

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: 1996 To: 1996 This page lists 384 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Â Iberian UK Ltd v BPB Industries plc; ChD 1996 - [1997] ICR 164; [1996] 2 CMLR 601; [1997] EuLR 1 Â Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Unison [1996] ICR 1003 1996 Otton LJ, Newman J Employment, European The 1978 Directive required consultation in the case of collective redundancies. Acts had incorrectly incorporated this requirement into English law. The error was corrected in the 1995 Regulations. Held: Anything is "related to" a Community obligation so long as it is not distinct, separate or divorced from it. The 1995 Regulations were valid. Otton LJ said: "Section 2(2) read as a whole empowers [the Minister] to make provision by regulations: (a) for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom or enabling such any such obligation to be implemented, etc.; (b) for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation, or rights, etc. These are very general and wide powers. Section 2(2)(b) is particularly widely drawn . . The first limb of section 2(4), properly construed, emphasises that delegated legislation under section 2(2) may repeal or amend Acts of Parliament (subject to the restrictions in Schedule 2 . . ). The Collective Redundancies Directive (75/129/EEC), read as a whole, provides for greater protection to be afforded to workers in the event of collective redundancies "while taking into account the need for balanced economic and social development within the Community". Thus the Directive is not a measure which seeks to promote workers' protection to the exclusion of all other considerations. It permits member states to strike an appropriate balance between the two goals. Article 5 recognises the right of member states to introduce legislation which is more favourable to workers, provided, on my interpretation, that such legislation is "related to" the purpose of the Directive." and "The United Kingdom chose to provide more extended protection by the Employment Protection Act 1975, the amendments thereto, . . and the regulations under review. These were expressed to be "related to" the Directive and Community obligations. . . . It is significant, in my view, that in the two cases which were considered by the Court of Justice in Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom (Cases C-382 and 383/92) [1994] I.C.R. 664 the Commission when making complaint did not aver that the measures themselves were not "related to" the Directives. The Commission proceeded on the basis that the measures about which the complaint was made purported to be connected with and to implement the Directives but did so imperfectly. The Employment Protection Act 1975 was the first implementation of Directive (75/129/EEC). It did not follow that every subsequent implementation had to be by means of primary legislation. Thus I am satisfied that it was within the power of the Secretary of State, as a designated Minister, by subordinate legislation to amend the domestic primary legislation and to implement the Directive. Against that analysis I am satisfied that the applicants have not advanced a sound basis for limiting the scope of the phrase "relating to" [sic] in section 2(2)(b) of the European Communities Act 1972. I reject the alternative meaning suggested by Mr Langstaff of "tangential or consequential". This is not the language of the Directive or the United Kingdom legislation. I see no reason not to give the phrase "relating to" or "related to" any meaning other than its natural, everyday meaning. Thus I am satisfied that the obligation to consult a trade union in regard to one redundancy is related to a Community obligation, and not distinct, separate, or divorced from it. Directive 75/129/EEC - Employment Protection Act 1980 - Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 - Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O'Regan and Others v Same; CA 3-Jan-1996 - Times, 03 January 1996; Ind Summary, 12 February 1996; [1996] 2 WLR 447; [1996] QB 657 Â Blanchard v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-41,IA-1,II-1) T-368/94; [1996] EUECJ T-368/94 9 Jan 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bitha v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-13,II-45) T-23/95; [1996] EUECJ T-23/95 9 Jan 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Koelman v Commission T-575/93; [1996] EUECJ T-575/93 9 Jan 1996 ECFI European ECFI 1. The Community judicature manifestly has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Community institutions, to the Member States or to natural or legal persons or to give a ruling, on the initiative of a natural or legal person, on the compatibility of a Member State' s or a natural or legal person' s conduct with the provisions of the Treaty or to annul, in whole or in part, agreements concluded by natural or legal persons. 2. Where a complaint has been submitted to the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, it is required to examine carefully the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant in order to decide whether they disclose conduct liable to distort competition in the common market and affect trade between Member States. Nevertheless, Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer upon a person who lodges an application under that article the right to obtain from the Commission a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty regarding the existence or otherwise of an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty. It follows that, when rejecting a complaint, the Commission must indicate the reasons why careful examination of the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant do not prompt it to initiate a procedure to establish whether Article 85 of the Treaty has been infringed. In so doing, the Commission may investigate the agreements and practices called into question in the light of Article 85 as a whole and set out the reasons why it considers that assuming that those agreements and practices constitute an infringement of Article 85(1) this provision could in any event be declared "inapplicable" to those agreements and practices under Article 85(3), so that it does not appear to it that careful examination of the complaint must lead it to take the action requested by the complainant. The Commission is therefore entitled to explain its decision to reject the complaint by giving the reasons why it considers, on the basis of the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant, that the agreements satisfy the conditions of Article 85(3), without previously adopting a decision exempting those agreements which has been addressed to the contracting parties, or definitively ruling on the compatibility of those agreements with Article 85(1). 3. A decision to reject a complaint, which does not definitively rule on the question whether or not there is an infringement of Article 85(1) and does not grant an exemption under Article 85(3), is merely an assessment by the Commission of the agreements and practices in question. Accordingly, it has the same legal status as a "comfort letter". It follows that the assessments made by the Commission in a decision rejecting a complaint of that kind do not prevent a national court which has to rule upon the compatibility with Article 85 of the agreements and practices criticized by the complainant from declaring those agreements and practices to be automatically void under Article 85(2) of the Treaty, having regard to the evidence before it. The fact that, unlike in the case of comfort letters, the Commission' s assessments are contained in a challengeable measure does not affect that conclusion, since such assessments entail no definitive decision on the issue whether or not Article 85(1) has been infringed or an exemption is to be granted under Article 85(3) on the conditions laid down in Regulation No 17. When examining whether the agreements or conduct in question are in accord with the abovementioned provisions, the national courts may take into account the Commission' s assessments as constituting facts, and they can, if necessary, contact the Commission. 4. When the Commission has decided not to take any action with regard to a complaint submitted under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 without holding an investigation, the purpose of review by the Community judicature is to ensure that the challenged decision is based on a correct assessment of the facts and that it is not vitiated by any error of law, manifest error of assessment or abuse of power. 5. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person against a Commission decision not to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failing to fulfil its obligations is inadmissible. The Commission is not bound to commence proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty but enjoys a discretion in that regard which precludes any right of individuals to require it to take a specific position. An action for annulment (brought by a legal or natural person) against a Commission decision not to issue a directive or a decision to a Member State using the powers which it has under Article 90(3) of the Treaty is also inadmissible. The exercise of those powers is not coupled to an obligation on the part of the Commission to take action. 6. The Community cannot be liable under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty unless a set of conditions, relating to the existence of actual damage, a causal link between the damage claimed and the conduct alleged against the institutions and the illegality of such conduct, is satisfied. As regards damage, it is for the applicant to provide the Court with evidence to establish the fact and the extent of the loss which he claims to have suffered. [ Bailii ] Â Zunis Holding and others v Commission C-480/93; [1996] EUECJ C-480/93P 11 Jan 1996 ECJ European A decision which merely confirms a previous decision is not a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought. [ Bailii ] Â D v Commission C-89/95 [1996] EUECJ C-89/95P 11 Jan 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands C-273/94; [1996] EUECJ C-273/94 11 Jan 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Under Articles 1(5) and 8(1) of Directive 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, Member States are required to communicate to the Commission forthwith, irrespective of the effects which it may have on trade between Member States, any draft technical specifications, the observance of which is compulsory in the case of the marketing or use of a product in its territory. A Member State fails to fulfil that obligation where, without notifying it to the Commission at the drafting stage, it adopts a regulation derogating from a decree on the manufacture of margarine by authorizing the use, under specified conditions, of substitute products listed therein. [ Bailii ] Â Â Marchant and Eliot Underwriting Ltd v Higgins; CA 12-Jan-1996 - Times, 12 January 1996; Lloyd's List January 10 1996; [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 31; [1996] CLC 327; [1996] 3 CMLR 349; [1997] ECC 47; [1996] 5 Re LR 63 Â Customs and Excise Commissioners v Madgett and Another T/A Howden Court Hotel Ind Summary, 15 January 1996 15 Jan 1996 QBD VAT, European A hotel's offering of a coach trip to collect guests may make them travel agents for VAT purposes. The case was referred on to the ECJ. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â ISAE/VP and Interdata v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-65) (Judgment) C-130/91 16 Jan 1996 ECJ European Â Candiotte v Council (Rec 1996,p II-87) T-108/94; [1996] EUECJ T-108/94 16 Jan 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council Times, 16 January 1996 16 Jan 1996 QBD Local Government, European The restriction of an invitation to tender to companies who could later buy the properties was unlawful. Council Directive 92/50/EEC Â Rockfon A/S v Specialarbejderforbunde I Danmark Acting for Nielsen and Others Times, 17 January 1996; C-449/93; [1995] EUECJ C-449/93; [1996] IRLR 168; [1996] ICR 673; [1996] CEC 224; [1995] ECR I-4291 17 Jan 1996 ECJ Employment, European The term 'establishment' for the purpose of consultation on contemplated redundancies meant the work unit to which the relevant workers were assigned: "The term "establishment" appearing in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive (75/129/EEC) must therefore be interpreted as designating, depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an "establishment", for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies. That interpretation is supported by the fact that the Commission's initial proposal for a Directive uses the term "undertaking" and that that term was defined in the last sub-paragraph of Article 1(1) of the proposal as "local employment unit". It appears, however, that the Council decided to replace the term "undertaking" by the term "establishment", which meant that the definition originally contained in the proposal and considered to be superfluous was deleted. The answer to the second part of the preliminary question must therefore be that the term "establishment" appearing in Article 1(1)(a) . . must be understood as meaning, depending on the circumstances, the unit to which the workers made redundant are assigned to carry out their duties. It is not essential, in order for there to be an "establishment" for the unit in question to be endowed with a management which can independently effect collective redundancies." Directive 79/129/EEC L48/29 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â SEIM v Subdirector-Geral das Alfandegas (Rec 1996,p I-73) (Judgment) C-446/93; [1996] EUECJ C-446/93 18 Jan 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Ohrt C-276/94; [1996] EUECJ C-276/94 18 Jan 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) 1. Article 2 of Regulation No 1382/87, establishing detailed rules concerning the inspection of fishing vessels, must be interpreted as meaning that every inspection vessel, regardless of type or dimensions, must display the identification symbol or pennant described in Annex I to that regulation. Only if a vessel flies a distinctive symbol of that kind, so that it is visible, can the skipper of a fishing vessel identify it as an inspection vessel and comply with orders given by it, without any other form of warning, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Regulation. That finding is not affected by the fact that the boat undertaking the inspection belongs to the main vessel but is, for the time being, operating independently. 2. The obligation to comply with the orders of a representative of the competent authority of a Member State, under Article 3 of Regulation No 1382/87, which lays down detailed rules concerning the inspection of fishing vessels, presupposes that the skipper of the vessel to be inspected is aware of the status of that representative. In the absence of the symbol or pennant required by Article 2 of the Regulation, the skipper is presumed to be unaware of that status, unless the authorities taking action concerning the infringement prove otherwise. [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Vitale Times, 26 January 1996; [1996] All ER (EC) 461 26 Jan 1996 CA Staughton LJ Immigration, European The appellant, who was an Italian citizen, claimed that Article 8(a) conferred an unlimited right to reside in the United Kingdom. Held: The court rejected that argument. Staughton LJ said that it was clear that Article 8(a) could not be taken to have replaced Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/366: "Each of these directives was a measure adopted to give effect to the Treaty, and each of them contained the limitation on the right of residence that the visiting national should not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. The right of residence conferred by art 8a is, therefore, in our view, still subject to that limitation. As for the submission that all nationals now have a general right of residence by virtue of art 8a, this seems to us to ignore the plain words that the art 8a right of residence is made subject to the limitations and conditions contained in measures such as these directives. In our judgment, there is at the moment no unqualified right of residence of the kind claimed by the appellant." Freedom of movement for workers in EU depended on intention to work- economic. