Miguel Dyaz Garcya v European Parliament T-43/90; [1992] EUECJ T-43/90 18 Dec 1992 ECFI European, Children, Benefits ECJ 1. Under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the treatment, as a dependent child, of a person whom an official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure constitutes an exceptional step. The condition that the official must have a legal responsibility to maintain a person other than a dependent child must for that reason be interpreted strictly. The concept of "a legal responsibility to maintain" used in the Staff Regulations is derived from the legal systems of the Member States, which, under their laws, impose a mutual responsibility to provide maintenance on relatives by blood and/or marriage of a greater or lesser degree of proximity. That concept must therefore be understood as referring exclusively to an obligation maintenance imposed on an official by a source of law independent of the will of the parties and as excluding maintenance obligations of a contractual, moral or compensatory nature. Since neither Community law nor the Staff Regulations provide the Community court with any guide as to how it should define, by way of independent interpretation, the meaning and scope of a legal responsibility to maintain, entitling an official to receive a dependent child allowance under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary to determine whether the national legal system to which the official in question is subject imposes such a legal responsibility on the official. 2. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation, which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations. In the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation. 3. An official has no legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision for breach of procedural requirements where the administration has no scope for the exercise of discretion but is bound to act as it has done. In such a case, the annulment of the contested decision could lead only to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the decision annulled. [ Bailii ] Â Lilian R Khouri v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1992,p II-2637) T-85/91; [1992] EUECJ T-85/91 18 Dec 1992 ECFI European, Administrative 1. Where the application of a rule of the Staff Regulations depends on the application of a legal rule applying in the legal system of one of the Member States, it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice and proper application of the Staff Regulations that the review by the Court of First Instance should also extend to an examination of the way in which the appointing authority of a Community institution has interpreted the national law of one of the Member States. 2. Under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the treatment, as a dependent child, of a person whom an official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure constitutes an exceptional step. The condition that the official must have a legal responsibility to maintain a person other than a dependent child must for that reason be interpreted strictly. The concept of "a legal responsibility to maintain" used in the Staff Regulations is derived from the legal systems of the Member States, which, under their laws, impose a mutual obligation to provide maintenance on relatives by blood and/or marriage of a greater or lesser degree of proximity. That concept must therefore be understood as referring exclusively to an obligation of maintenance imposed on an official by a source of law independent of the will of the parties and as excluding maintenance obligations of a contractual, moral or compensatory nature. Since neither Community law nor the Staff Regulations provide the Community court with any guide as to how it should define, by way of independent interpretation, the meaning and scope of the concept of a legal responsibility to maintain entitling an official to receive a dependent child allowance under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary to determine whether the national legal system to which the official in question is subject imposes such a responsibility on the official. 3. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of de?ermining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. In the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation. [ Bailii ] Â Tiziano Di Rocco v Economic and Social Committee T-8/92; [1992] EUECJ T-8/92 18 Dec 1992 ECFI European, Administrative 1. The decision by which the appointing authority decides to close without further action disciplinary proceedings does not constitute an act adversely affecting the official against whom the proceedings were initiated within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, since the operative part of such a decision is not capable of altering the legal situation of that official. 2. The powers of the appointing authority in disciplinary matters permit it only to order one of the measures provided for in Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations or to close the disciplinary proceedings without ordering a disciplinary measure, regardless of the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which in any event is not binding on the appointing authority. 3. When, under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the question of the admissibility of an action for damages is being examined, a distinction must be drawn between two types of cases. Where the claims for damages are closely linked to an action for annulment, the inadmissibility of the latter entails the inadmissibility of the action for damages. If there is no close link between the two actions, the admissibility of the claims for damages must be assessed separately from that of the action for annulment and is subject, in particular, to the pre-litigation procedure provided for under Articles 90 and 91 having been properly carried out. In that connection, where an action for damages is seeking redress for harm suffered as a result of an act which adversely affected the official, it is for the person concerned to lodge, within the prescribed period, a prior administrative complaint against that act, and then to bring an action within a period of three months from the date on which the complaint is rejected. Conversely, if the alleged harm has resulted from conduct which, since it had no legal effects, cannot be characterized as acts adversely affecting the official, the pre-litigation procedure must begin with a request for compensation. Only an express or implied rejection of that request constitutes a decision adversely affecting the official against which a complaint may be directed, and it is only after a decision rejecting, expressly or impliedly, that complaint that an action for damages may be brought before the Court of First Instance. [ Bailii ] Â Cimenteries CBR SA, Blue Circle Industries plc, Syndicat Nationale des Fabricants de Ciments et de Chaux and FUdUration de l'Industrie Cimentiþre asbl v Commission of the European Communities T-10/92; [1992] EUECJ T-10/92 18 Dec 1992 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Competition - Statement of objections - Access to the file - Admissibility. Actions for annulment of measures Actionable measures Definition Measures producing binding legal effects Administrative procedure implementing the competition rules. Refusal to notify the full statement of objections to an undertaking concerned and to give it access to the entire file. Preparatory measure Excluded Rights of the defence Possible breach which might be relied upon in support of an action brought against the final decision of the Commission (EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 17; Commission Regulation No 99/63) - The measures by which the Commission refused, in an administrative procedure implementing the competition rules, first to notify part of the statement of objections to the undertakings concerned and, secondly, to give them access to all the documents making up their files are not capable of producing legal effects of such a nature as to affect the interests of those undertakings before the adoption of any decision finding that the rules of the Treaty have been infringed. They are accordingly merely procedural measures preparatory to the decision that will constitute the final stage of the administrative procedure established by Regulations Nos 17 and 99/63 and cannot, as such, form the subject matter of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. Although compliance with the rights of the defence in any procedure which might result in the imposition of a penalty constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law that must be complied with in every circumstance, the possible infringement of those rights by way of refusal to grant access to the file remains within the bounds of the prior administrative procedure in which it takes place. Were the Community judicature, in proceedings directed against a decision bringing the procedure to a close, to recognize that a full right of access to the file existed and had been infringed and therefore to annul the said decision for infringement of the rights of the defence, the entire procedure would be vitiated by illegality. In such a case the Commission should either abandon the proceedings or resume the procedure, ensuring that the rights previously disregarded were observed. [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1992 To: 1992