

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: 1995 To: 1995 This page lists 329 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Â Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another; QBD 1995 - [1995] ICR 889 Â Griffin v South West Water Services Ltd [1995] IRLR 15 1995 Blackburne J Employment, European The court asked at what point the European Directive imposed a duty to consult on an employer contemplating redundancies. Held: The words 'is contemplating' referred to a point before proposals were formulated. Obiter, Blackburne J said "the obligation to consult only arises when the employer's contemplation of redundancies has reached the point where he is able to identify the workers likely to be affected and can supply the information which the Article requires him to supply . . I cannot see that the Article requires the employer to embark upon the process of consultation at any particular moment, much less as soon as he can be said to have in mind that collective redundancies may occur. The essential point to my mind, is that the consultation must be one where, if they wished to do so, the workers' representatives can make constructive proposals and have time in which to do so before the relevant dismissal notices are sent out. This process cannot sensibly begin until, as it seems to me, a point has been reached where the information identified in Article 2 (3) is available." 1 Citers Â Dupret v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-1) (Seizure order) C-1/94 10 Jan 1995 ECJ European Â Cassa nazionale di previdenza ed assistenza a favore degli avvocati e procuratori v Council (Rec 1995,p II-1) T-116/94; [1995] EUECJ T-116/94 11 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Viho v Commission Times, 31 January 1995; T-102/92; [1995] EUECJ T-102/92 12 Jan 1995 ECFI European, Company Operations as between parent and subsidiary company are not 'in concert' EEC Treaty 85(1) [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-45) T-85/94; [1995] EUECJ T-85/94 12 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Nash v Council and Commission (Rec 1995,p II-71) T-525/93; [1995] EUECJ T-525/93 13 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Houlihan v Council and Commission T-538/93; [1995] EUECJ T-538/93 13 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hennessy v Council and Commission (Rec 1995,p II-61) T-524/93; [1995] EUECJ T-524/93 13 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bonnamy v Council C-264/94 [1995] EUECJ C-264/94P 13 Jan 1995 ECJ European (Order) [ Bailii ] Â Roujansky v Council C-253/94; [1995] EUECJ C-253/94P 13 Jan 1995 ECJ European ECJ (Order) 1. Neither the declaration of the European Council on the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union nor the Treaty on European Union is an act whose legality is subject to review under Article 173 of the Treaty. 2. Where all the other pleas in law relied upon in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been dismissed, the plea concerning the lawfulness of its decision on costs must, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of Court of Justice, be dismissed as inadmissible. [ Bailii ] Â Publishers Association v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-23) (Judgment) C-360/92; [1995] EUECJ C-360/92P 17 Jan 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1995,p I-77) (Judgment) C-93/94; [1995] EUECJ C-93/94 17 Jan 1995 ECJ European Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directive 90/667/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period. Council Directive 90/667/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Van der Linde and Tracotex v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Rec 1995,p I-85) (Judgment) C-351/93; [1995] EUECJ C-351/93 19 Jan 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1995,p I-149) (Judgment) C-66/94; [1995] EUECJ C-66/94 19 Jan 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Werner v Commission T-124/93; [1995] EUECJ T-124/93 20 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bilanzbuchhalter v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-101) T-84/94; [1995] EUECJ T-84/94 23 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Tremblay and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-185) T-5/93; [1995] EUECJ T-5/93 24 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â BEMIM v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-147) T-114/92; [1995] EUECJ T-114/92 24 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands (Rec 1995,p I-157) (Judgment) C-359/93; [1995] EUECJ C-359/93 24 Jan 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ladbroke Racing v Commission T-74/92; [1995] EUECJ T-74/92 24 Jan 1995 ECFI European 1. An action under Article 175 of the Treaty for failure to act may lie only where the institution has an obligation to act, so that the alleged failure to act is contrary to the Treaty. Where a complaint is made to the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 alleging breach of Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty, it is obliged, in accordance with the provisions of Regulations No 17 and No 99/63, to examine carefully the evidence of fact and of law brought to its notice by the complainant in order to decide whether it must initiate the procedure for establishing the breach or reject the complaint or, finally, decide not to pursue the matter. However, the Commission cannot be regarded as having failed to act for the purposes of Article 175 of the Treaty if, when the complainant addresses a formal request to it to adopt a position on the complaint, it has already initiated the procedure for investigating the alleged breach of Article 85 of the Treaty but the progress of the investigation and the time spent on it are not sufficient to enable it to address a communication to the complainant in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63 nor, a fortiori, to adopt a position on the complaint in the form of a rejection. 2. Where a complaint is made to the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 for breach of Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty and the investigation is conducted solely on the basis of Article 85 the Commission cannot be regarded, at the time when the complainant addresses a formal request to it to act, in accordance with Article 175 of the Treaty, as having adopted a position on the complaint in so far as it is based on Article 86. An action for failure to act must therefore be declared admissible in so far as it is alleged that the Commission failed to act in relation to that article. Such an action is admissible notwithstanding the fact that when the Commission receives a complaint under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 it is not bound either to issue a decision confirming the breach or to conduct an investigation to that end in every case, or the fact that it is free to determine the importance to be given to a complaint before it in the light of the Community interest. In view of the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 17 and Article 6 of Regulation No 99/63, the Commission was free to decide to initiate the investigation solely on the basis of Article 85; however, it was bound both to examine first the evidence of fact and of law relevant to an application of Article 86 of the Treaty and to inform the applicant of its decision, with reasons, in order to enable its legality to be the subject of judicial review. Furthermore, an action for failure to act in those circumstances does not become devoid of purpose as a result of either the Commission' s publication of a notice pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 or the cessation of the restriction of competition which was the subject of the complaint. In the first place, a finding that amendments to the agreement challenged by the complaint have made it compatible with Article 85 does not constitute a definition of the Commission' s position, as far as the applicant is concerned, on the complaint in so far as it was founded on Article 86. In the second place, the alleged cessation of the restriction of competition could have no effect other than to alter the facts which gave rise to the complaint under Article 86, and thus to lead the Commission either to adopt a decision not to pursue the investigation, or to decide to reject it; it could not dispense the Commission from its duty to inform the complainant of its position, in conformity with the procedural guarantees referred to above. 3. In the context of an investigation of alleged breaches of Community competition law, neither the Commission's adoption of a position on a complaint in a statement of objections, nor the publication of a notice by that institution under Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 constitutes a decision capable of forming the subject-matter of an action for annulment. [ Bailii ] Â D v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-13,II-43) T-549/93; [1995] EUECJ T-549/93 26 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â O v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-9,II-29) T-527/93; [1995] EUECJ T-527/93 26 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â de Compte v Parliament T-90/91; [1995] EUECJ T-90/91 26 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pierrat v Court of Justice (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-23,II-77) T-60/94; [1995] EUECJ T-60/94 26 Jan 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Publishers Association and Others v Commission of the European Communities and Others Times, 31 January 1995 31 Jan 1995 ECJ European Net book agreement was not in conflict with EEC treaty - only applies within UK. EECTreaty 85(1) Â Societe commerciale des potasses and de l'azote and Entreprise miniere and chimique v Commission T-88/94 1 Feb 1995 ECFI European Â Frederiksen v Parliament (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-29,II-99) T-106/92; [1995] EUECJ T-106/92 2 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Auditel v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-239) T-66/94; [1995] EUECJ T-66/94 6 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Tete and others v EIB (Rec 1995,p II-229) T-460/93 6 Feb 1995 ECFI European Â Leclerc-Siplec v TF1 and M6 C-412/93; [1995] EUECJ C-412/93 9 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Finanzamt Koln-Altstadt v Schumacker (Rec 1995,p I-225) (Judgment) C-279/93; [1995] EUECJ C-279/93 14 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Moat v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-37,II-135) T-112/94; [1995] EUECJ T-112/94 15 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Grassi v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-33,II-125) T-552/93; [1995] EUECJ T-552/93 15 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Criminal proceedings against Aubertin and others; ECJ 16-Feb-1995 - C-29/94; [1995] EUECJ C-29/94 Â Calle Grenzshop Andresen v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse fur den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg (Rec 1995,p I-269) (Judgment) C-425/93; [1995] EUECJ C-425/93 16 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Amicale des residents du square d'Auvergne v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-255) T-5/95; [1995] EUECJ T-5/95 16 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Cascades v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-265) T-308/94 17 Feb 1995 ECFI European Â Campo Ebro and others v Council (Rec 1995,p II-421) T-472/93; [1995] EUECJ T-472/93 21 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Associazione agricoltori della provincia di Rovigo and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-455) T-117/94; [1995] EUECJ T-117/94 21 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SPO and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-289) T-29/92; [1995] EUECJ T-29/92 21 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Moat v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-43,II-147) T-506/93; [1995] EUECJ T-506/93 21 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â F v Council (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-49,II-163) T-535/93; [1995] EUECJ T-535/93 23 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Cacchiarelli and Stanghellini (Rec 1995,p I-391) (Judgment) C-54/94; [1995] EUECJ C-54/94 23 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bremer Vulkan Verbund v Commission T-490/93; [1995] EUECJ T-490/93 23 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Bordessa and others (Rec 1995,p I-361) (Judgment) C-358/93; [1995] EUECJ C-358/93 23 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hanseatische Industrie v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-469) T-488/93; [1995] EUECJ T-488/93 23 Feb 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-343) (Judgment) C-349/93; [1995] EUECJ C-349/93 23 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bonapharma Arzneimittel v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Rec 1995,p I-319) (Judgment) C-334/93; [1995] EUECJ C-334/93 23 Feb 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Industrie des poudres spheriques v Council (Rec 1995,p II-485) T-2/95 24 Feb 1995 ECFI European Â Fianzamt Koln-Altstadt v Schumacker Times, 24 February 1995 24 Feb 1995 ECJ European Non-resident EU national employees tax discrimination was unlawful. EECTreaty Art 48 Â Socurte and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-503) T-432/93; [1995] EUECJ T-432/93 7 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Transacciones Maritimas and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-467) (Order) C-12/95; [1995] EUECJ C-12/95P 7 Mar 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â ISAE/VP and Interdata v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-407) (Judgment) C-130/91; [1996] EUECJ C-130/91R 7 Mar 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Air France v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-533) T-2/93 8 Mar 1995 ECFI European Â Societe Generale v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-545) T-34/93; [1995] EUECJ T-34/93 8 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hansa-Fisch v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-575) T-493/93; [1995] EUECJ T-493/93 8 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Fazenda Publica v Nunes Tadeu C-345/93; [1995] EUECJ C-345/93 9 Mar 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Brown v Rentokil Ltd; IHCS 10-Mar-1995 - Times, 10 March 1995 Â Atlantic Container Line and others v Commission T-395/94 10 Mar 1995 ECFI European Â Cobrecaf and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-621) T-514/93; [1995] EUECJ T-514/93 15 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Cantine dei colli Berici v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-647) T-6/95; [1995] EUECJ T-6/95 15 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kotzonis v ESC (Rec 1995,p II-665,IA-61,II-203) T-586/93; [1995] EUECJ T-586/93 22 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Lo Giudice v Parliament (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-57,II-189) T-43/93; [1995] EUECJ T-43/93 22 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1995,p I-499) (Judgment) C-365/93; [1995] EUECJ C-365/93 23 Mar 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Saddik C-458/93; [1995] EUECJ C-458/93 23 Mar 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Opinion 2/92 (Rec 1995,p I-521) (Opinion) C-2/92 24 Mar 1995 ECJ European Â Daffix v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-71,II-233) T-12/94; [1995] EUECJ T-12/94 28 Mar 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Kleinwort Benson v City of Glasgow District Council; ECJ 28-Mar-1995 - Times, 17 April 1995; C-346/93; [1995] EUECJ C-346/93 Â Hogan v Court of Justice T-497/93; [1995] EUECJ T-497/93 29 Mar 1995 ECFI European 1. The appointing authority acts in the name of the institution which designated it, so that acts which concern the legal position of officials and may adversely affect them must be attributed to the institution to which they are attached, and any appeal must be brought against the institution from which the act having an adverse effect emanated. 2. The privileges and immunities accorded to officials by the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, solely in the interests of the Communities, have a purely functional character inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the Communities. In private legal relationships with other private individuals, officials are, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Staff Regulations, fully subject to the applicable national law, without prejudice to the provisions of that Protocol. When, in the context of attachment proceedings before a national court, a third party seeks to attach an official' s remuneration in the hands of an institution in its capacity as employer, that institution must, first, determine whether the privileges and immunities provided for by the Protocol are applicable to the proceedings in question and, if so, then decide to what extent it considers it appropriate to avail itself of them. If the institution considers that it would not be contrary to the interests of the Community not to avail itself of its privileges and immunities, it is bound, by virtue of its duty to cooperate in good faith with the national authorities, to give effect to the attachment order issued by the national court. 3. The Treaty does not make any provision for a legal remedy enabling natural or legal persons to bring proceedings before the Community judicature on an issue regarding the compatibility of the conduct of the authorities of a Member State with Community law. Claims seeking a declaration that a Member State has infringed Community law are accordingly inadmissible. [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council (Rec 1995,p I-643) (Judgment) C-65/93; [1995] EUECJ C-65/93 30 Mar 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-699) (Judgment) C-350/93; [1995] EUECJ C-350/93 4 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-673) (Judgment) C-348/93; [1995] EUECJ C-348/93 4 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Krid v Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salaries (Rec 1995,p I-719) (Judgment) C-103/94; [1995] EUECJ C-103/94 5 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â BPB Industries and British Gypsum v Commission (Judgment) C-310/93; [1995] EUECJ C-310/93P 6 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lloyd's Register of Shipping v Societe Campenon Bernard Times, 03 May 1995; C-439/93; [1995] EUECJ C-439/93 6 Apr 1995 ECJ European, Company Actions which would be deemed to have been undertaken by a branch of company need not necessarily be performed where the branch is physically located. Brussels Convention1968 5(5) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1995,p I-1015) (Judgment) C-147/94; [1995] EUECJ C-147/94 6 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Flip and Verdegem v Belgian State (Rec 1995,p I-913) (Judgment) C-315/93; [1995] EUECJ C-315/93 6 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â RTE and ITP v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-743) (Judgment) C-241/91; [1995] EUECJ C-241/91P 6 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union nationale des mutualites socialistes v Del Grosso (Rec 1995,p I-939) (Judgment) C-325/93; [1995] EUECJ C-325/93 6 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â BLP Group v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 17 April 1995; [1995] ECR I-983; [1995] ECR I-983; [1996] 1 WLR 174; [1995] STC 424; [1995] EUECJ C-4/94; [1995] BVC 159; [1995] 2 CMLR 75; [1995] All ER (EC) 401 6 Apr 1995 ECJ C. Gulmann, P VAT, European The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words 'for transactions' shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must have a direct and immediate link with the taxable transactions, and that the ultimate aim pursued by the taxable person is irrelevant in this respect. The principle of neutrality must co-exist with other general principles, such as the objective of legal certainty. ECJ Article 2 of the First Directive 67/227 and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes are to be interpreted as meaning that, except in the cases expressly provided for by those directives, where a taxable person supplies services to another taxable person who uses them for an exempt transaction, the latter person is not entitled to deduct the input value added tax paid, even if the ultimate purpose of the exempt transaction is the carrying out of a taxable transaction. The wording of those provisions shows that to give rise to the right to deduct, the goods or services in question must have a direct and immediate link with the taxable transactions, and that the ultimate aim pursued by the taxable person is irrelevant in this respect. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â BASF and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-729) T-80/89; [1995] EUECJ T-80/89 6 Apr 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Grau Gomis and others (Rec 1995,p I-1023) (Order) C-167/94; [1995] EUECJ C-167/94 7 Apr 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gomez de Enterria v Parliament (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-91,II-297) T-82/95 11 Apr 1995 ECFI European Â Radio Telefis Eirann and Itp Ltd v Commission of EU Supp Magill Times, 17 April 1995 17 Apr 1995 ECJ Intellectual Property, European The abuse of copyright by a dominant owner may be set aside and dealt with by the imposition of a compulsory licence. Â Casillo Grani v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1375) T-443/93; [1995] EUECJ T-443/93 27 Apr 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â AAC and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1329) T-442/93; [1995] EUECJ T-442/93 27 Apr 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â ASPEC and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1281) T-435/93; [1995] EUECJ T-435/93 27 Apr 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â CCE Grandes Sources and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1213) T-96/92; [1995] EUECJ T-96/92 27 Apr 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â CCE Vittel and others v Commission [1995] EUECJ T-12/93 27 Apr 1995 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Trade unions and works councils - Act of direct and individual concern to them - Sufficient interest giving the recognized representatives of the employees the right to submit their observations, upon application, in the administrative procedure. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council (Rec 1995,p II-1381) T-163/94; [1995] EUECJ T-163/94 2 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1995,p I-1071) (Judgment) C-79/94; [1995] EUECJ C-79/94 4 May 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â SAFBA v Ministre du Budget; ECJ 4-May-1995 - C-19/94; [1995] EUECJ C-19/94 Â Landesamt fur Ausbildungsforderung Nordrhein-Westfalen v Gaal Times, 22 June 1995; Gazette, 21 February 1996; C-7/94; [1995] EUECJ C-7/94 4 May 1995 ECJ Education, European The definition of a child of a national of a member state for the purposes of deciding entitlement to education was not limited to being either dependant or under 21. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-218/94; [1995] EUECJ C-218/94 4 May 1995 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/263/CEE - Failure to transpose. Directive 91/263/CEE [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Evans Medical Ltd and Another Etc Times, 10 May 1995 10 May 1995 ECJ European Prohibition of import of narcotics convention drugs contravened art 30. EEC Treaty 30 Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1995,p I-1097) (Judgment) C-422/92; [1995] EUECJ C-422/92 10 May 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alpine Investments v Minister van Financien (Rec 1995,p I-1141) (Judgment) C-384/93; [1995] EUECJ C-384/93 10 May 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council (Rec 1995,p I-1185) (Judgment) C-417/93; [1995] EUECJ C-417/93 10 May 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Moat v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-95,II-305) T-569/93; [1995] EUECJ T-569/93 11 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SNCF and British Railways v Commission T-79/95; [1995] EUECJ T-79/95R 12 May 1995 ECFI European, Transport ECFI Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of a competition decision - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Concept - Uncertain and speculative risk - Exclusion - Balance of convenience - (EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of a decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences. Only the existence, at least foreseeable or probable, of third-party undertakings interested in using the Channel Tunnel' s capacity would be capable of substantiating the risk of serious and irreparable damage alleged by railway undertakings seeking the suspension of operation of the conditions attached to the Commission' s decision granting exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty in so far as those conditions require the applicants to surrender to third parties up to one-quarter of their rights under the usage contract exempted by the Commission. In those circumstances, suspension could be ordered only if the applicants could demonstrate before the judge hearing the application that the surrenders of capacity at issue would immediately make it impossible for them to fulfil their obligations relating to the operation of the tunnel or that they could no longer, if their applications in the main proceedings were to succeed, recover from the third parties the capacity surrendered to them in the meantime. Since they have not adduced evidence of those conditions, the damage to them is too uncertain and speculative to be able to prevail in the assessment of the balance of convenience over the preservation of effective competition and the principle of the freedom to provide services in the rail transport sector which the Commission sought to protect by attaching the abovementioned condition to the exemption. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Lay and Gage Unreported, 15 May 1995 15 May 1995 Admn Mr Justice Latham Agriculture, Administrative, European The claimants sought damages for the wrong interpretation of the law by the Ministry, which had restricted their rights to milk quota. Held: Making an administrative decision which was in breach of European law was not enough in itself to justify a claim in damages, there had to be some misinterpretation of European law. The respondent acted bona fide, and made an excusable mistake as to the interpretation of a legislative provision which was not clear or precise. No claim for damages lay against them. 1 Cites Â Nagel v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-109,II-353) T-241/94; [1995] EUECJ T-241/94 17 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Aubineau v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-113,II-365) T-102/95 17 May 1995 ECFI European Â Benecos v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-103,II-335) T-16/94; [1995] EUECJ T-16/94 17 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kratz v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1455,IA-99,II-315) T-10/94; [1995] EUECJ T-10/94 17 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-1249) (Judgment) C-57/94; [1995] EUECJ C-57/94 18 May 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rheinhold and Mahla v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid C-327/92; [1995] EUECJ C-327/92 18 May 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wafer Zoo v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1479) T-478/93; [1995] EUECJ T-478/93 18 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Innamorati v Parliament T-289/94; [1995] EUECJ T-289/94 30 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Saby v Commission T-556/93; [1995] EUECJ T-556/93 30 May 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark v Dansk Industri Times, 23 June 1995; [1996] ICR 51; C-400/93; [1995] EUECJ C-400/93 31 May 1995 ECJ Discrimination, European Equal pay provisions apply to piece rate work- Employer to justify differences. where significant statistics disclose an appreciable difference in pay between two jobs of equal value, one of which is carried out almost exclusively by women and the other predominantly by men, so that there is a prima facie case of sex discrimination, article 119 of the EEC Treaty requires the employer to show that that difference is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. EECTreaty Art 177 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1995,p I-1457) (Judgment) C-123/94; [1995] EUECJ C-123/94 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Heidemij Advies v Parliament (Rec 1995,p I-1417) (Judgment) C-42/94; [1995] EUECJ C-42/94 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-1319) (Judgment) C-40/93; [1995] EUECJ C-40/93 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Coussios v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-1439) (Judgment) C-119/94; [1995] EUECJ C-119/94P 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen v Thyssen Haniel Logistic C-459/93; [1995] EUECJ C-459/93 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European Europa Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Mixture of amino acids used for the preparation of infusion solutions - Product naturally intended for medical use - Classification under heading 30.03 (subheading 30.03 A II (b)) The Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 3618/86, amending Regulation No 3331/85 amending Regulation No 950/68, must be interpreted to the effect that a sterile powder made up of amino acids mixed in precise proportions and used for the preparation of infusion solutions falls under heading 30.03 (subheading 30.03 A II (b)). On the basis of its objective characteristics and properties - being sterile, pyrogen-free, with a high level of purity and precise dosage of the various amino acids ° the product is naturally intended for medical use and more particularly for the preparation of infusion solutions by the addition of water, and use of the product in question in human nutrition by way of mouth is a purely theoretical possibility. In view of that intended use and in the light of Note A(4) of the Customs Cooperation Council's Explanatory Notes to Heading 30.03, it therefore falls within the category of medicaments. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-1465) (Judgment) C-182/94; [1995] EUECJ C-182/94 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Teirlinck v Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Rec 1995,p I-1339) (Judgment) C-414/93; [1995] EUECJ C-414/93 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Munchen-West v Analog Devices (Rec 1995,p I-1403) (Judgment) C-467/93; [1995] EUECJ C-467/93 1 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bozkurt v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Judgment) C-434/93; [1995] EUECJ C-434/93 6 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Union internationale des chemins de fer v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1503) T-14/93; [1995] EUECJ T-14/93 6 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Friends of the Earth and Another Times, 08 June 1995; Independent, 07 June 1995 7 Jun 1995 CA Environment, Utilities, European The Secretary of State can accept an undertaking from water companies instead of making an order to satisfy the obligations under the European directives. Water Industry Act 1991 68(1)(a) Â P v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-137,II-433) T-583/93; [1995] EUECJ T-583/93 8 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Scholler v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1611) T-9/93; [1995] EUECJ T-9/93 8 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Siemens v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1675) T-459/93; [1995] EUECJ T-459/93 8 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Langnese Iglo GmbH v Commission of the European Communities T-7/93; [1995] ECR II - 1533; [1995] EUECJ T-7/93 8 Jun 1995 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Competition - Exclusive purchasing agreements for ice-cream - Relevant market - Possible barriers to entry to the market by third parties - Trade between Member States - Comfort letter - Block exemption - Lawfulness of withdrawal of the exemption - Prohibition of conclusion of exclusive agreements in the future. The agreements providing for the exclusive purchase of ice cream could be terminated on 6 months' notice, the CFI held that, having regard to the economic and legal context and "the effective duration of the contractual agreements, which is around 2.5 years", the agreements fell within Art. 81(1). 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Delavant v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse fur das Saarland (Rec 1995,p I-1545) (Judgment) C-451/93 8 Jun 1995 ECJ European Â Durbeck v Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft (Rec 1995,p I-1509) (Judgment) C-389/93; [1995] EUECJ C-389/93 8 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Allo v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-127,II-405) T-496/93; [1995] EUECJ T-496/93 8 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â de Compte v Parliament T-61/92; [1995] EUECJ T-61/92 14 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Zabala Erasun and others v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (Rec 1995,p I-1567) (Judgment) C-422/93; [1995] EUECJ C-422/93 15 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Alpine Investments Bv v Minister Van Financien; ECJ 16-Jun-1995 - Times, 16 June 1995; Gazette, 29 November 1995; [1995] 2 CLMR 209 Â Kik v Council and Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1717) T-107/94; [1995] EUECJ T-107/94 19 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hoyer and Smets v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-151,II-475) T-43/91 19 Jun 1995 ECFI European Â Vigel v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-157,II-487) T-370/94; [1995] EUECJ T-370/94 21 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Guerin automobiles v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1753) T-186/94; [1995] EUECJ T-186/94 27 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â PIA HiFi v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1735) T-169/94; [1995] EUECJ T-169/94 27 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Court of Auditors C-258/94; [1995] EUECJ C-258/94P 28 Jun 1995 ECJ European (Order) [ Bailii ] Â Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v Temic Telefunken C-437/93; [1995] EUECJ C-437/93 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1995,p I-1819) (Judgment) C-170/94; [1995] EUECJ C-170/94 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-135/94; [1995] EUECJ C-135/94 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European ECJ Judgment [ Bailii ] Â Cantina cooperativa fra produttori vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and autres v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1941) T-183/94; [1995] EUECJ T-183/94 29 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-1651) (Judgment) C-135/93; [1995] EUECJ C-135/93 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1995,p I-1791) (Judgment) C-109/94; [1995] EUECJ C-109/94 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â ICI v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1901) T-37/91; [1995] EUECJ T-37/91 29 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening v Van Gestel C-454/93; [1995] EUECJ C-454/93 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European, Benefits [ Bailii ] Â SCAC v ASIPO (Rec 1995,p I-1769) (Judgment) C-56/94; [1995] EUECJ C-56/94 29 Jun 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs v Langguth; ECJ 29-Jun-1995 - C-456/93; [1995] EUECJ C-456/93 Â ICI v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1847) T-36/91; [1995] EUECJ T-36/91 29 Jun 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Commission v Greece; ECJ 29-Jun-1995 - C-391/92; [1995] EUECJ C-391/92 Â Â Parliament v Council; ECJ 5-Jul-1995 - C-21/94; [1995] EUECJ C-21/94 Â Criminal proceedings against Voisine (Rec 1995,p I-1859) (Judgment) C-46/94; [1995] EUECJ C-46/94 5 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ojha v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-161,II-497) T-36/93; [1995] EUECJ T-36/93 6 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Koln v Mars (Rec 1995,p I-1923) (Judgment) C-470/93; [1995] EUECJ C-470/93 6 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Daffix (Rec 1995,p I-1955) (Order) C-166/95 6 Jul 1995 ECJ European Â BP Supergas Anonimos Etairia Geniki Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprossopeion v Greece C-62/93; [1995] EUECJ C-62/93; [1995] STC 805 6 Jul 1995 ECJ European, VAT Europa Under the procedure for a preliminary ruling provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine, having regard to the particular features of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they refer to the Court of Justice. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or the subject-matter of the main action. Furthermore, the Court has no jurisdiction, in those proceedings, to rule on the compatibility of a national measure with Community law. Articles 2, 11 and 17 of the Sixth Directive (77/388) must be interpreted as precluding national rules which, without an authorization having been obtained under Article 27 of that directive, make the importation of finished petroleum products subject to value added tax ("VAT") calculated on the basis of a basic price different from that provided for in Article 11 and which, by exempting traders in the petroleum sector from the obligation to submit returns, deprive them of the right to deduct the tax charged directly on transactions relating to inputs. The fundamental principle which underlies the VAT system, and which follows from Article 2 of the First and Sixth Directives, is that VAT applies to each transaction by way of production or distribution after deduction has been made of the VAT which has been levied directly on transactions relating to inputs. Moreover, as regards the supply of goods, Article 11 of the Sixth Directive, since its aim is in particular to ensure that VAT is applied at each marketing stage on the price or value of the goods at that stage, precludes the application of taxation arrangements under which the tax is determined, once only, on the price at the first marketing stage. The right of deduction provided for in Article 17 et seq. of the Sixth Directive, which forms an integral part of the VAT scheme, cannot be limited in principle and must be exercised immediately in respect of all the taxes charged on transactions relating to inputs, affects the level of the tax burden and must be applied in a similar manner in all the Member States, so that derogations are permitted only in the cases expressly provided for in the directive. The provisions of Article 11A(1) and B(1) and (2) and Article 17(1) and (2), which specify the conditions giving rise to the right to deduct and the extent of that right and do not leave the Member States any discretion as regards their implementation, confer rights on individuals which they may invoke before a national court in order to challenge national rules which are incompatible with those provisions. Europa The special measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, as provided for in Article 27 of that directive, do not accord with Community law unless they remain within the limits of the objectives referred to in Article 27(1) and have also been notified to the Commission and impliedly or expressly authorized by the Council in the circumstances specified in paragraphs (1) to (4) of Article 27. In order to satisfy those conditions, it is not sufficient for a Member State merely to send to the Commission the whole of a draft law on the application of value added tax without giving any particular indication regarding the special arrangements provided for. Only a notification referring expressly to Article 27(2) of the directive enables the Commission and, if necessary, the Council to verify whether the derogating arrangements in question are within the scope of the objectives referred to in Article 27(1). The provisions of the Sixth Directive, in particular Articles 13 to 17 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a general exemption from VAT on all services in respect of the transport and storage of imported petroleum products. Article 14(1)(i), in conjunction with Article 11B(3)(b), of the directive provides an exemption solely for the transport costs incurred up to the first place of destination and, optionally, the costs in respect of transport to another known place of destination, and the general exemption also deprives a trader of the right to deduct VAT charged on services in respect of transport and storage after transport of the petroleum products to a second place of destination. The interpretation which, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court of Justice gives to a rule of Community law clarifies and defines, where necessary, the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its coming into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied by the courts even to legal relationships arising and established before the delivery of the judgment ruling on the request for interpretation, provided that in other respects the conditions under which an action relating to the application of that rule may be brought before the courts having jurisdiction are satisfied. It follows more particularly that the right to obtain a refund of amounts charged by a Member State in breach of rules of Community law is the consequence and complement of the rights conferred on individuals by the Community provisions as interpreted by the Court. While it is true that such a refund may be sought only in the framework of the substantive and procedural conditions laid down by the various relevant national laws, those conditions and the procedural conditions and rules governing actions at law for protecting the rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law may not be less favourable than those relating to similar, domestic actions, nor be framed in a way such as to render virtually impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law. Accordingly, a taxable person may claim, with retroactive effect from the date on which the national legislation contrary to the Sixth Directive came into force, a refund of VAT paid without being due, by following the procedural rules laid down by the domestic legal system of the Member State concerned, provided that those rules are no less favourable than those satisfying the abovementioned requirements. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â AITEC and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-1971) T-447/93; [1995] EUECJ T-447/93 6 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Odigitria v Council and Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2025) T-572/93; [1995] EUECJ T-572/93 6 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece C-259/94 [1995] EUECJ C-259/94 6 Jul 1995 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1995,p I-1967) (Order) C-95/94; [1995] EUECJ C-95/94 11 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain C-266/94 [1995] EUECJ C-266/94 11 Jul 1995 ECJ European (Order) [ Bailii ] Â Meyers v Adjudication Officer (Rec 1995,p I-2131) (Judgment) C-116/94 13 Jul 1995 ECJ European Â Perrotta v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Munchen (Rec 1995,p I-2079) (Judgment) C-391/93; [1995] EUECJ C-391/93 13 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hengst Import v Campese (Rec 1995,p I-2113) (Judgment) C-474/93; [1995] EUECJ C-474/93 13 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Council (Rec 1995,p I-1985) (Judgment) C-350/92; [1995] EUECJ C-350/92 13 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-2019) (Judgment) C-156/93; [1995] EUECJ C-156/93 13 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Saby v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-175,II-541) T-44/93; [1995] EUECJ T-44/93 13 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-216/94; [1995] EUECJ C-216/94 13 Jul 1995 ECJ European ECJ Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Finding of failure to fulfil obligations - (EC Treaty, Art. 169) [ Bailii ] Â K v Commission T-176/94; [1995] EUECJ T-176/94 13 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â O'Dwyer and others v Council (Rec 1995,p II-2071) T-466/93; [1995] EUECJ T-466/93 13 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kschwendt v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-185,II-565) T-545/93; [1995] EUECJ T-545/93 13 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Rasmussen v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-195,II-603) T-557/93; [1995] EUECJ T-557/93 13 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Groupement des cartes bancaires 'CB' v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2169) T-275/94; [1995] EUECJ T-275/94 14 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Koyo Seiko v Council (Rec 1995,p II-2129) T-166/94; [1995] EUECJ T-166/94 14 Jul 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pimley-Smith v Commission T-291/94; [1995] EUECJ T-291/94 14 Jul 1995 ECFI European Europa Officials - Competitions - Decision of the selection board stating that a candidate has failed the oral tests - Extent of the duty to provide a statement of reasons - Extent to which the Court may exercise its powers of review in the absence of any infringement of the procedural rules. [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Hereford Herd Book Society Ex Parte O'Neill Times, 19 July 1995; Ind Summary, 11 September 1995 19 Jul 1995 QBD Agriculture, Animals, European A Cattle Breed Society was not obliged by the Directive to admit and register pure bred cattle living in Ireland. EEC Directive 77/504 Â Â Meyers v Adjudication Officer; ECJ 19-Jul-1995 - Times, 19 July 1995; Ind Summary, 11 September 1995; C-116/94; [1995] EUECJ C-116/94; [1995] ECR I-2131 Â Commission v Atlantic Container Line and others C-149/95; [1995] EUECJ C-149/95P 19 Jul 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, Ex Parte International Trader's Ferry Ltd; QBD 28-Jul-1995 - Times, 31 July 1995; Independent, 28 July 1995; [1996] QB 197 Â Greenpeace and others v Commission T-585/93; [1995] EUECJ T-585/93 9 Aug 1995 ECFI European, Utilities, Environment ECJ 1. Persons other than the addressees may claim that a decision is of individual concern to them only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed. The criterion thereby applied, which requires a combination of circumstances sufficient for the third-party applicant to be able to claim that he is affected by the contested decision in a manner which differentiates him from all other persons, remains applicable whatever the nature, economic or otherwise, of the interests affected. Even on the assumption that, where interests linked to environmental protection are involved, the mere existence of harm suffered or to be suffered can give rise to an interest in bringing an action for annulment, that harm cannot confer locus standi on an applicant if it is such as to affect, generally and in the abstract, a large number of persons who cannot be determined in advance in a way which distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision. That conclusion cannot be affected by the fact that in the practice of national courts in matters relating to environmental protection locus standi may depend merely on the applicants' having a "sufficient" interest, since locus standi under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty depends on meeting the conditions relating to the applicant' s being directly and individually affected by the contested decision. 2. As regards persons who rely only on their position as residents in the area of those power stations, fishermen, farmers or persons concerned by the consequences which those facilities might have on local tourism, on the health of residents and on the environment, a decision addressed to a Member State granting financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund for the construction of two power stations is a measure whose effects are likely to impinge on, objectively, generally and in the abstract, various categories of person and in fact any person residing or staying temporarily in the area concerned. It does not, therefore, affect them by reason of certain attributes which differentiate them from any other person who is, or might be in the future, in the same situation, and is thus not of individual concern to them within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. 3. The granting of financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund does not comprise any specific procedures whereby individuals may be associated with the adoption, implementation and monitoring of decisions taken in that field. Merely submitting a complaint relating to funding which is envisaged and subsequently exchanging correspondence with the Commission cannot therefore give a complainant locus standi to bring an action under Article 173 of the Treaty against a financing decision which was not addressed to him and which does not concern him individually as if it had been addressed to him. 4. An association formed for the protection of the collective interests of a category of persons cannot be considered to be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty by a measure affecting the general interests of that category, and is therefore not entitled to bring an action for annulment where its members may not do so individually. However, special circumstances such as the role played by an association in a procedure which led to the adoption of an act within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty may justify holding admissible an action brought by an association whose members are not directly and individually concerned by the contested measure. There are no such circumstances in the case of an environmental protection association seeking to bring an action for the annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State granting financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund for the construction of two power stations, which relies for that purpose on an exchange of correspondence and a meeting with the Commission in that connection. Such contacts do not enable such an association to rely on an individual interest where the Commission did not, prior to the adoption of the contested decision, initiate any procedure in which the association was recognized as an interlocutor and where the contacts were for purposes of information only, since the Commission was under no duty either to consult or to hear the association before adopting its decision. [ Bailii ] Â Groupement National des Negociants en Pommes de Terre de Belgique Belgapom) v ITM Belgium SA and Vocarex SA C-63/94; [1995] ECR I-0000; [1995] EUECJ C-63/94 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European, Commercial Europa Trade between Member States is not likely to be impeded, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, by the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements 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. Where those conditions are satisfied, the application of such rules to the sale of products from another Member State meeting the rules 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 the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty. It follows that Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying where a Member State prohibits by legislation any sale which yields only a very low profit margin. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Vienne (Rec 1995,p I-2441) (Judgment) C-43/94; [1995] EUECJ C-43/94P 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Commission v Germany; ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - C-431/92; [1995] EUECJ C-431/92; [1996] 1 CMLR 196; [1995] ECR I-2189 Â Â Secretary of State for Social Security and Chief Adjudication Officer v Graham and others); ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - Times, 25 September 1995; Ind Summary, 09 October 1995; C-92/94; [1995] EUECJ C-92/94 Â Uelzena Milchwerke v Antpohler (Rec 1995,p I-2397) (Judgment) C-12/94; [1995] EUECJ C-12/94 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland C-240/94; [1995] EUECJ C-240/94 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European ECJ Failure to fulfil obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 89/336/EEC and 92/31/EEC - Electromagnetic compatibility. [ Bailii ] Â Tsimenta Chalkidos v Commission T-104/95; [1995] EUECJ T-104/95 11 Aug 1995 ECFI European Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Procedure for interim relief - Suspension of operation. It is only in exceptional circumstances that the judge hearing an application for interim measures should order the suspension of the applicant undertaking' s obligation to provide a bank guarantee securing payment of a fine imposed on it. The risk of court-ordered liquidation which the recovery of the fine or the provision of a bank guarantee might entail cannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to urgency, where the undertaking is subject to a procedure for the reorganization of undertakings in difficulty during the currency of which it cannot be wound up; in any event, that is to say, even if liquidation were not out of the question, it does not appear, having regard to the very substantial indebtedness of the undertaking, of which the debt due to the Commission represents only a minute proportion, and to the claims of the other creditors, that the adoption by the Commission of enforcement measures as provided for in Article 192 of the Treaty would in itself be liable to trigger such a result. Moreover, as regards the balance of the interests concerned, a financial situation as burdened with debt as that of the applicant necessitates the provision of guarantees designed to protect the financial interests of the Community. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali and others v Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and others; ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - C-1/94; [1995] EUECJ C-1/94 Â Â SISRO v Ampersand Software; ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - C-432/93; [1995] EUECJ C-432/93 Â Commission v Greece C-260/94; [1995] EUECJ C-260/94 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Undisputed failure to fulfil obligations - (EC Treaty, Art. 169) EC Treaty Art 169 [ Bailii ] Â Roders and others v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen C-367/93; [1995] EUECJ C-367/93 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Dubois and Cargo v Garonor; ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - C-16/94; [1995] EUECJ C-16/94 Â Bulthuis-Griffioen v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting (Rec 1995,p I-2341) (Judgment) C-453/93; [1995] EUECJ C-453/93 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Commission v Noonan; ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - C-448/93; [1995] EUECJ C-448/93P Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1995,p I-2303) (Judgment) C-433/93; [1995] EUECJ C-433/93 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Schmidt v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Rec 1995,p I-2559) (Judgment) C-98/94; [1995] EUECJ C-98/94 11 Aug 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kaysersberg v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2247) T-290/94 16 Aug 1995 ECFI European Â Bernardi v Parliament (Rec 1995,p II-2255) T-146/95 18 Aug 1995 ECFI European Â Z v ESC (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-217,II-657) T-286/94; [1995] EUECJ T-286/94 11 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â TWD v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2265) T-244/93; [1995] EUECJ T-244/93 13 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Buick v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-221,II-667) T-276/94; [1995] EUECJ T-276/94 13 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Descom Scales v Council (Rec 1995,p II-2413) T-171/94; [1995] EUECJ T-171/94 14 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Antillean Rice Mills and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2305) T-480/93; [1995] EUECJ T-480/93 14 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Simitzi v Dimos Kos (Rec 1995,p I-2655) (Judgment) C-485/93; [1995] EUECJ C-485/93 14 Sep 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lefebvre and others v Commission T-571/93; [1995] EUECJ T-571/93 14 Sep 1995 ECFI European ECFI 1. The Community does not incur non-contractual liability on account of damage caused by legislative measures adopted by its institutions unless a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual has occurred. In a legislative field which is characterized by the exercise of a wide discretion, such as that required for the implementation of the common agricultural policy, the Community cannot incur liability unless the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of its powers. 2. The fact that the Commission waited until 1992 before submitting a proposal for a regulation implementing the common organization of the market in the banana sector, despite the fact that this should have been established at the latest by 1 January 1970, does not cause the Community to incur non-contractual liability. First, having regard to the difficulties encountered in the establishment of a common policy in the banana sector, the Commission cannot be regarded, by delaying the submission of its proposal, as having manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of its powers. Second, Articles 38(4) and 43(2) of the Treaty, which provide for the establishment of a common agricultural policy, merely impose obligations on the institutions, so that they cannot be characterized as superior rules of law for the protection of the individual. 3. Since the derogations allowed under Article 115 of the Treaty constitute not only an exception to the provisions of Articles 9 and 30, which are fundamental to the operation of the common market, but also an obstacle to the implementation of the common commercial policy provided for by Article 113, they must be interpreted and applied strictly. Where a Member State submits a request under Article 115, the Commission is under a duty to review the reasons put forward in order to justify the protective measures for which authorization is sought, and to verify whether those measures are consistent with the Treaty and necessary. Where the assessment of a complex economic situation is involved, the Commission has a wide discretion, such that judicial review must be confined to verifying that there has been no manifest error or misuse of power and that the bounds of that discretion have not been clearly exceeded. 4. The fact that the Commission does not bring an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations cannot constitute an infringement of the Treaty, in particular Articles 155 and 169 thereof, since the institution of such proceedings is a matter falling within its discretion. It cannot therefore give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community. 5. The combined provisions of Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty only give jurisdiction to the Community judicature to award compensation for damage caused by the Community institutions or by their servants in the performance of their duties, or, in other words, for damage capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community. Damage caused by national institutions, on the other hand, can give rise to liability only on the part of those institutions, and the national courts retain sole jurisdiction to order compensation for such damage. It therefore falls solely to the national courts to rule on an action for damages involving only the conduct of a Member State. 6. 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 is apparent that the Community administration has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. On the other hand, a person may not plead a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations unless the administration has given him precise assurances. 7. The prohibition of discrimination between producers or consumers in the context of the common agricultural policy, as laid down by the second paragraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, is merely a specific enunciation of the general principle of equality, which is one of the fundamental principles of Community law and requires that similar situations should not be treated differently unless differentiation is objectively justified. Consequently, an applicant can usefully plead a breach of that prohibition only in so far as he can point to a situation similar to his own and show that it has been treated differently. [ Bailii ] Â Henrichs v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-2611) (Judgment) C-396/93; [1995] EUECJ C-396/93P 14 Sep 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ireland v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-2683) (Judgment) C-49/94; [1995] EUECJ C-49/94 14 Sep 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â ENU v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2459) T-458/93; [1995] EUECJ T-458/93 15 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Flunn Gazette, 15 September 1995 15 Sep 1995 CA European An individual has no standing directly to enforce European Treaty without clear rights given. Â Parliament v Innamorati (Rec 1995,p I-2707) (Order) C-254/95 15 Sep 1995 ECJ European Â Tierce Ladbroke v Commission T-471/93; [1995] EUECJ T-471/93 18 Sep 1995 ECFI European ECFI 1. The statement of reasons in decisions adopted by the Community institutions must be such as to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review of the legality of the decision and to enable the person concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted, so that he can defend his rights and verify whether the decision is well founded. A decision by which the Commission refuses to recognize the existence of aid must be regarded as being sufficiently reasoned where the facts and legal considerations essential to the decision are set out, even though not all the Commission' s reasoning is revealed. The person adopting a decision is not required to give all the relevant factual and legal details and the question whether the statement of the reasons on which a decision is based is sufficient may be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to the context in which it was adopted and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. 