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Aranitis v Land Berlin C-164/94; [1996] EUECJ C-164/94 1 Feb 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Perfili C-177/94; [1996] EUECJ C-177/94 1 Feb 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Office national de l'emploi v Naruschawicus C-308/94; [1996] EUECJ C-308/94 1 Feb 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Chabert v Commission T-122/95; [1996] EUECJ T-122/95 1 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bresle v Prefet de la Region Auvergne and Prefet du Puy-de-Dome (Rec 1996,p I-233) (Order) C-257/95; [1996] EUECJ C-257/95 2 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuratorium fur Dialyse und Nierentransplantation v Lewark C-457/93; [1996] ECR I-1243; [1996] EUECJ C-457/93 6 Feb 1996 ECJ European, Discrimination Europa The concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty comprises any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer, and irrespective of whether the worker receives it under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis. It includes compensation received for losses of earnings due to attendance at training courses imparting the information necessary for performing staff council functions. Although such compensation does not derive as such from the contract of employment, it nevertheless constitutes a benefit paid indirectly by the employer, since it is paid by virtue of legislative provisions and under a contract of employment. Where the category of part-time workers includes a much higher number of women than men, national legislation which, not being suitable and necessary for achieving a legitimate social policy aim, has the effect of limiting to their individual working hours the compensation which staff council members employed on a part-time basis are to receive from their employer for attending training courses which impart the knowledge necessary for serving on staff councils and are held during the full-time working hours applicable in the undertaking but which exceed their individual part-time working hours, when staff council members employed on a full-time basis receive compensation for attendance at the same courses on the basis of their full-time working hours, contravenes the prohibition of indirect discrimination in the matter of pay laid down by Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against van der Feesten C-202/94; [1996] EUECJ C-202/94 8 Feb 1996 ECJ European ECJ Environment - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409 - Scope - Subspecies which, in contrast to the corresponding species or other subspecies thereof, occur naturally in the wild only outside the European territory of the Community - Included Directive 79/409 [ Bailii ] Â Â Pezzullo Molini Pastifici Mangimifici v Ministero delle Finanze; ECJ 8-Feb-1996 - C-166/94; [1996] EUECJ C-166/94 Â Laperre v Bestuurscommissie beroepszaken in de provincie Zuid-Holland (Rec 1996,p I-273) (Judgment) C-8/94; [1996] EUECJ C-8/94 8 Feb 1996 ECJ European Europa Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7 - Article 4(1) - Scheme of social assistance for older and/or partially incapacitated workers who are long-term unemployed subject to conditions relating to previous employment and age - Scheme enabling many more men than women to avoid another, less favourable, scheme of social assistance - Objective justification - Permissibility. [ Bailii ] Â FMC and others v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food C-212/94; [1996] EUECJ C-212/94 8 Feb 1996 ECJ European ECJ 1. Since, under the common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat, the purpose of charging clawback is to avoid disruption of intra-Community trade arising from the application of the variable slaughter premium, it must be charged in such a way that it neutralizes the effect of the premium on departure from the region concerned of the products which benefited from it, without working to the advantage of producers in that region, as would be the case if the amount charged by way of clawback were lower than that of the premium granted, or affecting their competitive position, as would be the case if the clawback were higher than the premium. There is no doubt that the first of the two options provided for by Regulation No 1922/92 relating to methods of calculating the clawback to be charged or to be reimbursed in the case of undue payment, which is available to traders who are in a position to supply proof to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned of the amount of the premium actually granted for products subject to clawback, is consistent with the objective pursued by the system of charging clawback, since it fixes the amount thereof at the same level as the premium granted. As regards the proof that must be adduced in connection with the first option, it does not seem to be manifestly inappropriate for exporters to bear the burden of proof. Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1837/80 and Article 24(5) of Regulation No 3013/89, both establishing a common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat, clearly laid down that the amount of the clawback was to be equal to that of the premium, so that a prudent trader, aware that he was liable to pay the clawback, had to take proper steps to obtain the necessary evidence attesting to the equivalence of the amounts in question. Furthermore, the exporter knows the identity of the trader from whom he bought the products on which he is required to repay the clawback, so that he is best placed to adduce the requisite proof. Moreover, where it is impossible for the exporter to adduce such proof, Regulation No 1922/92 has by means of the second option provided for a different method of calculating the clawback. The second option, which is based on the average value of the premium rates in force over a period of four weeks which must perforce include both the time when the product was first placed on the market and the time when it was exported, is likewise consistent with the purpose of clawback. On the one hand, it enables the fluctuations in clawback to be reduced significantly compared with those occurring under the old system of calculation, which was declared invalid, according to which the clawback was equal to the amount of the premium fixed solely for the week of export of the products concerned, and, on the other, the use of an average calculated over four weeks ensures that the amount of the clawback is as close as possible to that of the premium. 2. The requirement of proof laid down in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1633/84, concerning the system for charging clawback within the common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 1922/92, and in Article 2 of the latter regulation, laying down the conditions for reimbursement of clawback unduly charged, is to be interpreted as meaning that traders are required to supply proof to the satisfaction of the competent authorities of the Member State concerned, in accordance with national law and within the period prescribed by Regulation No 1922/92, of the amount of the premium actually granted for products subject to clawback, provided that the applicable national rules do not affect the scope or effectiveness of Community law. In that regard, and taking into account the duty of cooperation in good faith imposed on national authorities by Article 5 of the EC Treaty which forbids them to undermine either the effect or the effectiveness of Community law, the detailed procedural rules laid down by the applicable national law cannot be less favourable than those governing similar domestic procedures nor render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the implementation of Community legislation and thereby affect the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal system. 3. As regards claims for repayment of clawback unduly paid prior to 10 March 1992, paragraph 30 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas and Others [1992] ECR I-1781 is to be interpreted as meaning that traders or those entitled through them who prior to that date initiated proceedings or made an equivalent complaint under the applicable national law may rely on the invalidity of Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1633/84 concerning the system for charging clawback within the common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat, as from the date of its entry into force, subject to the application, within the limits set by Community law, of any national rules limiting the period prior to the submission of a claim in respect of which repayment of a sum unduly paid may be obtained. 4. With regard to matters not governed by Article 2 of Regulation No 1922/92, amending Regulation No 1633/84 laying down detailed rules for applying the variable slaughter premium and determining the conditions for the reimbursement of clawback unduly charged, national courts called upon to give judgment on a claim for reimbursement of clawback unduly charged must apply their national law, provided the detailed rules laid down therein are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and are not so framed as to render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal system. In that respect, a rule of national law, by virtue of which a sum paid to a public authority under a mistake of law may be recovered only if it was paid under protest, manifestly fails to satisfy those conditions, in that it is liable to prejudice effective protection of the rights conferred on the traders in question by Community law. Moreover, Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1922/92 expressly specifies the persons entitled to claim reimbursement without making the claim conditional on their conduct at the time of payment. On the other hand, Community law does not prevent a national legal system from refusing to allow recovery of sums unduly charged where that would involve the unjust enrichment of those entitled. [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Vergy (Rec 1996,p I-299) (Judgment) C-149/94; [1996] EUECJ C-149/94 8 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lehrfreund v Council and Commission (Rec 1996,p II-111) T-228/95; [1996] EUECJ T-228/95 12 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gillespie and Others v Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others Times, 22 February 1996; [1996] ECR 1-475; C-342/93; [1996] ICR 499; [1996] EUECJ C-342/93 13 Feb 1996 ECJ Discrimination, European, European Benefits payable in maternity leave must make allowance for a pay increase which applied to other workers whilst employee on leave. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Gebroeders van Es Douane Agenten v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Rec 1996,p I-431) (Judgment) C-143/93; [1996] EUECJ C-143/93 13 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gillespie and Others v Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others Times, 22 February 1996; [1996] ECR 1-475; C-342/93; [1996] ICR 499; [1996] EUECJ C-342/93 13 Feb 1996 ECJ Discrimination, European, European Benefits payable in maternity leave must make allowance for a pay increase which applied to other workers whilst employee on leave. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bautiaa and Societe francaise maritime v Directeurs des services fiscaux des Landes and du Finistere C-197/94; C-252/94; [1996] ECR I-505; [1996] EUECJ C-197/94 13 Feb 1996 ECJ European, Company Europa Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital duty levied on capital companies - Application to merger transactions effected by increasing the capital of the acquiring company - Imposition within the limits laid down by the Community rules - Preliminary rulings - Interpretation - Effect of interpretative judgments ratione temporis - Retroactive effect - Limits imposed by the Court - Conditions - Judgment on the interpretation of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Conditions not fulfilled - Significance for the Member State concerned of the financial consequences of the judgment - Not decisive. A ruling on the interpretation of Community law takes effect from the date on which the rule interpreted entered into force. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko [1996] EUECJ C-245/95P 14 Feb 1996 ECJ European ECJ 1. Under Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court may intervene in that case before the Court, and submissions made in an application for leave to intervene must be limited to supporting the submissions of one of the parties. Leave to intervene in a dispute concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty must be granted to an undertaking on which a specific anti-dumping duty has been imposed, since that undertaking is individually and directly concerned by the contested regulation and has in that regard an independent right of action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. However, in so far as that undertaking did not bring an action for annulment against that regulation, its rights as intervener must be confined to supporting the forms of order sought by the party on whose side it seeks to intervene. Undertakings which import the product and in that connection have to pay a specific anti-dumping duty can also demonstrate a direct and present interest in the result of the case. 2. Under indent (f) of the second subparagraph of Article 93(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, every application for leave to intervene must contain a statement of the reasons establishing the intervener' s right to intervene. An undertaking which has not established on what grounds it had to or has to pay the above duty has not demonstrated, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, a direct and present interest in the result of a case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ryan-Sheridan v FEACVT T-589/93; [1996] EUECJ T-589/93 15 Feb 1996 ECFI European ECFI Officials - Employees of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - Recruitment procedure - Rejection of an internal candidate - Actions for annulment - Action for damages. [ Bailii ] Â Nissan France and others C-309/94; [1996] EUECJ C-309/94 15 Feb 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Grand garage albigeois and others C-226/94; [1996] EUECJ C-226/94 15 Feb 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Regulation No 123/85 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements merely provides economic agents in the motor vehicle industry with certain possibilities enabling them to remove their distribution and servicing agreements from the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 85(1) of the Treaty despite the inclusion in those agreements of certain types of exclusivity and no-competition clauses. It concerns only contractual relations between suppliers and their approved distributors and, although it states what the parties to such agreements may or may not undertake to do in relations with third parties, it does not, in contrast, serve to regulate the activities of such third parties, who may operate in the market outside the framework of distribution agreements. Regulation No 123/85 must therefore be interpreted as not preventing a trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that regulation from carrying on an independent business reselling new vehicles of that make. [ Bailii ] Â Belhanbel v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-39,II-115) T-125/95; [1996] EUECJ T-125/95 15 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Duff and others (Rec 1996,p I-569) (Judgment) C-63/93; [1996] EUECJ C-63/93 15 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Inasti v Kemmler (Rec 1996,p I-703) (Judgment) C-53/95; [1996] EUECJ C-53/95 15 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Buralux and others C-209/94; [1996] EUECJ C-209/94P 15 Feb 1996 ECJ European ECJ Judgment - Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on the supervision and control of waste shipments - Action brought by undertakings specializing in waste shipment - Inadmissibility - Legal protection available from the national courts through an action challenging measures taken by the national authorities in implementation of the regulation EC Treaty 173 - Council Regulation No 259/93 3 [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia Independent, 23 February 1996; Gazette, 20 March 1996; Times, 27 February 1996; (1996) 28 HLR 616 23 Feb 1996 CA Housing, Immigration, European A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were overstaying. Housing Act 1985 63 65 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Biogen v Smithkline Beecham Biologicals C-181/95; [1997] ECR I-386; [1997] RPC 833 26 Feb 1996 ECJ European, Litigation Practice ECJ (Order) A natural or legal person who has not sought or been granted leave to intervene before the national court is not entitled to apply for leave to intervene in preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice in order to submit observations on the question raised by the national court. Article 37 of the Statute of the Court recognizes a right to intervene, but only in contentious proceedings designed to settle a dispute and not in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty; Article 177 provides for a right to submit observations but limits that right, as far as natural and legal persons are concerned, to those who are parties to the action pending before the national court seeking a ruling from the Court of Justice. [ Bailii ] Â Galtieri v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-43,II-129) T-235/94; [1996] EUECJ T-235/94 27 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Dimitriadis v Court of Auditors (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-51,II-151) T-294/94; [1996] EUECJ T-294/94 28 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â do Paco Quesado v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-57,II-171) T-15/95; [1996] EUECJ T-15/95 28 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Lopes v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-77,II-239) T-280/94; [1996] EUECJ T-280/94 29 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Lopes v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-63,II-185) T-547/93; [1996] EUECJ T-547/93 29 Feb 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Council (Rec 1996,p I-881) (Judgment) C-122/94; [1996] EUECJ C-122/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-307/94 [1996] EUECJ C-307/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Tirma v Administracion General del Estado C-300/94; [1996] EUECJ C-300/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgium v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-723) (Judgment) C-56/93; [1996] EUECJ C-56/93 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland C-239/94 [1996] EUECJ C-239/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Mohr v Finanzamt Bad Segeberg C-215/94; [1996] EUECJ C-215/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European, VAT ECJ Articles 6(1) and 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, in respect of the definition of a supply of services and the constitution of the taxable amount, respectively, are to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking to discontinue milk production given by a farmer under Regulation No 1336/86 does not constitute a supply of services. Consequently, any compensation received for that purpose is not subject to turnover tax. Where it grants such compensation, the Community is not in the situation of a consumer who remunerates a service supplied by a farmer who gives such an undertaking, but is acting in the common interest of promoting the proper functioning of the Community milk market. [ Bailii ] Â Skanavi and Chryssanthakopoulos (Judgment) C-193/94; [1996] ECR I-929; [1996] EUECJ C-193/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European, Road Traffic Any formalities required in order to have a driving licence issued in one Member State recognised in another Member State constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons, and are in breach of the Treaty. Europa 1. As Community law stands, and prior to the implementation of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, Article 52 of the Treaty does not preclude a Member State from requiring the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State to exchange that licence for a licence of the host Member State within one year of taking up normal residence in that State in order to remain entitled to drive a motor vehicle there. In view of the complexity of the matter and the differences between the legislation of the Member States, the Council, which had the task of achieving harmonization of the conditions governing the issue of driving licences and of providing that driving licences issued by the Member States should be mutually recognized in order to remove the obstacles to the free movement of persons resulting from the obligation to obtain a driving licence issued by the host Member State, was empowered to achieve that harmonization progressively and was therefore entitled to allow Member States temporarily to impose an obligation to exchange licences. 2. In view of the consequences which may result from the existence of a criminal record for the exercise of a trade or profession by an employed or self-employed person, particularly with regard to access to certain activities or certain offices, which would constitute a further, lasting restriction on freedom of movement, Article 52 of the Treaty precludes the driving of a motor vehicle by a person who could have obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for the licence issued by another Member State but who did not make that exchange within the prescribed period from being treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine. The Member States, which, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, remain competent to impose penalties for breach of the obligation to exchange driving licences which they may impose under Directive 80/1263 on the introduction of a Community driving licence, may not, however, impose a disproportionate penalty which, in view of the effect which the right to drive a motor vehicle has on the actual exercise of the rights relating to the free movement of persons, creates an obstacle to such free movement. Treatment of failure to exchange licences as equivalent to driving without a licence, thereby giving rise to criminal penalties, even if only financial in nature, is disproportionate on two grounds. First, it is disproportionate because the issue of a driving licence by a Member State in exchange for a licence issued by another Member State does not constitute the basis of the right to drive a motor vehicle in the territory of the host State, which is directly conferred by Community law, but evidence of the existence of such a right, and the obligation to exchange is therefore essentially a way of meeting administrative requirements. Second, it is disproportionate by reason of the consequences which it may have for the future prospects of the person concerned in his trade or profession. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting v Belgium (Judgment) C-110/94; [1996] ECR I-857; [1996] EUECJ C-110/94 29 Feb 1996 ECJ European, VAT The principle that VAT was reclaimable on the cost of acquiring a right later to purchase land to be used for VATable trade was applied to allow deduction of VAT on the cost of a study undertaken by a company in order to decide whether to commence an economic enterprise or not, even though it decided not to proceed and never made any taxable outputs. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Phelan v Council T-392/94; [1996] EUECJ T-392/94 4 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Schelbeck v Parliament (Rec 1996,p II-155,IA-97,II-315) T-141/95; [1996] EUECJ T-141/95 6 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Becker v Court of Auditors (Rec 1996,p II-141,IA-91,II-301) T-93/94; [1996] EUECJ T-93/94 6 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Rijk v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-117,II-365) T-362/94; [1996] EUECJ T-362/94 7 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Freers and Speckmann C-278/93; [1996] EUECJ C-278/93 7 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council (Rec 1996,p I-1195) (Judgment) C-360/93; [1996] EUECJ C-360/93 7 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Williams v Court of Auditors T-146/94; [1996] EUECJ T-146/94 7 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â El Corte Ingles v Blazquez Rivero C-192/94; [1996] EUECJ C-192/94 7 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Merckx and Neuhuys v Ford Motors Company Belgium (Rec 1996,p I-1253) (Judgment) C-171/94; [1996] EUECJ C-171/94; [1996] IRLR 467 7 Mar 1996 ECJ European, Employment Salesmen were transferred to a new dealership at a different workplace without any guarantee as to client base or sales figures, so that there was potential for an adverse impact on commission. Held. All these components were "working conditions". The change was substantial because it was a change in remuneration. Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mohr v Finanzamt Bad Segeberg Times, 08 March 1996 8 Mar 1996 ECJ VAT, European Compensation paid to farmer ceasing milk production not subject to VAT. Â Criminal Proceedings Against Skanavi and Others Times, 08 March 1996; C-194/93 8 Mar 1996 ECJ Road Traffic, European A requirement imposed to obtain a local driving licence within a year was acceptable, but not the punishment by fine. Â Guerin automobiles v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-171) T-195/95 11 Mar 1996 ECFI European Â Pafitis and others (Rec 1996,p I-1347) (Judgment) C-441/93; [1996] EUECJ C-441/93 12 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Weir v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-121,II-381) T-361/94; [1996] EUECJ T-361/94 12 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Banco de Fomento e Exterior v Pechim and others (Rec 1996,p I-1385) (Order) C-326/95; [1996] EUECJ C-326/95 13 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â de Vos v Stadt Bielefeld C-315/94; [1996] EUECJ C-315/94 14 Mar 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-239/95; [1996] EUECJ C-239/95 14 Mar 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Transposition of Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices. Directive 90/385/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-238/95; [1996] EUECJ C-238/95 14 Mar 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive. [ Bailii ] Â Van der Linden C-275/94; [1996] EUECJ C-275/94 14 Mar 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Article 47(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the domestic procedural rules of the State in which application is made so permit, proof of service of the judgment delivered in the State of origin may be produced after the application has been made, in particular during the course of appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the party against whom enforcement is sought, provided that that party is given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy the judgment voluntarily and that the party seeking enforcement bears all costs unnecessarily incurred. [ Bailii ] Â Del Plato v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-1443) (Order) C-31/95; [1996] EUECJ C-31/95P 14 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dysan Magnetics and Review Magnetics v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-181) T-134/95; [1996] EUECJ T-134/95 14 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sunino and Data C-2/96; [1996] EUECJ C-2/96 20 Mar 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Order) 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. The information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity 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 above mentioned 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 merely sets out offences contrary to national law with regard to employment procurement and temporary employment and indicates neither the contents of the provisions of national law to which it refers nor the precise reasons which prompted it to question their compatibility with Community law and to consider it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. [ Bailii ] Â Amtsgericht Reckinghausen (Germany) v Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager C-335/94; [1996] ECR I-1573; [1996] EUECJ C-335/94 21 Mar 1996 ECJ European, Road Traffic Europa Transport - Road transport - Social legislation - Derogations - Vehicles used in refuse collection and disposal - Definition (Council Regulation No 3820/85, Art. 4(6)) 2. Transport - Road transport - Social legislation - Areas excluded from the scope of Regulation No 3820/85 - Competence of Member States to regulate driving time (Council Regulation No 3820/85) When it refers amongst the categories of transport excluded from the scope of its provisions to transport by "vehicles used in ... refuse collection and disposal", Article 4(6) of Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport must be interpreted as referring to vehicles used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is not subject to more specific rules and for the transportation of such waste over short distances, within the context of a general service in the public interest provided directly by the public authorities or by private undertakings under their control. In areas not covered by Regulation No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport, Member States remain competent to adopt rules on driving time. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Farrugia v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-195) T-230/94; [1996] EUECJ T-230/94 21 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Goupil (Rec 1996,p I-1601) (Judgment) C-39/95; [1996] EUECJ C-39/95 21 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Chehab v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-135,II-419) T-10/95; [1996] EUECJ T-10/95 21 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bruyere and others C-297/94; [1996] EUECJ C-297/94 21 Mar 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Otten v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-129,II-401) T-376/94; [1996] EUECJ T-376/94 21 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Merkx and Another v Ford Motors Co Belgium Sa Times, 21 March 1996 21 Mar 1996 ECJ Employment, European A transfer of an exclusive dealership contract but without transfer of any physical assets could still be a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations. Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794) Â SPO and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-1611) (Order) C-137/95; [1996] EUECJ C-137/95P 25 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Jose Garcia and others v Mutuelle de Prevoyance Sociale d'Aquitaine and others C-238/94; [1996] EUECJ C-238/94 26 Mar 1996 ECJ European ECJ Article 2(2) of Directive 92/49 on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239 and 88/357 is to be interpreted as meaning that social security schemes such as the French statutory social security schemes providing health and maternity insurance for the self-employed in non-agricultural trades, old-age insurance for those in skilled manual trades and old-age insurance for those in industrial and commercial trades are excluded from the scope of Directive 92/49. That provision quite clearly excludes from the scope of the directive not merely social security organizations but also the types of insurance and operations which they provide in that capacity. Furthermore, the Member States retain their powers to organize their social security systems and thus to set up compulsory schemes based on the principle of solidarity, which would be unable to survive if the directive were to be applied to them, removing the obligation to contribute. Council Directive 92/49/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council C-271/94 [1996] EUECJ C-271/94 26 Mar 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v H M Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications; ECJ 26-Mar-1996 - Gazette, 04 September 1996; Times, 16 April 1996; C-392/93; (1996) QB 615 (ECJ); [1996] EUECJ C-392/93 Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1996,p I-1979) (Judgment) C-161/95; [1996] EUECJ C-161/95 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â V v Commission T-40/95; [1996] EUECJ T-40/95 28 Mar 1996 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Disciplinary measures - Removal from post - Statement of reasons - Aggravating circumstances. [ Bailii ] Â Gemeente Emmen v Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen C-468/93; [1996] EUECJ C-468/93 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Ruiz Bernaldez Times, 06 May 1996; C-129/94; [1996] EUECJ C-129/94; [1996] I ECR 1829 28 Mar 1996 ECJ Road Traffic, European Europa In the preliminary-ruling procedure under 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. 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 sought by that court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or the subject-matter of the main action. Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, is to be interpreted as meaning that, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2(1) of Directive 84/5 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, a compulsory insurance contract may not provide that in certain cases, in particular where the driver of the vehicle was intoxicated, the insurer is not obliged to pay compensation for the damage to property and personal injuries caused to third parties by the insured vehicle. In view of the aim of ensuring protection, stated repeatedly in all the relevant directives, Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166, as developed and supplemented by the later directives, must be interpreted as meaning that compulsory motor insurance must enable third-party victims of accidents caused by vehicles to be compensated for all the damage to property and personal injuries sustained by them, without the insurer being able to rely on statutory provisions or contractual clauses to refuse such compensation. Any other interpretation would deprive that provision of its effectiveness, since it would have the effect of allowing Member States to limit payment of compensation to third-party victims of a road-traffic accident to certain types of damage, thus bringing about disparities in the treatment of victims depending on where the accident occurred, which is precisely what the directives are intended to avoid. The compulsory insurance contract may, on the other hand, provide that in such cases the insurer is to have a right of recovery against the insured. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Guiot C-272/94; [1996] EUECJ C-272/94 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from requiring an undertaking in the construction industry established in another Member State and temporarily carrying out works in the first-mentioned Member State to pay employer' s contributions in respect of loyalty stamps and bad-weather stamps with respect to workers assigned to carry out those works, where that undertaking is already liable for comparable employer' s contributions, with respect to the same workers and for the same period of work, in the State where it is established. Such an obligation, even if it is applicable without distinction to undertakings established in the national territory and those established in another Member State which make use of the freedom to provide services, constitutes, in so far as the competitiveness of the latter is affected since it must pay contributions in two Member States, a restriction on that freedom. Such restriction could be justified by the public interest in the social protection of workers in the construction industry, although in that event the workers in question should not enjoy the same protection or essentially similar protection in the Member State where their employer is established. It is for the national court to determine whether, apart from the technical differences between the schemes protecting employees in the two Member States in question, the workers concerned do not already benefit, in the Member State where the undertaking which employs them is established, from a mechanism, maintained by the contributions of their employer, which offers them protection essentially comparable to that financed by the contributions provided for in the State where the service is provided. If it is confirmed that such is indeed the case, the restriction on the freedom to provide services is not permissible. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece C-160/95 [1996] EUECJ C-160/95 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 91/156/EEC - Waste. Directive 91/156/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Birkenbeul v Hauptzollamt Koblenz C-99/94; [1996] EUECJ C-99/94 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European Judgment - Regulation No 3019/86 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors and Regulation No 864/87 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on the same imports must be interpreted as applying only to imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors which are complete or finished. That interpretation is supported, inter alia, by the fact that the Community authorities decided, in the interests of transparency and efficiency and in order to induce exporters to raise their prices, to impose a duty, in the form of a variable duty equal to the difference between a minimum price and the price to the first independent buyer, which, unlike an ad valorem duty, cannot be satisfactorily applied to incomplete motors or motor parts. It is not possible either to calculate the duty payable on an incomplete motor by reference to the difference between its price and the minimum price fixed for a complete motor, since the result would be to impose a higher duty on the incomplete motor than on the complete, or to make a specific calculation of the duty on the incomplete motor, since the regulation does not set any minimum prices for incomplete motors. [ Bailii ] Â Kik v Council and Commission (Rec 1996,p I-1987) (Order) C-270/95; [1996] EUECJ C-270/95P 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Noonan v Commission T-60/92 28 Mar 1996 ECFI European ECJ Any condition in a competition notice which prohibits candidates with a university degree from entering a competition for category C posts is unlawful - as is any decision of a selection board based on such a condition - because it is incompatible with the principle of equal treatment in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, which provides inter alia that recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity. The fact that the appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion in choosing competition requirements is irrelevant. The choice to be made in the exercise of that power must always be governed by the requirements of the posts to be filled and, more generally, the interests of the service. There is no link at all, however, between the contested condition and those requirements or interests. Likewise irrelevant are the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations and the requirements in Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. Article 5(1), which lays down the minimum education and experience required for each staff category neither requires nor authorizes the application of a criterion which excludes candidates from a competition solely on the ground that they have a higher level of education than a particular maximum determined inter alia by the minimum for a category higher than that to which the competition relates. As regards Article 1(1) of Annex III, which lists the requirements to be stated in competition notices, it is evident that it does not relate to the diplomas and other evidence of formal qualifications possession of which entails exclusion of the holder from the competition, and that it also says nothing of the choice to be made by the appointing authority as regards the precise nature of the qualifications which may be required for a particular competition. 1 Cites Â Commission v Germany C-318/94 C-318/94; [1996] EUECJ C-318/94 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Anglo Irish Beef Processors International and others C-299/94; [1996] EUECJ C-299/94 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â AGF Belgium SA v European Economic Community, Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite (INAMI) (Judgment) C-191/94; [1996] EUECJ C-191/94 28 Mar 1996 ECJ European Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities, which provides for the Communities to be exempt from all direct taxes and for the remission or refund by the Member States of indirect taxes or sales taxes included in the price of substantial purchases made by the Communities for their official use, must be interpreted as covering compulsory charges, such as additional motor insurance premiums, intended to contribute to the financing of public interest institutions, in so far as those additional premiums are payable by all those who take out motor insurance, including those who are not covered in any respect by the recipient institutions, and are thus payable regardless of whether the person concerned is subject to or a member of, those bodies. The immunity granted to the Communities by Article 28 of the Merger Treaty, to which the Protocol is annexed, is defined in very broad terms and relates to all types of taxation, whether direct or indirect; it therefore extends to contributions or taxes of any type which constitute internal taxation under Community law, including the charges in question. The second paragraph of that article must be interpreted as meaning that the remission or refund for which it provides applies to all types of purchase, including obtaining a supply of services, which are necessary for the accomplishment of the Communities' task, and the amount of which exceeds the threshold laid down by the legislation in question. The third paragraph of that article, which provides that no exemption is to be granted in respect of taxes and dues which amount merely to charges for public utility services, must be interpreted as not applicable to the abovementioned charges, inasmuch as they do not constitute consideration for a specific service. [ Bailii ] Â U v Cedefop (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-159,II-479) T-24/96; [1996] EUECJ T-24/96 29 Mar 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Opinion No 2/94; ECJ 16-Apr-1996 - Times, 16 April 1996 Â Air France v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-235) T-2/93 17 Apr 1996 ECFI European Â Kyrpitsis v ESC (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-167,II-503) T-13/95; [1996] EUECJ T-13/95 18 Apr 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Persio v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-179,II-527) T-23/96 22 Apr 1996 ECFI European Â Mancini v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-185,II-543) T-113/95; [1996] EUECJ T-113/95 23 Apr 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Industrias Pesqueras Campos and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-247) T-551/93; [1996] EUECJ T-551/93 24 Apr 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mme A v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-191,II-555) T-6/94; [1996] EUECJ T-6/94 24 Apr 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Rendo and others v Commission C-19/93 24 Apr 1996 ECJ European Â Cassa nazionale di previdenza ed assistenza a favore degli avvocati e procuratori v Council (Rec 1996,p I-2003) (Order) C-87/95; [1996] EUECJ C-87/95P 24 Apr 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1996,p I-2019) (Judgment) C-274/93; [1996] EUECJ C-274/93 25 Apr 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Castellacci v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-201,II-579) T-274/94; [1996] EUECJ T-274/94 25 Apr 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v Cabanis-Issarte (Rec 1996,p I-2097) (Judgment) C-308/93; [1996] EUECJ C-308/93 30 Apr 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Netherlands v Council (Rec 1996,p I-2169) (Judgment) C-58/94; [1996] EUECJ C-58/94 30 Apr 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Boukhalfa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland C-214/94; [1996] EUECJ C-214/94 30 Apr 1996 ECJ European ECJ The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, laid down in Article 48(2) of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, applies to a national of a Member State who is permanently resident in a non-member country, who is employed by another Member State in its embassy in that non-member country and whose contract of employment was entered into and is permanently performed there, as regards all aspects of the employment relationship which are governed by the legislation of the employing Member State. Article 227 of the Treaty, which defines the geographical application of the Treaty and, in principle, of secondary legislation, does not preclude Community rules from having effects outside the territory of the Community, in particular as regards employment relationships which, although they concern an activity pursued outside that territory, retain a sufficiently close link with the Community; that must be deemed to extend also to cases in which there is a sufficiently close link between the employment relationship, on the one hand, and the law of a Member State and thus the relevant rules of Community law, on the other. [ Bailii ] Â CIA Security International v Signalson and Securitel C-194/94; [1996] EUECJ C-194/94; [1996] ECR I-2201 30 Apr 1996 ECJ European, Media 1. Under the procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national court to assess the scope of national provisions and the manner in which they are to be applied. Since the national court is best placed to assess, in view of the particularities of the case, the need for a preliminary ruling in order to give its judgment, preliminary questions cannot be regarded as having become redundant as a result of national legislation being replaced by other legislation. 2. A national provision according to which only persons with prior ministerial authorization may operate a security firm does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Directive 83/189, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, in so far as such a provision merely lays down the conditions for the establishment of security firms and contains no specifications defining the characteristics of products. On the other hand, provisions laying down the procedure for approval of alarm systems and networks which security firms may make available to consumers do constitute such technical regulations in so far as such provisions lay down detailed rules defining in particular the conditions concerning the quality tests and function tests which must be fulfilled in order for an alarm system or network to be approved and marketed in the national territory. In the case of a rule which provides that the products in question may be marketed only after having being previously approved according to a procedure to be laid down by administrative regulation, classification of such a rule depends on its legal effects under domestic law. If, under domestic law, such a rule merely serves as a basis for enabling administrative regulations containing rules binding on the persons concerned to be adopted, so that by itself it has no legal effect for individuals, the rule does not constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of the directive. If, however, it obliges the undertakings concerned to apply for prior approval of their equipment, it must be classified as a technical regulation, even if the administrative rules envisaged have not been adopted. 3. Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 83/189, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, under which Member States must notify the Commission of all draft technical regulations covered by the directive and, except in particular urgent cases, suspend their adoption and implementation for specified periods, are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before the national court, which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the directive. First, by laying down a precise obligation on Member States to notify draft technical regulations before they are adopted, those provisions are unconditional and sufficiently precise in terms of their content. Secondly, an interpretation of the directive to the effect that breach of the obligation to notify constitutes a substantial defect such as to render the technical regulations in question inapplicable to individuals is such as to ensure the effectiveness of the preventive Community control for which the directive made provision in order to ensure that goods can move freely, which is what it was designed to do. 4. Article 30 of the Treaty does not preclude a national provision according to which only persons with prior ministerial authorization may operate a security firm. Since such a provision imposes a condition for the establishment and carrying on of business as a security firm, it does not fall within the scope of Article 30. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â P v S and Cornwall County Council C-13/94; [1996] ICR 795; [1996] IRLR 347; [1996] EUECJ C-13/94 30 Apr 1996 ECJ European, Employment, Discrimination An employee at an educational establishment told management that he intended to undergo gender reassignment. He was given notice of dismissal. Held. The scope of the Directive was not confined to discrimination based on the fact that a person was of one or other sex but also extended to discrimination arising from the gender reassignment of a person. The Court stated: "Such discrimination is based, essentially if not exclusively, on the sex of the person concerned. Where a person is dismissed on the ground that he or she intends to undergo, or has undergone, gender reassignment, he or she is treated unfavourably by comparison with persons of the sex to which he or she was deemed to belong before undergoing gender reassignment. To tolerate such discrimination would be tantamount, as regards such a person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled, and which the court has a duty to safeguard." The Advocate General described the applicant as female: "I do so regardless not only of her original sex (male) as it appears on her birth certificate but also of the moment at which, as a result of the final surgical operation, she actually changed her physical sex." Council Directive 76/207/EEC 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1996,p I-2423) (Judgment) C-253/95; [1996] EUECJ C-253/95 2 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1996,p I-2415) (Judgment) C-234/95; [1996] EUECJ C-234/95 2 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1996,p I-2433) (Judgment) C-311/95; [1996] EUECJ C-311/95 2 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hopkins and others (Judgment) C-18/94; [1996] EUECJ C-18/94 2 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1996,p I-2323) (Judgment) C-133/94; [1996] EUECJ C-133/94 2 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Faaborg-Gelting Linien v Finanzamt Flensburg Times, 09 May 1996; C-231/94; [1996] STC 774; [1996] ECR I-2395; [1996] EUECJ C-231/94; [1996] All ER (EC) 656; [1996] CEC 587; [1996] 3 CMLR 535 2 May 1996 ECJ VAT, European A non-takeaway restaurant is a supply of services, and a ferry supply was made from its place of business. The supply of prepared food and drink at a restaurant resulted from a whole series of services (including the preparation and service of the meal); and that since restaurant transactions were characterised by a cluster of features and acts of which the provision of food was only one component and in which services largely predominate, they were to be characterised as supplies of services. This must be so though the quality of the food and the cost (eg of champagne at the meal) is very high indeed. The court distinguished the situation where the transaction relates to "take-away" food: such a transaction is a supply of goods. Where the transaction consists of a composite supply of services and goods (or of different categories of services) which from an economic point of view cannot be severed, the principal supply must be identified and the character of the principal supply determines the character of the component parts of the transaction: "In order to determine whether such transactions constitute supplies of goods or supplies of services, regard must be had to all the circumstances in which the transaction in question takes place in order to identify its characteristic features." and "Consequently, restaurant transactions are characterised by a cluster of features and acts, of which the provision of food is only one component and in which services largely predominate. They must therefore be regarded as supplies of services within the meaning of art 6(1) of the Sixth Directive. The situation is different, however, where the transaction relates to "takeaway" food and is not coupled with services designed to enhance consumption on the spot in an appropriate setting." Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 17 1977 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Brennet v Paletta C-206/94; [1996] EUECJ C-206/94 2 May 1996 ECJ European ECJ Judgment - 1. Social security for migrant workers - Sickness insurance - Worker staying in a Member State other than the competent State - Entitlement to benefits necessitated by his state of health - Scope - Cash benefits designed to compensate for the sick worker' s loss of earnings - Included - Payment of wages 2. Social security for migrant workers - Sickness insurance - Worker staying in a Member State other than the competent State - Incapacity for work - Obligatory recognition - Limits - Production by the employer of evidence supporting a finding of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the worker - Whether permissible - Worker required to produce additional evidence - Not permissible Council Regulation No 1408/71 22(1)(a)(ii) - Council Regulation No 574/72 18 [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-2441) (Order) C-399/95; [1996] EUECJ C-399/95R 3 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v S and Another Times, 07 May 1996; C-13/94 7 May 1996 ECJ Discrimination, European A dismissal linked to a sex change was a breach of the sex discrimination Directive. Council Directive 76/207/EEC Feb 9 1976 Â Adia interim v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-321) T-19/95; [1996] EUECJ T-19/95 8 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Society of Lloyd's v Clementson (No 2) Times, 14 May 1996 14 May 1996 QBD Insurance, European Lloyd's Central fund byelaw doesn't affect international trade; no EU law breach. ECTreaty 85 Â Area Cova and others v Council (Rec 1996,p II-343) T-194/95; [1996] EUECJ T-194/95 14 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Faroe Seafood and Froya Fiskasla (Rec 1996,p I-2465) (Judgment) C-153/94; [1996] EUECJ C-153/94 14 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gomez de Enterria v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-211,II-599) T-82/95; [1996] EUECJ T-82/95 14 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Iberian (Uk) Ltd v BPB Industries Plc and Another Times, 15 May 1996; [1997] Eu LR 1 15 May 1996 ChD Laddie J European UK courts should avoid creating procedures inconsistent with European decisions: "The necessity of avoiding conflicting decisions between the Commission and national courts is a theme which runs through a number of European and English domestic cases, as I will set out below. It is an objective which makes obvious sense. The European Union is intended to be a cohesive economic unit. It would interfere with that cohesiveness if a finding by the specialist competition authority of the Community that there had been an abuse of dominant position was undermined by decisions of national courts, some of which came to the same conclusion and others of which came to the opposite conclusion." 1 Citers Â Dimitriadis v Court of Auditors (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-217,II-613) T-326/94; [1996] EUECJ T-326/94 15 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â W v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-225,II-645) T-148/95; [1996] EUECJ T-148/95 21 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kaps v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-233,II-663) T-153/95; [1996] EUECJ T-153/95 21 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gutierrez de Quijano Llorens v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-241,II-689) T-140/94; [1996] EUECJ T-140/94 22 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â AITEC v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-351) T-277/94; [1996] EUECJ T-277/94 22 May 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â O'Flynn v Adjudication Officer Times, 07 June 1996; C-237/94; [1996] All ER (EC) 541; [1996] ECR I-2617; [1996] EUECJ C-237/94 23 May 1996 ECJ Benefits, European A condition on the making of a funeral grant that the deceased be buried in that country was unlawful. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community precludes a rule of a Member State which makes grant of a payment to cover funeral expenses incurred by a migrant worker subject to the condition that burial or cremation take place within the territory of that Member State. Unless objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued, a provision of national law, even if applicable irrespective of nationality, must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory, and hence not complying with the equality of treatment prescribed by Article 7(2), if it is simply intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage. Firstly, as regards funeral expenses, although the costs he incurs will be of the same type as and of comparable amount to those incurred by a national worker, it is above all the migrant worker who may, on the death of a member of the family, arrange for burial in another Member State, in view of the links which the members of such a family generally maintain with their State of origin. Secondly, the refusal to grant the payment if the funeral takes place in another Member State cannot be justified by considerations of public health, or by considerations relating to the cost of funerals, since the cost of transporting the coffin to a place distant from the deceased' s home is not covered in any event, or by the difficulty of checking the expenses incurred. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1996,p I-2675) (Judgment) C-331/94; [1996] EUECJ C-331/94 23 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Maas v Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en Landbouw C-326/94; [1996] EUECJ C-326/94 23 May 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Ex Parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd Times, 06 June 1996; [1996] ECR 1 2553; C-5/94; [1997] QB 139; [1996] EUECJ C-5/94 23 May 1996 ECJ Agriculture, European The wrongful prevention by a state of the lawful export of animals gave rise to a right to claim for damages. LMA The UK had refused to grant licences for the export of live sheep to Spain, on the grounds that the slaughterhouses were not complying with the terms of an EC Directive requiring the stunning of animals before slaughter. The UK conceded they were in breach of the Treaty provision on export restrictions but argued that it was justified on the grounds of animal welfare. Held: This was a sufficiently serious breach, on the basis of Lack of discretion left to MS Clarity of the Treaty provision breached Absence of an established ground for justification. Where MS was not called upon to make any legislative choices and had considerably reduced/no discretion - a mere infringement of community law may be sufficient to establish "as sufficiently serious breach" 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Rijksdienst Voor Arbeidsvoorziening v Van Gestel Gazette, 30 May 1996 30 May 1996 ECJ Benefits, European Unemployment benefit for migrant worker paid by country as agreed by worker. Â SCK and FNK v Commission T-18/96; [1996] EUECJ T-18/96 4 Jun 1996 ECFI European ECJ Competition - Payment of fines - Bank guarantee - Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kahn Scheepvaart v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-477) T-398/94; [1996] EUECJ T-398/94 5 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Maslias v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-249,II-713) T-92/94; [1996] EUECJ T-92/94 5 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gunzler Aluminium v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-497) T-75/95; [1996] EUECJ T-75/95 5 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â NMB and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-427) T-162/94; [1996] EUECJ T-162/94 5 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Confindustria and Romoli v Council (Rec 1996,p II-519) T-382/94; [1996] EUECJ T-382/94 6 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1996,p I-2691) (Judgment) C-101/94; [1996] EUECJ C-101/94 6 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-2797) (Judgment) C-198/94; [1996] EUECJ C-198/94 6 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Ecroyd Limited; ECJ 6-Jun-1996 - C-127/94; [1996] EUECJ C-127/94 Â Baiwir v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-269,II-787) T-391/94; [1996] EUECJ T-391/94 6 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Baiwir v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-257,II-739) T-262/94; [1996] EUECJ T-262/94 6 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pavan v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-291,II-861) T-147/95; [1996] EUECJ T-147/95 11 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Anacoreta Correia v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-283,II-835) T-118/95; [1996] EUECJ T-118/95 11 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Denkavit Internationaal and others (Rec 1996,p I-2827) (Judgment) C-2/94; [1995] EUECJ C-2/94S 11 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-277,II-819) T-111/94; [1996] EUECJ T-111/94 11 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sanchez Mateo v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-275,II-805) T-110/94; [1996] EUECJ T-110/94 11 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Binder v Hauptzollamt Stuttgart-West C-205/94; [1996] EUECJ C-205/94 13 Jun 1996 ECJ European ECJ 1. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Regulations establishing protective measures applicable to imports of products covered by the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables 2. Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Products processed from fruit and vegetables - Protective measures applicable to imports of frozen strawberries as provided for by Regulations Nos 2198/90 and 3797/90 - Principle of proportionality - Breach - None EEC Treaty 190 - Commission Regulation 3797/90 - Commission Regulation 2198/90 [ Bailii ] Â Office national de l'emploi v Spataro C-170/95; [1996] EUECJ C-170/95 13 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Maurin (Rec 1996,p I-2909) (Judgment) C-144/95; [1996] EUECJ C-144/95 13 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council C-303/94 [1996] EUECJ C-303/94 18 Jun 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Vela Palacios v ESC (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-305,II-893) T-293/94; [1996] EUECJ T-293/94 18 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Vela Palacios v ESC (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-297,II-877) T-150/94; [1996] EUECJ T-150/94 18 Jun 1996 ECFI European ECFI Officials - Actions for annulment of measures and compensation - Admissibility - Submission of a complaint by fax - Staff report - Delay - Statement of reasons for the award of poorer marks than in the previous staff report - Non-material damage. [ Bailii ] Â Caballero Montoya v Commission T-573/93; [1996] EUECJ T-573/93 19 Jun 1996 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Person treated as a dependent child - Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - General implementing provisions - Unlawfulness - Misapplication - Retroactive effect. [ Bailii ] Â NMH Stahlwerke and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-537) T-134/94 19 Jun 1996 ECFI European Â Commission v Italy C-237/95; [1996] EUECJ C-237/95 20 Jun 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) 1. Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested 2. Procedure - Costs - Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the other party (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5)) EC Treaty 169 [ Bailii ] Â VOBIS Microcomputer v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen (Rec 1996,p I-3047) (Judgment) C-121/95; [1996] EUECJ C-121/95 20 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Semeraro Casa Uno and others v Sindaco del Comune di Erbusco and others (Rec 1996,p I-2975) (Judgment) C-418/93; [1996] EUECJ C-418/93 20 Jun 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wellcome Trust v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Rec 1996,p I-3013) (Judgment) C-155/94 20 Jun 1996 ECJ European Â Moat v Commission T-41/95; [1996] EUECJ T-41/95 21 Jun 1996 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Action for damages - Implementation of a judgment annulling an appointment - Late completion of staff report. [ Bailii ] Â Dischamp v Commission T-226/94; [1996] EUECJ T-226/94 21 Jun 1996 ECFI European ECJ Suspension of the buying-in of butter by the intervention agencies - Action for damages. [ Bailii ] Â Italia Testa C-101/96; [1996] EUECJ C-101/96 25 Jun 1996 ECJ GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P European, Litigation Practice 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 be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC 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 merely refers to criminal breaches of national copyright legislation committed by a person running a private radio station and to the question, raised in that context, as to whether the monopoly held by a company having the exclusive right to manage such copyright and authorized to require payment of fees with protection backed by criminal penalties is compatible with Community law, and where it fails to give sufficient details of the factual context of the dispute, the national legislative context or the precise reasons which prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and to deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. [ Bailii ] Â Area Cova and others v Council (Rec 1996,p II-591) T-194/95 25 Jun 1996 ECFI European Â BP Chemicals v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-599) T-11/95 26 Jun 1996 ECFI European Â de Nil and Impens v Council (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-327,II-959) T-91/95; [1996] EUECJ T-91/95 26 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Schmit C-240/95; [1996] EUECJ C-240/95 27 Jun 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) Article 30 of the Treaty precludes national legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles which causes the administrative authorities and traders of the Member State in question to consider that, where two motor vehicles of the same model and make are sold in that Member State after 30 June, only the vehicle which was the subject of a parallel import would be prohibited from holding itself out as being of the following model year. Such rules are likely to discourage the sale of the vehicles concerned in so far as, although they are the same model as the others, they are presented as being of an earlier year and accordingly are at a discount on resale or where compensation is payable in the event of a claim. In addition, such rules cannot be justified under requirements relating to consumer protection or fairness of transactions. They do not guarantee that the consumer will be informed with certainty either of the differences in the characteristics of two vehicles of different model years or that two vehicles of the same model and model year will be identically manufactured. [ Bailii ] Â Â Asscher v Staatssecretaris Van Financien; ECJ 27-Jun-1996 - Times, 15 July 1996; C-107/94; [1996] EUECJ C-107/94 Â Tomberger v Gebruder von der Wettern C-234/94; [1996] EUECJ C-234/94 27 Jun 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) In order to coordinate the content of annual accounts, the Fourth Directive 78/660 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by the Seventh Directive 83/349 on consolidated accounts, lays down the principle of the "true and fair view", compliance with which is the primary objective of that directive. Application of that principle must, as far as possible, be guided by the general principles contained in Article 31 of the directive, particularly in Article 31(1)(c), (aa) and (bb), and (d). It is clear from those provisions that taking account of all elements which actually relate to the financial year in question ensures observance of the principle of a true and fair view. Where - one company (the parent company) is the sole shareholder in another company (the subsidiary), and controls it, - under national law, the parent company and the subsidiary form a group, - the financial years of the two companies coincide, - the subsidiary' s annual accounts for the financial year in question were adopted by the general meeting before completion of the audit of the parent company' s annual accounts for that year, - the subsidiary' s annual accounts for the financial year in question, as adopted by its general meeting, show that on the subsidiary' s balance-sheet date - namely the last day of that financial year - the subsidiary appropriated profits to the parent company, and - the national court is satisfied that the subsidiary' s annual accounts for the financial year in question give a true and fair view of its assets and liabilities, financial position and profit or loss, it is not contrary to the rule laid down in Article 31(1)(c)(aa) of the directive - according to which, for the purpose of valuing the items shown in the annual accounts, only profits made at the balance-sheet date may be included - for the national court to consider that the profits in question must be entered in the parent company' s balance sheet for the financial year in respect of which they were appropriated by the subsidiary. [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Brandsma C-293/94; [1996] EUECJ C-293/94 27 Jun 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Y v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-335,II-977) T-500/93; [1996] EUECJ T-500/93 28 Jun 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1996,p I-3207) (Judgment) C-473/93; [1996] EUECJ C-473/93 2 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1996,p I-3265) (Judgment) C-173/94; [1996] EUECJ C-173/94 2 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece C-290/94 [1996] EUECJ C-290/94 2 Jul 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Innamorati (Rec 1996,p I-3423) (Judgment) C-254/95; [1995] EUECJ C-254/95P 4 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pietsch v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof C-296/94; [1996] EUECJ C-296/94 4 Jul 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Hupeden v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas C-295/94; [1996] EUECJ C-295/94 4 Jul 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Greece v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-3331) (Judgment) C-50/94; [1996] EUECJ C-50/94 4 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Clarke v Cedefop (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-343,II-1003) T-85/96; [1996] EUECJ T-85/96 5 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Miwon v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-635) T-208/95; [1996] EUECJ T-208/95 10 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Weber v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-609) T-482/93; [1996] EUECJ T-482/93 10 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Otte v Deutschland (Rec 1996,p I-3745) (Judgment) C-25/95; [1996] EUECJ C-25/95 11 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gomes de Sa Pereira v Council T-30/96; [1996] EUECJ T-30/96 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel v Beiersdorf and others; ECJ 11-Jul-1996 - [1997] 1 CMLR 1222; [1996] ECR I-3603; C-71/94; [1996] EUECJ C-71/94 Â Â MPA Pharma v Rhone-Poulenc Pharma GmbH; ECJ 11-Jul-1996 - [1996] EC I-3671; C-232/94; [1996] EUECJ C-232/94 Â Regie dauphinoise C-306/94; [1996] EUECJ C-306/94 11 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Bernardi v Parliament (Rec 1996,p II-769) T-146/95; [1996] EUECJ T-146/95 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â SFEI and others v La Poste and others; ECJ 11-Jul-1996 - [1996] ECR I-3547; C-39/94; [1996] EUECJ C-39/94 Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Times, 02 August 1996; [1997] 2 WLR 123; [1996] ECR I-3805; [1996] 3 CMLR 411; [1997] Env LR 442; C-44/95; [1997] QB 206; [1996] EUECJ C-44/95 11 Jul 1996 ECJ GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P Environment, European (Judgment) When designating an area of land as a wild bird special protection site, economic factors were to be excluded. ECJ Article 4(1) or Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, which requires the Member States to take special conservation measures for certain species, and in particular to designate as Special Protection Areas the most suitable territories for their conservation, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not authorized to take account of the economic requirements mentioned in Article 2 of the directive when choosing and defining the boundaries of a Special Protection Area or even to take account of economic requirements constituting a general interest superior to that represented by the ecological objective of that directive. Similarly, a Member State may not take account of economic requirements in so far as they amount to imperative reasons of overriding public interest of the kind referred to in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of the natural habitats of wild fauna and flora, as inserted in Directive 79/409. Although the latter provision widened the range of grounds on which it may be justified to encroach upon Special Protection Areas already designated as such, by expressly including therein reasons of a social or economic nature, it nevertheless did not make any change regarding the initial stage of classification referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409, and therefore the classification of sites as Special Protection Areas must in all circumstances be carried out in accordance with the criteria accepted by those provisions. Council Directive 79/409/EEC Conservation of Wild Birds 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Carrer v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-363,II-1071) T-170/95; [1996] EUECJ T-170/95 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1996,p I-3865) (Judgment) C-304/95; [1996] EUECJ C-304/95 11 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-303/95 [1996] EUECJ C-303/95 11 Jul 1996 ECJ European Judgment - Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/157/EEC. [ Bailii ] Â Â Bristol-Myers Squibb and others v Paranova; ECJ 11-Jul-1996 - C-427/93; C-429/93; C-436/93; [1996] EUECJ C-427/93; [1996] ECR I-3457; [2000] Ch 75; [1997] FSR 102; [2002] 3 WLR 1746; [1996] ETMR 1; [1997] 1 CMLR 1151; (1997) 34 BMLR 59; [1996] CEC 716 Â Coussios v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-3873) (Order) C-397/95; [1996] EUECJ C-397/95P 11 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Aubineau v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-357,II-1053) T-102/95; [1996] EUECJ T-102/95 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â International Procurement Services v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-729) T-175/94; [1996] EUECJ T-175/94 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Metropole Television and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-649) T-528/93; [1996] EUECJ T-528/93 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ortega Urretavizcaya v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-349,II-1027) T-587/93; [1996] EUECJ T-587/93 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Goldstein v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-3883) (Order) C-148/96; [1996] EUECJ C-148/96P 11 Jul 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-749) T-271/94; [1996] EUECJ T-271/94 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Atkins v Wrekin District Council and Another; ECJ 11-Jul-1996 - Times, 02 August 1996; C-228/94; [1996] EUECJ C-228/94 Â Sinochem Heilongjiang v Council T-161/94; [1996] EUECJ T-161/94 11 Jul 1996 ECFI European ECFI Actions for annulment - Locus standi - Legal persons - Definition - Possession of legal personality under national law or recognized by the Community institutions as an independent legal entity (EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(5)(a); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(5)(a)) Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty - Export undertaking of a non-member country subject to investigation and the only undertaking to participate therein (EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.) Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Dumping margin - Determination of the export price - Calculation on the basis of the information available - Use, owing to a lack of other truly reliable information, solely of the information given in the originating complaint - Whether permissible (Council Regulation No 2423/88, Arts 2(8)(a) and 7(7)(b)) Community law - Principles - Rights of the defence - Observance of those rights in administrative procedures - Anti-dumping - Duty of the institutions to accede to requests for information from undertakings under investigation - Limits - Request out of time (Council Regulations No 2423/88, Art. 7(4)(c)(i)(cc), and No 2833/91, Art. 3) Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Injury - Community industry concerned - Definition - Determination of injury in respect solely of the complainant Community undertaking - Permissible where an undertaking accounts for over 25% of Community output (Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 4(1)) [ Bailii ] Â Sogecable v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-797) T-52/96; [1996] EUECJ T-52/96 12 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Presle v Cedefop (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-369,II-1093) T-93/96 12 Jul 1996 ECFI European Â United Kingdom v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-3903) (Order) C-180/96 12 Jul 1996 ECJ European 1 Citers Â National Farmers' Union and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-815) T-76/96; [1996] EUECJ T-76/96 13 Jul 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Criminal proceedings against Hassan; ECJ 19-Jul-1996 - C-196/96; [1996] EUECJ C-196/96 Â Criminal proceedings against Modesti C-191/96; [1996] EUECJ C-191/96 19 Jul 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Order) 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 be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court. It is the Court' s duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations 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 merely refers to criminal breaches of national copyright legislation and to the question, raised in that context, as to whether the monopoly held by a company having the exclusive right to manage such copyright and the authority to require payment of fees with protection backed by criminal penalties is compatible with Community law, and where it fails to give sufficient details of the factual context of the dispute, the national legislative context or the precise reasons which prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and to deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. [ Bailii ] Â Costacurta v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-375,II-1111) T-98/96 25 Jul 1996 ECFI European Â Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaretas v Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and others C-84/95; [1996] EUECJ C-84/95; [1996] ECR-I 3953 C 30 Jul 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Article 8 of Regulation No 990/93 concerning trade between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which provides that "all vessels, freight vehicles, rolling stock and aircraft in which a majority or controlling interest is held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) shall be impounded by the competent authorities of the Member States", applies to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking based in or operating from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, even though the owner has leased it for four years to another undertaking, neither based in nor operating from that republic and in which no person or undertaking based in that republic has a majority or controlling interest. It follows both from the wording of that provision and from the context and aims of the regulation, which implements in the Community certain aspects of the sanctions taken against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by the Security Council of the United Nations, and also from the text and the aim of the resolutions adopted by the Security Council on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that it applies to an any aircraft which is the property of a person or undertaking based in or operating from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and that it is not necessary for that person or undertaking also to have actual control of the aircraft. Fundamental rights such as the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the freedom to pursue a commercial activity are not absolute and their exercise may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the Community. Those restrictions may be substantial where the aims pursued are themselves of substantial importance. That is precisely the case as regards Regulation No 990/93, the aim of which is to contribute at Community level to the implementation of the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations, since that regulation pursues an objective of general interest which is fundamental for the international community, namely to put an end to the state of war in the region and to the massive violations of human rights and humanitarian international law in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The impounding under that regulation of an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking based in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but has been leased for four years to another undertaking neither based in nor operating from that republic and in which no person or undertaking based in or operating from that republic has a majority or controlling interest, cannot therefore be regarded as inappropriate or disproportionate. The Irish authorities were entitled to detain an aircraft owned by an undertaking based in Yugoslavia, but leased to a wholly innocent Turkish operator for three years, pursuant to the Regulation which imposed economic sanctions on Yugoslavia to compel it to desist from intervening in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The court rejected any proposition that interference with the Turkish company's property must be no more than was necessary to accomplish the objective of the measure taken in the public interest, but said that: "If it were demonstrated that such interference was wholly unreasonable in the light of the aims which the competent authorities sought to achieve, then it would be necessary for the this Court to intervene." Furthermore, when determining whether a fair balance had been struck, "the state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard to the means chosen to be employed and [my emphasis] to the question of whether the consequences are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued" Regulation No 990/93 concerning trade between the European Economic Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Oakdale (Richmond) Limited v National Westminster Bank Plc Times, 20 August 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 568 6 Aug 1996 CA Company, Banking, European The plaintiff sought to have the bank's form of debenture deemed anti-competitive under the treaty and void. Held: The bank's security finished when the sums due were repaid. It was not a clog on the equity of redemption. A provision against the freedom to give a second charge was appropriate because the charge was a continuing one securing an overdraft. A second charge would take priority over subsequent advances under the debenture. It was also necessary for the bank to take control of the collection of book debts to avoid that part of the charge being a floating charge. The provisions were reasonable and not anti-competitive. The arguments had no prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused. EC Treaty 85 86 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Soktas v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-859) T-75/96; [1996] EUECJ T-75/96 26 Aug 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Seche v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-379,II-1121) T-112/96 28 Aug 1996 ECFI European Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1996,p I-4115) (Judgment) C-11/95; [1996] EUECJ C-11/95 10 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Taflan-Met and others (Rec 1996,p I-4085) C-277/94; [1996] EUECJ C-277/94 10 Sep 1996 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ (Judgment) 1. In the absence of any express provision on its entry into force, Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States to Turkish workers and members of their families entered into force on the date on which it was adopted and has been binding on the Contracting Parties since then. It follows from Articles 6, 22(1) and 23 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement that decisions of the Association Council are measures adopted by a body provided for by the Agreement and empowered by the Contracting Parties to adopt such measures. In so far as they implement the objectives set by the Agreement, such decisions are directly connected with the Agreement and, as a result of the second sentence of Article 22(1) thereof, have the effect of binding the Contracting Parties. 2. In common with provisions of agreements concluded by the Community with non-member countries, a provision adopted by an association council, set up by an association agreement to implement its provisions, must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and the purpose and nature of the agreement itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure. Those conditions are not met by Decision No 3/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States to Turkish workers and members of their families. In the same way that Regulation No 1408/71, to which Decision No 3/80 refers and which is also intended to coordinate the different legislation of the Member States within the Community, required the adoption of implementing measures, which were embodied in Regulation No 574/72, by its nature Decision No 3/80 was intended to be supplemented and implemented in the Community by a subsequent act of the Council. It follows that, so long as the supplementary measures essential for implementing Decision No 3/80 have not been adopted by the Council, Articles 12 and 13 of that decision do not have direct effect in the territory of the Member States and are therefore not such as to entitle individuals to rely on them before the national courts. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1996,p I-3989) (Judgment) C-61/94; [1996] EUECJ C-61/94 10 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v United Kingdom C-222/94; [1996] EUECJ C-222/94 10 Sep 1996 ECJ European, Media ECJ (Judgment) A Member State fails to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(1) and (2) and 3(2) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities if, in order to determine the satellite broadcasters falling under its jurisdiction, it adopts criteria other than that of establishment, such as transmission or reception of programmes, which lead it to exercise control, prohibited by the Directive, over broadcasts falling under the jurisdiction of another Member State and, with regard to broadcasters which it considers to fall within its jurisdiction, it applies to non-domestic satellite services a regime which is less stringent than that to which domestic satellite services are subject. The concept of jurisdiction of a Member State, used in the first indent of Article 2(1) of the Directive, must be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters. This can be based only on those broadcasters' connection to that State' s legal system, which in substance overlaps with the concept of establishment as used in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the EC Treaty, the wording of which presupposes that the supplier and the recipient of a service are established in two different Member States. While a Member State may, under Article 3(1) of the Directive, lay down stricter rules in the areas covered by the Directive, the fact remains that, under Article 2(1), all broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of that Member State or over which it is required to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(1) must comply with the law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State. Directive 89/552 [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-278/94; [1996] ECR I-4307; [1996] EUECJ C-278/94 12 Sep 1996 ECJ European ECJ By making the grant of tideover allowances to young people seeking their first employment subject to the requirement of having completed their secondary education in an establishment subsidized or approved by it, a Member State imposes a condition which is likely to be more easily fulfilled by the children of its own nationals than by those of a national of another Member State. In the case of a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 which may be claimed by the members of the family of a migrant worker, that condition, which is akin to a condition of prior residence, constitutes a form of covert discrimination against the children of such a worker, contrary to the principle of equal treatment laid down by Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7 of the abovementioned regulation, notwithstanding the fact that it also applies to nationals of that State who complete their secondary education abroad, without its being necessary to establish that in practice it affects a substantially higher proportion of children of migrant workers than those of nationals. A special programme for the employment of young people who have completed their secondary education, set up by a Member State and characterized by the recruitment by organizations or undertakings of young people seeking their first employment and receiving the tideover allowance, who, for the purposes of social and tax legislation, are deemed to be employed by a national employment authority, and for whom the State assumes responsibility for the payment of all or part of their remuneration and social security contributions, must be regarded as falling within the scope of unemployment insurance and outside the scope of access to employment in the strict sense, as covered by Title I, and in particular Article 3(1), of Regulation No 1612/68. The effect of that link with unemployment insurance is that Community law relating to freedom of movement for workers can only be relied on in order to contest discrimination on grounds of nationality involved in that regime by a person who, as a result of having already participated in the employment market by exercising an effective and genuine occupational activity, has the status of a worker within the Community meaning of that term, and young people seeking their first employment do not fall into that category. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lafuente Nieto v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social C-251/94; [1996] EUECJ C-251/94 12 Sep 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Gallotti and others (Rec 1996,p I-4345) (Judgment) C-58/95; [1996] EUECJ C-58/95 12 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fattoria autonoma tabacchi C-254/94; [1996] EUECJ C-254/94 12 Sep 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â San Marco v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-4435) (Order) C-19/95; [1996] EUECJ C-19/95P 17 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cooperativa Agricola Zootecnica S Antonio and others v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato C-246/94; [1996] EUECJ C-246/94 17 Sep 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy C-289/94 [1996] EUECJ C-289/94 17 Sep 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Asia Motor France and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-961) T-387/94; [1996] EUECJ T-387/94 18 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Langdon v Commission T-22/96; [1996] EUECJ T-22/96 18 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Postbank v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-921) T-353/94; [1996] EUECJ T-353/94 18 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Climax Paper Converters v Council (Rec 1996,p II-873) T-155/94; [1996] EUECJ T-155/94 18 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ballone Burini v Court of Justice T-138/96; [1996] EUECJ T-138/96 19 Sep 1996 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Competitions - Non-admission to a competition - Procedure for interim relief - Application for suspension of operation of a measure. [ Bailii ] Â Brunagel v Parliament T-158/94; [1996] EUECJ T-158/94 19 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Allo v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-393,II-1161) T-386/94; [1996] EUECJ T-386/94 19 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1996,p I-4459) (Judgment) C-236/95; [1996] EUECJ C-236/95 19 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Marx Esser and Del Amo Martinez v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-411,II-1197) T-182/94; [1996] EUECJ T-182/94 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Richco v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1181) T-509/93; [1996] EUECJ T-509/93; [2000] EUECJ T-509/93 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Continentale v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1157) T-494/93; [1996] EUECJ T-494/93; [2000] EUECJ T-494/93 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Richco Commodities v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1131) T-491/93; [1996] EUECJ T-491/93; [2000] EUECJ T-491/93 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dreyfus v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1101) T-485/93; [1996] EUECJ T-485/93; [2000] EUECJ T-485/93 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Naloo v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1019) T-57/91; [1996] EUECJ T-57/91 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sergio v Commission T-185/95; [1996] EUECJ T-185/95 24 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â United Kingdom v Commission C-239/96; [1996] EUECJ C-239/96R 24 Sep 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Order) 1. In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main application should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, where the contention is that the main application is manifestly inadmissible, the judge hearing the application for interim measures must establish whether there is a prima facie case for finding that there is a certain probability that the main application is admissible. 