2. A measure cannot be described as State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty if it has not provided any advantage to the alleged recipient. The Commission was thus right, after carrying out complex economic appraisals, to decide that the arrangements made by the public authorities, whereby the body responsible for managing betting on horse-races in one Member State, having deducted a levy on bets which it takes on behalf of the equivalent body in another Member State on races held in the second Member State, transfers a proportion of the levy to the latter body, do not constitute State aid, even though those arrangements are different from those applied in relation to bets on races run on national territory if, after an examination of all the arrangements governing the flow of funds between the two bodies managing, each on its own territory, betting on races, it reached the conclusion, without committing any manifest error of assessment, that the transfer of levy does not involve sums higher than the recipient body would have collected if it had itself taken abroad the bets relating to the races falling under its sphere of responsibility. [ Bailii ] Â Ladbroke Racing v Commission T-548/93; [1995] EUECJ T-548/93 18 Sep 1995 ECFI J.L. Cruz Vilaca, P European ECFI (Judgment) 1. When the Commission receives a complaint lodged under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, it is at liberty to determine the priority to be given to that complaint in the light of the Community interest and to decide to initiate and pursue the investigation of the case on the basis of the various provisions of the Treaty invoked in the complaint if that appears to be in the Community interest. Similarly, whilst the Commission must exercise its powers under Article 90(3) of the Treaty to monitor compliance by the Member States with the rules of competition, it cannot be obliged to take action, at an individual's request, on the basis of that article and, more particularly, with regard to undertakings entrusted with the operation of services in the general economic interest, particularly where such action entails assessing the compatibility of national legislation with Community law. However, where, having received a complaint of infringements of Articles 85 and 86 and of Article 90 of the Treaty, the Commission gives priority to examining the complaints concerning infringement of Article 90 alleged to be the result of national legislation organizing a monopoly, because it takes the view that the competition issue raised by the complaint can only be resolved by examining the compatibility of the national legislation concerning a statutory monopoly with the Treaty rules and by taking action, if appropriate, under Article 90 of the Treaty, it is not possible for it to reject definitively the complaint under Articles 85 and 86 on the ground that they are inapplicable, without first completing its examination under Article 90, because such a rejection at that stage would not have been preceded by a careful examination of the factual and legal issues brought to its attention by the complaint. The Commission must either find that the national legislation in question is consistent with the Treaty, in which case the conduct of the impugned undertaking must, if it is in compliance with that legislation, be regarded as compatible with Articles 85 and 86, or, if the conduct does not so comply, it must be examined in order to decide whether it constitutes an infringement of those articles, or the Commission must find that the said legislation is not consistent with the Treaty, whereupon it must be decided whether the fact that an undertaking is in compliance with that legislation may or may not lead to the adoption of measures against it in order to bring the infringements of Articles 85 and 86 to an end. 2. A claim in an action for annulment for an order requiring the Commission to re-examine a complaint is inadmissible. It is not for the Community judicature to address instructions to institutions or to substitute itself for them when exercising its power of judicial review and it is for the institution concerned to take, pursuant to Article 176 of the Treaty, the necessary measures to comply with a judgment given in an action for annulment. [ Bailii ] Â Nolle v Council and Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2589) T-167/94; [1995] EUECJ T-167/94 18 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Blackspur and others v Council and Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2627) T-168/94; [1995] EUECJ T-168/94 18 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SIDE v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2501) T-49/93; [1995] EUECJ T-49/93 18 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ledernes Hovedorganisation, acting on behalf of Rygaard v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Str Mlle Akustik (Rec 1995,p I-2745) (Judgment) C-48/94; [1995] EUECJ C-48/94 19 Sep 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marinari v Lloyd's Bank Times, 19 October 1995; C-364/93; [1995] ECR I-2719; [1995] EUECJ C-364/93; [1996] QB 217 19 Sep 1995 ECJ International, European A 'harmful event' occurred where the physical damage was suffered and not at the time and place of a later financial loss. Europa The term "place where the harmful event occurred" in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters does not, on a proper interpretation, cover the place where the victim claims to have suffered financial damage folowing upon initial damage arising and suffered by him in another Contracting State. Although that term may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, it cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Societe D'Informatique Service Realisation Organisation v Ampersand Software Bv; ECJ 25-Sep-1995 - Ind Summary, 09 October 1995; Times, 25 September 1995 Â Groupement National Des Negociants En Pommes De Terre De Belgium v Itm Belgium S Times, 25 September 1995; Ind Summary, 09 October 1995 25 Sep 1995 ECJ European, Commercial European Community quantitative restrictions on import not relevant to every states legislation. Measures applying equally to all traders within a member state were not discriminatory. EC Treaty Article 30 Â Ferchimex v Council (Rec 1995,p II-2681) T-164/94; [1995] EUECJ T-164/94 28 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sytraval v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2651) T-95/94; [1995] EUECJ T-95/94 28 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sindacato Pensionati Italiani and others v Council (Rec 1995,p II-2741) T-381/94; [1995] EUECJ T-381/94 29 Sep 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â ENU v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-2767) (Seizure order) C-2/94 29 Sep 1995 ECJ European Â Delavant v Allgemeine Orstkrankenkasse Fur Da Saarland Times, 03 October 1995; C-451/93; [1995] EUECJ C-451/93 3 Oct 1995 ECJ Benefits, European Resident in one country injured at work in another may claim benefits there. [ Bailii ] Â Wielockx v Inspecteur Der Directe Belastingen Times, 03 October 1995; C-80/94; [1995] EUECJ C-80/94 3 Oct 1995 ECJ European Pension tax allowances were to be treated equally between member states. [ Bailii ] Â Finanzamt Uelzen v Armbrecht (Rec 1995,p I-2775) (Judgment) C-291/92; [1995] EUECJ C-291/92 4 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Aprile v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Rec 1995,p I-2919) (Judgment) C-125/94; [1995] EUECJ C-125/94 5 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health and Norgine, ex parte Scotia Pharmaceuticals (Judgment) C-440/93; [1995] EUECJ C-440/93 5 Oct 1995 ECJ European, Health Europa Point (8)(a)(ii) of the second paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 65/65 concerning proprietary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 87/21, which establishes in certain circumstances an abridged procedure for the issue of marketing authorization for proprietary medicinal products and lays down the conditions under which recourse may be had to that procedure, must, having regard both to the fundamental objective of the directive, which is to safeguard public health, and to the need to ensure that recourse to simplified procedures for marketing products similar to those already authorized does not result in damage to the interests of innovative firms, be interpreted as meaning that a national authority with competence to issue national marketing authorization cannot have discretion to issue authorization under the abridged procedure when the abovementioned conditions have not been satisfied. That means that such authorization may not be issued where the particulars and documents submitted in support of an application do not contain detailed references to published scientific literature presented in accordance with each of the requirements laid down in Parts 2 and 3 of the Annex to Directive 75/318 concerning analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products, and where those documents do not comprise experts' reports complying with each of the requirements laid down in Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 75/319 concerning proprietary medicinal products. [ Bailii ] Â Imbernon Martinez v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Rec 1995,p I-2821) (Judgment) C-321/93; [1995] EUECJ C-321/93 5 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alexopoulou v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-227,II-683) T-17/95; [1995] EUECJ T-17/95 5 Oct 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Centro Servizi Spediporto v Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo (Rec 1995,p I-2883) (Judgment) C-96/94; [1995] EUECJ C-96/94 5 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Baltsavias v Commission T-39/93; [1995] EUECJ T-39/93 11 Oct 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Coussios v Commission T-302/94; [1995] EUECJ T-302/94 11 Oct 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia; QBD 11-Oct-1995 - Gazette, 01 November 1995; Times, 20 October 1995; Independent, 11 October 1995 Â Commission v Spain C-242/94 [1995] EUECJ C-242/94 12 Oct 1995 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-257/94 [1995] EUECJ C-257/94 12 Oct 1995 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-236/94; [1995] EUECJ C-236/94 12 Oct 1995 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Undisputed failure to fulfil obligations [ Bailii ] Â Piageme v Peeters (Rec 1995,p I-2955) (Judgment) C-85/94; [1995] EUECJ C-85/94 12 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cereol Italia v Azienda agricola Castello (Rec 1995,p I-2983) (Judgment) C-104/94; [1995] EUECJ C-104/94 12 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Tierce Ladbroke v Commission T-561/93; [1995] EUECJ T-561/93 16 Oct 1995 ECFI European Procedure - Costs - Withdrawal not justified by the conduct of the other party - (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5)) [ Bailii ] Â Ministre des Finances v Pardo and Fils and Camicas (Judgment) C-59/94; [1995] EUECJ C-59/94 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â DIP and others v Comune di Bassano del Grappa and others (Rec 1995,p I-3257) (Judgment) C-140/94; [1995] EUECJ C-140/94 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Netherlands v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-3081) (Judgment) C-478/93; [1995] EUECJ C-478/93 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Olivieri-Coenen v Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging C-227/94; [1995] EUECJ C-227/94 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ Point 4(a) of the section on the Netherlands contained in Annex V of Regulation No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version applicable as from 1 February 1982, is to be interpreted as meaning that periods of paid employment include periods in which a person worked as a teacher under a contract of employment concluded with a private educational establishment, even if that person was insured during that period under a special scheme for civil servants and persons treated as such excluded from the scope of the regulation. If the period of paid employment subject in that way to that special scheme was not treated as a period of insurance for the purposes of Annex V to the regulation, the person completing it would thereby suffer a disadvantage contrary to Article 51 of the Treaty, whereas to take that period into account does not entail any overlapping of different entitlements. [ Bailii ] Â Werner v Bundesrepublik Deutschland C-70/94; [1995] EUECJ C-70/94 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Fishermen's Organisations and others (Rec 1995,p I-3115) (Judgment) C-44/94; [1995] EUECJ C-44/94 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Turner v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-3177) (Order) C-62/94; [1995] EUECJ C-62/94P 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Leifer and others (Rec 1995,p I-3231) (Judgment) C-83/94; [1995] EUECJ C-83/94 17 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Richardson Independent, 17 November 1995; Times, 27 October 1995; C-137/94; [1995] EUECJ C-137/94 19 Oct 1995 ECJ Benefits, Discrimination, European ECJ Different ages for prescription charges between sexes were an unlawful discrimination. Pension differences were no justification for different eligibility for prescription. Council Directive 79/7/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Obst v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-247,II-737) T-562/93; [1995] EUECJ T-562/93 19 Oct 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Honig v Stadt Stockach (Rec 1995,p I-3389) (Judgment) C-128/94; [1995] EUECJ C-128/94 19 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Job Centre (Rec 1995,p I-3361) (Judgment) C-111/94; [1995] EUECJ C-111/94 19 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Carvel and Guardian Newspapers v Council; ECFI 19-Oct-1995 - Times, 02 November 1995; T-194/94; [1995] EUECJ T-194/94 Â Rendo and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-3319) (Judgment) C-19/93; [1995] EUECJ C-19/93P 19 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2); HL 20-Oct-1995 - Independent, 26 October 1995; Times, 20 October 1995; [1995] ICR 1021; [1995] UKHL 13; [1995] 1 WLR 1454; [1996] 2 CMLR 990; [1995] IRLR 645; [1995] 4 All ER 577 Â Ledernes Hovedorganisation for Ole Rygaard v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening Etc Times, 20 October 1995 20 Oct 1995 ECJ Employment, European No transfer of undertaking where workers and materials made available to other. Â Marchant and Eliot Underwriting Ltd v Dr Higgins [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 313; [1996] CLC 301; [1996] 3 C M L R 313; [1997] E C C 11; Lloyd's List January 10 1996 (I D ) 24 Oct 1995 ComC Rix J European, Commercial cw European Union - competition - Lloyd's - article 85(1) - RSC Order 14 - cash call on underwriters - unlawful attempt to enforce anti-competitive object of Central Fund - Agency Agreement Bye-law - standard terms - per se illegality - complex agreement - anti-competitive object - incidental restrictions on competition -effect on inter-Member State trade 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Pevasa and Inpesca v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-3709) (Order) C-199/94 26 Oct 1995 ECJ European Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1995,p I-3685) (Judgment) C-151/94; [1995] EUECJ C-151/94 26 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Klaus v Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging C-482/93; [1995] EUECJ C-482/93 26 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Furlanis costruzioni generali v Azienda nazionale autonoma strade (Rec 1995,p I-3633) (Judgment) C-143/94; [1995] EUECJ C-143/94 26 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1995,p I-3599) (Judgment) C-51/94; [1995] EUECJ C-51/94 26 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ufficio IVA di Trapani v Italittica (Rec 1995,p I-3653) (Judgment) C-144/94; [1995] EUECJ C-144/94 26 Oct 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Geotronics v Commission T-185/94; [1995] EUECJ T-185/94 26 Oct 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Eridania and others v Council T-168/95 7 Nov 1995 ECFI European Â Thevenon and Stadt Speyer-Sozialamt v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz (Rec 1995,p I-3813) (Judgment) C-475/93; [1995] EUECJ C-475/93 9 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and others (I) v Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft (Rec 1995,p I-3761) (Judgment) C-465/93 9 Nov 1995 ECJ European Â Criminal proceedings against Tranchant (Rec 1995,p I-3911) (Judgment) C-91/94; [1995] EUECJ C-91/94 9 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and others (II) v Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft (Rec 1995,p I-3799) (Judgment) C-466/93; [1995] EUECJ C-466/93 9 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Council (Rec 1995,p I-3723) (Judgment) C-426/93; [1995] EUECJ C-426/93 9 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dumez v Commission T-126/95; [1995] EUECJ T-126/95 13 Nov 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Svensson and Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement and de l'Urbanisme (Rec 1995,p I-3955) (Judgment) C-484/93 14 Nov 1995 ECJ European Â Schiltz-Thilmann v Ministre de l'Agriculture (Rec 1995,p I-3991) (Judgment) C-196/94; [1995] EUECJ C-196/94 16 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â FFSA and others v Ministere de l'Agriculture and de la Peche C-244/94; [1995] EUECJ C-244/94 16 Nov 1995 ECJ European ECJ Article 85 and seq. of EC Treaty - Concept of an "undertaking" - Organization managing an optional supplementary social security scheme. [ Bailii ] Â Openbaar Ministerie v Van Buynder (Rec 1995,p I-3981) (Judgment) C-152/94; [1995] EUECJ C-152/94 16 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Salt Union v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2881) T-330/94 17 Nov 1995 ECFI European Â Vougioukas v Idryma Koinonikon Asfalisseon (Rec 1995,p I-4033) (Judgment) C-443/93; [1995] EUECJ C-443/93 22 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Atlantic Container Line and others v Commission T-395/94 22 Nov 1995 ECFI European Â Asocarne v Council (Rec 1995,p I-4149) (Order) C-10/95; [1995] EUECJ C-10/95P 23 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Benecos v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-257,II-769) T-64/94; [1995] EUECJ T-64/94 23 Nov 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Nutral v Commission (Rec 1995,p I-4125) (Judgment) C-476/93; [1995] EUECJ C-476/93P 23 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Alonso-Perez v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Rec 1995,p I-4101) (Judgment) C-394/93; [1995] EUECJ C-394/93 23 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dominikanerinnen-Kloster Altenhohenau v Hauptzollamt Rosenheim [1995] ECR I-4069; [1995] EUECJ C-285/93 23 Nov 1995 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Additional levy on milk - Reference quantity for direct sales. [ Bailii ] Â Society of Lloyd's v Clementson Gazette, 29 November 1995 29 Nov 1995 ECJ Insurance, European Lloyds Name is a separate undertaking and Lloyds' is an association of undertakings. EC Treaty Art 85 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Criminal Proceedings Against Bird Times, 29 November 1995 29 Nov 1995 ECJ Crime, European, Road Traffic The drivers' rest period derogation was not available where exceptions had been planned and provided for. Â Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellchaft Mbh and Others v Bundesamt Fur Ernahrung Times, 29 November 1995; C-465/93; [1995] EUECJ C-465/93 29 Nov 1995 ECJ European A national court may give interim relief pending a decision from eth European Court on the validity of a regulation. [ Bailii ] Â Bramhill v Chief Adjudication Officer Gazette, 29 November 1995; [1995] 2 CLMR 35 29 Nov 1995 ECJ Discrimination, European Conditions were validly attached to the removal of a discriminatory rule on pensions. Â Esso Espanola v Comunidad Autonoma de Canarias (Rec 1995,p I-4223) (Judgment) C-134/94; [1995] EUECJ C-134/94 30 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano Times, 13 December 1995; C-55/94; [1995] ECR 1-4165; [1995] EUECJ C-55/94 30 Nov 1995 ECJ Legal Professions, European Practice by lawyers in other European jurisdictions were governed by the general principles of freedom of establishment under the Treaty: "National measures liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it." ECJ A national of a Member State who pursues a professional activity on a stable and continuous basis in another Member State where he holds himself out from an established professional base to, amongst others, nationals of that State comes under the chapter relating to the right of establishment and not the chapter relating to services. As appears from the third paragraph of Article 60 of the Treaty, the rules on freedom to provide services cover - at least where the provider moves in order to provide his services - the situation in which a person moves from one Member State to another, not for the purposes of establishment there, but in order to pursue his activity there on a temporary basis. The temporary nature of the activities in question has to be determined in the light of its duration, regularity, periodicity and continuity. This does not mean that the provider of services within the meaning of the Treaty may not equip himself with some form of infrastructure in the host Member State (including an office, chambers or consulting rooms) in so far as such infrastructure is necessary for the purposes of performing the services in question. 3. The possibility for a national of a Member State to exercise his right of establishment, and the conditions for his exercise of that right, must be determined in the light of the activities which he intends to pursue on the territory of the host Member State. Where the taking-up of a specific activity is not subject to any rules in the host State, a national of any other Member State will be entitled to establish himself and pursue that activity there. On the other hand, where the taking-up or the pursuit of a specific activity is subject to certain conditions in the host Member State, a national of another Member State intending to pursue that activity must in principle comply with them. Such conditions, which may consist in particular of an obligation to hold particular diplomas, to belong to a professional body or to comply with certain rules of professional conduct or with rules relating to the use of professional titles, must fulfil certain requirements where they are liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty, such as freedom of establishment. There are four such requirements: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. As far as conditions relating to the possession of a qualification are concerned, Member States must take account of the equivalence of diplomas and, if necessary, proceed to a comparison of the knowledge and qualifications required by their national rules and those of the person concerned. The court accepted that it does not have jurisdiction under the preliminary reference procedure to rule on the compatibility of a national measure with EU law EC Treaty 43 - Council Directive 77/249/EEC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Casarin v Directeur general des impots (Rec 1995,p I-4203) (Judgment) C-113/94; [1995] EUECJ C-113/94 30 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Gallagher (Rec 1995,p I-4253) (Judgment) Times, 13 December 1995; Case C-174/94; C-175/94; [1995] EUECJ C-175/94 30 Nov 1995 ECJ Immigration, European An expulsion of a community national from a member state must be with reasons given unless there was some need for urgency. Europa 1. Freedom of movement for persons - Derogations - Decision concerning the control of foreign nationals - Decision ordering the expulsion of a Community national lawfully residing in the territory of a Member State - Examination and opinion procedure before the competent authority - Obligation to obtain the opinion of the competent authority before the administrative authority takes the decision to expel (Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1)) 2. Freedom of movement for persons - Derogations - Decision concerning the control of foreign nationals - Decision ordering expulsion - Examination and opinion procedure before the competent authority - Competent authority - Necessary condition - Duties performed in absolute independence - Appointment by the administrative authority which takes the decision to expel - Permissible (Council Directive 64/221, Art. 9(1)) 1. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it prohibits the administrative authority from taking a decision ordering the expulsion of a Community national lawfully residing in the national territory, whether holding a residence permit or not required to hold one, before a competent authority has given its opinion. 2. Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health does not preclude the competent authority required to give an opinion prior to a decision ordering expulsion from being appointed by the same administrative authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion, provided that the competent authority can perform its duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any control by the authority empowered to take the measures provided for in the directive, and that it follows a procedure enabling the person concerned, on the terms laid down by the directive, effectively to present his defence. It is for the national court to determine in each case whether those requirements have been met. Council Directive 64/221/EEC art 9 [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Court of Auditors (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-265,II-797) T-507/93; [1995] EUECJ T-507/93 30 Nov 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1995,p I-4281) (Judgment) C-118/95; [1995] EUECJ C-118/95 30 Nov 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Council v Parliament (Rec 1995,p I-4411) (Judgment) C-41/95; [1995] EUECJ C-41/95 7 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1995,p I-4443) (Judgment) C-52/95; [1995] EUECJ C-52/95 7 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Spano v Fiat Geotech and Fiat Hitachi Excavators (Rec 1995,p I-4321) (Judgment) C-472/93; [1995] EUECJ C-472/93 7 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Camara de Comercio, Industria y Navegacion de Ceuta vAyuntamiento de Ceuta (Judgment) C-45/94; [1995] EUECJ C-45/94 7 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Abello and others v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-271,II-815) T-544/93; [1995] EUECJ T-544/93 7 Dec 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Gervais and others (Rec 1995,p I-4353) (Judgment) C-17/94; [1995] EUECJ C-17/94 7 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Oude Luttikhuis and others v Verenigde Cooperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco (Rec 1995,p I-4515) (Judgment) C-399/93; [1995] EUECJ C-399/93 12 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Connolly v Commission T-203/95 12 Dec 1995 ECFI European Â Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Chiquita Italia (Rec 1995,p I-4533) (Judgment) C-469/93; [1995] EUECJ C-469/93 12 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dijkstra and others v Friesland (Frico Domo) Cooperatie and others (Rec 1995,p I-4471) (Judgment) C-319/93; [1995] EUECJ C-319/93 12 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Windpark Groothusen v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-3007) T-109/94; [1995] EUECJ T-109/94 13 Dec 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Opinion 3/94 (Rec 1995,p I-4577) (Opinion) C-3/94 13 Dec 1995 ECJ European Â Commission v Branco (Rec 1995,p II-2993) T-85/94 13 Dec 1995 ECFI European Â Vereniging van Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van Levend Vee v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-2941) T-481/93; [1995] EUECJ T-481/93 13 Dec 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1995,p I-4813) (Judgment) C-162/94; [1995] EUECJ C-162/94 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pfloeschner v Commission (Rec 1995,p II-3029,IA-291,II-889) T-285/94; [1995] EUECJ T-285/94 14 Dec 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Diamantaras v Commission (Rec 1995,p FP-IA-285,II-865) T-72/94; [1995] EUECJ T-72/94 14 Dec 1995 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hogan v Court of Justice (Rec 1995,p I-4905) (Order) C-173/95; [1995] EUECJ C-173/95P 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1995,p I-4895) (Judgment) C-17/95; [1995] EUECJ C-17/95 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1995,p I-4883) (Judgment) C-16/95; [1995] EUECJ C-16/95 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1995,p I-4805) (Judgment) C-161/94; [1995] EUECJ C-161/94 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Sanz de Lera and others C-163/94; [1995] EUECJ C-163/94 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European Europa Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty, which prohibit restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and between Member States and non-member countries, on the one hand, and authorizing Member States to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, on the other, preclude national rules which make the export of coins, banknotes or bearer cheques generally subject to prior authorization but do not by contrast preclude a transaction of that nature being made conditional on a prior declaration. Although the measures authorized by Article 73d(1)(b) include those designed to ensure effective fiscal supervision and to prevent illegal activities such as tax evasion, money laundering, drug trafficking and terrorism, the requirement of an authorization is not necessary for those purposes, which may be achieved by measures less restrictive of the free movement of capital. It is sufficient, rather than requiring an authorization, which has the effect of subjecting the free movement of capital to the discretion of the administrative authorities and is thus capable of making that freedom illusory, to set up an adequate system requiring a declaration indicating the nature of the operation envisaged and the identity of the declarant, which would require the competent authorities to proceed with a rapid examination of the declaration and enable them, if necessary, to carry out in due time the investigations found to be necessary to determine whether capital was being unlawfully transferred and to impose the requisite penalties if national legislation was being contravened, a course which would not suspend the operation concerned but would nevertheless enable the national authorities to carry out, in order to uphold public policy, effective supervision to prevent infringements of national law and regulations. Moreover, rules requiring an authorization as a general principle do not fall within the scope of Article 73c(1) of the Treaty, which authorizes, subject to certain conditions, restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and non-member countries where they involve direct investment, establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets because, on the one hand, the physical export of means of payment cannot itself be regarded as a capital movement of that kind, and on the other hand the rules apply to all exports of means of payment, including those which do not, in the non-member countries, involve such operations. Article 73b(1), in conjunction with Articles 73c and 73d(1)(b), may be relied on before national courts and may render inapplicable national rules inconsistent therewith. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State C-312/93; [1995] EUECJ C-312/93; [1994] ECR I-4599; [1996] All ER (EC) 242; [1995] ECR I-4599; [1996] 1 CMLR 793 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: "For the purposes of applying those principles, each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders application of Community law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances. In the light of that analysis the basic principles of the domestic judicial system, such as protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of procedure, must, where appropriate, be taken into consideration." and "The case-law of the court in this area establishes a balance between, on the one hand, the need to respect that autonomy [of national courts] and, on the other hand, the need to ensure the effective protection of Community rights in the national courts. That is true both of the case-law on the subject of time-limits which I have set out above and of the decisions in Simmenthal and Factortame which are mentioned in the order for reference and are relied on by Peterbroeck, and which illustrate the court's concern for the effective protection of Community rights." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1995,p I-4797) (Judgment) C-138/94; [1995] EUECJ C-138/94 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1995,p I-4789) (Judgment) C-132/94; [1995] EUECJ C-132/94 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Colin and Dupre C-106/94; [1995] EUECJ C-106/94 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Megner and Scheffel v Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz C-444/93; [1995] EUECJ C-444/93 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European, Discrimination The mere fact that the legislative provision affects far more women than men at work cannot be regarded as a breach of Article 119 of the Treaty. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Van Schijndel v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten (Rec 1995,p I-4705) (Judgment) C-430/93; [1995] EUECJ C-430/93 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Banchero (Rec 1995,p I-4663) (Judgment) C-387/93; [1995] EUECJ C-387/93 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Inge Nolte v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover C-317/93; [1995] ECR I-4625; [1995] EUECJ C-317/93 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European, Discrimination Europa 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 meaning that persons in employment which is regarded as minor because it regularly consists of fewer than 15 hours' work a week and regularly attracts remuneration of up to one-seventh of the average monthly salary form part of the working population within the meaning of Article 2 of that directive and therefore fall within its scope ratione personae. The fact that a person' s earnings from employment do not cover all his needs cannot prevent him from being under Community law a worker or a member of the working population. 2. Article 4(1) 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 not precluding national provisions under which employment regularly consisting of fewer than 15 hours' work a week and regularly attracting remuneration of up to one-seventh of the average monthly salary is excluded from the statutory old-age insurance scheme, even where they affect considerably more women than men, since the national legislature was reasonably entitled to consider that the legislation in question was necessary in order to achieve a social policy aim unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. That will be the case where the exclusion of such employment from compulsory insurance corresponds to a structural principle of a contributory social security scheme, is the only means of satisfying a social demand for such employment and is designed to avoid an increase in unlawful employment and devices circumventing social legislation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission C-267/94; [1995] EUECJ C-267/94; [1995] ECR I-4845 14 Dec 1995 ECJ European, VAT ECJ By including, by means of Article 1 of Regulation No 1641/94, in residues from the manufacture of starch from maize within the meaning of tariff subheading 2303 10, residues resulting from the screening of maize used in the wet process in a proportion not exceeding 15% by weight and residues of steep-water used in the manufacture of alcohol or of other starch-derived products, the Commission has modified that subheading. It therefore exceeded its power to clarify the tariff heading which had been conferred on it by Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, with the result that the regulation is to that extent invalid. Residues from the manufacture of starch from maize include only products which result directly from the operation of extracting starch from maize and not products such as the residues resulting from the screening of maize which are already contained in bulk maize and do not undergo any change in the course of the starch extraction process and products such as residues of steep-water used in the manufacture of alcohol or of other starch-derived products which result from a separate process, subsequent to that of starch manufacture. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Union Royale Belge des societes de Football Association and others v Bosman and others; ECJ 15-Dec-1995 - C-415/93; [1995] EUECJ C-415/93; [1995] ECR I-4921 Â Progoulis v Commission T-131/95; [1995] EUECJ T-131/95 15 Dec 1995 ECFI European ECJ Confirmatory act - New and material fact - Inadmissibility - Costs - Costs unreasonably caused. [ Bailii ] Â Max Mara v Ufficio del registro di Reggio Emilia C-307/95; [1995] EUECJ C-307/95 21 Dec 1995 ECJ GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P European ECJ In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. In this respect, the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only enable the Court to give helpful answers but also enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court. It is the Court' s duty to ensure that the opportunity to do so is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties. Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law where the order for reference does not contain specific questions addressed to the Court, allow the questions on which the national court wishes the Court to give a preliminary ruling to be discerned with any certainty, or furnish sufficient information to comply with the abovementioned requirements. [ Bailii ] Â Danielsson, Largenteau and Haoa v Commission of the European Communities T-219/95; [1995] EUECJ T-219/95 22 Dec 1995 ECFI European, Jurisdiction, Environment ECFI Nuclear tests conducted by a Member State - Application for interim relief -Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty - Application for suspension of the operation of a Commission decision regarding nuclear tests. In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the Court' s decision on the substance of the case. It should be reserved for the examination of the main action, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. When that is the case, for example because the applicant is seeking the annulment of a decision addressed to a Member State and cannot be regarded as being prima facie individually concerned by that decision, the interim application must be dismissed. EAEC Treaty 34 [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1995 To: 1995