2. In view both of the essential place which the institutional rules governing the allocation of powers between the various Community institutions must be recognized as occupying in the Community legal order and of the role which the Member States play therein, involving participation in the exercise of legislative and budgetary powers and contribution to the Community budget, the use by the Commission of Community funds for measures which lack a proper legal basis because they have not been authorized by the Council would be such as to cause a Member State serious and irreparable damage justifying the granting of interim measures. 3. When the judge hearing an application for interim measures balances the applicant' s interest in preventing the procedures initiated by the decisions whose annulment it seeks from being carried through against the defendant' s interest in expediting those procedures, he must examine whether the possible annulment of the contested decisions by the Court hearing the main action would make it possible to reverse the situation and conversely to what extent each of the various possible interim measures would be such as to prevent the aims of the contested decisions from being achieved in the event of the main application being dismissed. [ Bailii ] Â Frederiksen C-287/94; [1996] EUECJ C-287/94 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Â Criminal proceedings against Arcaro; ECJ 26-Sep-1996 - [1997] All ER (EC) 82; C-168/95; [1996] EUECJ C-168/95 Â Debouche v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Rec 1996,p I-4495) (Judgment) C-302/93; [1996] EUECJ C-302/93 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission C-241/94; [1996] EUECJ C-241/94 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) 1. Joint financing by a State, through a public fund which enjoys a degree of latitude enabling it to adjust its intervention, of measures accompanying social plans drawn up by undertakings experiencing employment problems constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty. First, the social character of such assistance is not sufficient to exclude it outright from being categorized as aid for the purposes of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, which draws no distinction based on the causes or aims of State intervention but defines it in relation to its effects. Secondly, since a fund of that kind enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to adjust its financial assistance, the contribution from that fund, even if not limited sectorially or territorially or by reference to a restricted category of undertakings, is liable to place certain undertakings in a more favourable situation than others by relieving them of certain legal obligations vis-a-vis their employees and thereby mitigating the charges which are normally included in their budgets. 2. The legality of a decision concerning aid is to be assessed in the light of the information available to the Commission when the decision was adopted. In particular, if, despite a specific request addressed to it, a Member State fails to provide the Commission with information enabling it to assess the nature and effects of State intervention in a social plan drawn up by an undertaking experiencing employment problems, the Commission is entitled to conclude that such intervention constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty where it appears that it is liable to mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of that undertaking. [ Bailii ] Â Maurissen v Court of Auditors (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-425,II-1229) T-192/94; [1996] EUECJ T-192/94 26 Sep 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1996,p I-4689) (Judgment) C-117/95; [1996] EUECJ C-117/95 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1996,p I-4679) (Judgment) C-79/95; [1996] EUECJ C-79/95 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Enkler v Finanzamt Homburg C-230/94; [1996] EUECJ C-230/94 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Forsberg (Rec 1996,p I-4661) (Judgment) C-43/95 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European Â Criminal proceedings against Allain (Rec 1996,p I-4631) (Judgment) C-341/94; [1996] EUECJ C-341/94 26 Sep 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission of the European Communities (French Republic Intervening) v UK Times, 30 September 1996 30 Sep 1996 ECJ Media, European UK unlawfully discriminated against foreign television satellite transmissions. Broadcasting Act 1990 Â J H Mann; S Taylor; D G Timms; D Souter; J M Simpson; A Craig and D Potter And/Or In Cross-Appeal v Secretary of State for Employment In Cross-Appeal [1997] IRLR 21; [1996] EWCA Civ 617 30 Sep 1996 CA European, Employment LMA An Industrial tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Francovich state liability for damages actions - these must be heard by the ordinary courts. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Climax Paper Converters Ltd v Council of the European Union; ECJ 30-Sep-1996 - Times, 30 September 1996 Â Vecchi v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-437,II-1251) T-356/94; [1996] EUECJ T-356/94 2 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hallouzi-Choho v Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Rec 1996,p I-4807) (Judgment) C-126/95; [1996] EUECJ C-126/95 3 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece C-380/95; [1996] EUECJ C-380/95 3 Oct 1996 ECJ European Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested EC Treaty 169 [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-4733) (Judgment) C-41/94; [1996] EUECJ C-41/94 3 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Henrikson v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1283) T-197/95; [1996] EUECJ T-197/95 4 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Henrikson v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1299) T-5/96; [1996] EUECJ T-5/96 4 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Dillenkofer and Others v Federal Republic of Germany Times, 14 October 1996; [1997] IRLR 60; C-178/94; [1996] EUECJ C-178/94 8 Oct 1996 ECJ European Individuals have a right to claim damages for the failure to implement a Community Directive. LMA The case concerned a failure to implement a Directive on package holidays. Held: The breach by the German State was clearly inexcusable and was therefore sufficiently serious to warrant liability (no mention of conditions). Non transposition of Directive within the prescribed time limit of itself amounted to sufficiently serious breach (lack of discretion left to MS) An action in damages can be brought against the "State" for failure to implement or defective implementation of a Directive. [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1201) T-24/93; [1996] EUECJ T-24/93 8 Oct 1996 ECFI European 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Cipeke v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1313) T-84/96 8 Oct 1996 ECFI European Â Doublerange Ltd and Others v National Power plc and Others and British Coal Corporation (third party); John Clive Harris and Others v National Power plc and Another [1997] Eu LR 589 9 Oct 1996 ComC Langley J European ComC European Union - ECSC Treaty article 4(b) and article 63(1) - direct effect - rights to individuals - cause of action - striking out - discrimination by purchasers - exhaustive - article 86 EC - cause of action -striking out - ECSC Treaty article 63(1) - Commission recommendation - future recommendation - cause of action - ECSC Treaty articles 4(1) and 63(1) - absence of direct effect - damages against Member State Â Hendrikman and Feyen v Magenta Druck and Verlag (Rec 1996,p I-4943) (Judgment) C-78/95; [1996] ECR I-4943; [1996] EUECJ C-78/95 10 Oct 1996 ECJ European Where proceedings are initiated against a person without his knowledge and a lawyer appears before the court first seised on his behalf but without his authority, such a person is quite powerless to defend himself and must be regarded as a defendant in default of appearance, within the meaning of Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, even if the proceedings before the court first seised became, in point of form, proceedings inter partes. That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the defendant may apply to have the judgment in question annulled on the ground of lack of representation, since the proper time for a defendant to have an opportunity to defend himself is the time at which proceedings are commenced. Article 27(2) of the Convention therefore applies to judgments given against a defendant who was not duly served with, or notified of, the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time and who was not validly represented during those proceedings, albeit the judgments given were not given in default of appearance because someone purporting to represent the defendant appeared before the court first seised. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Another v Msl Dynamics Ltd Times, 10 October 1996; C-43/95; [1996] EUECJ C-43/95 10 Oct 1996 ECJ Litigation Practice, European A request for security for costs from a foreign EC company is discriminatory and against the Treaty. ECTreaty Art 177 [ Bailii ] Â Hoever and Zachow v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen C-245/94; [1996] EUECJ C-245/94 10 Oct 1996 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ Social security - Family benefits - Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68. Directive 79/7/EEC 4(1) - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 7(2) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 73 [ Bailii ] Â SCK and FNK v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-4971) (Order) C-268/96; [1996] EUECJ C-268/96P 14 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Valio Oy v Commission T-137/96; [1996] EUECJ T-137/96 14 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Henke v Gemeinde Schierke and Verwaltungsgemeinschaft 'Brocken' C-298/94; [1996] EUECJ C-298/94 15 Oct 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â IJssel-Vliet Combinatie v Minister van Economische Zaken C-311/94; [1996] EUECJ C-311/94 15 Oct 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Benecos v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-461,II-1301) T-37/94; [1996] EUECJ T-37/94 16 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Capitanio v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-449,II-1279) T-36/94; [1996] EUECJ T-36/94 16 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Josephus Knijff v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-479,II-1341) T-378/94; [1996] EUECJ T-378/94 16 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Konservenfabrik Lubella v Hauptzollamt Cottbus (Rec 1996,p I-5105) (Judgment) C-64/95; [1996] EUECJ C-64/95 17 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Denkavit International and others v Bundesamt fur Finanzen [1996] ECR I -5063; C-283/94; [1996] EUECJ C-283/94 17 Oct 1996 ECJ JC Moitinho de Almeida, P European, Company LMA The case concerned an incorrect implementation by Germany of a Directive on the taxation of parent companies and subsidiaries in different States, which allegedly caused loss to the plaintiff's company. Held: (does decision turn on discretion on implementation) Germany's breach did not amount to a sufficiently serious breach. Almost all of the other MS had adopted the same interpretation. ECJ 1. By authorizing Member States to grant exemption from withholding tax upon distribution of profits by a subsidiary to its parent company holding at least 25% of the subsidiary' s capital, provided for by Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, only in so far as the parent company maintains that minimum holding for a period which Member States are free to lay down but which cannot exceed two years, Article 3(2) of Directive 90/435 introduces an option to derogate from the obligation to grant the exemption which, as such, must be strictly interpreted. It cannot therefore be interpreted as authorizing a Member State to make that exemption subject to the condition that, at the moment when the profits are distributed, the parent company should have had the required holding in the capital of its subsidiary for a period at least equal to that which the Member State has laid down pursuant to the option which it is recognized as having. It is for Member States to draw up rules for ensuring compliance with this minimum period, in accordance with the procedures laid down in their domestic law. On no view are those States obliged under the directive to grant the advantage immediately on the basis of a unilateral undertaking by the parent company to observe the minimum holding period. That being so, Community law does not require a Member State which, when transposing that directive into its national law, stipulated that the minimum holding period set pursuant to Article 3(2) must be completed at the time when the profits that are the subject of the tax advantage afforded by Article 5 are distributed, to compensate the parent company for damage which it may have incurred by reason of the error thus made. The conditions required for a breach of Community law by a Member State, on the occasion of the legislative activity involving a margin of discretion consisting in the transposition of a directive, to give rise to an obligation on that Member State to compensate individuals for damage which they have incurred are not satisfied in this case. There is, in any event, no sufficiently serious breach of Community law if it appears, inter alia, that the Member State' s interpretation of the directive corresponds to that of almost all the other Member States which have exercised the option to derogate. 2. Article 5(1) of Directive 90/435 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States clearly and unambiguously provides that a parent company holding a minimum of 25% of the capital of its subsidiary is to be exempt from withholding tax. While it is true that Article 3(2) of the directive gives Member States the option of derogating from that principle where the parent company does not maintain its holding in the subsidiary for a minimum period and gives those States latitude as regards both the duration of that period, which may not exceed two years, and the administrative procedures applicable, this does not make it impossible to determine minimum rights on the basis of the provisions of principle contained in Article 5 of the directive. It follows that, where a Member State has exercised the option provided for in Article 3(2) of the directive, parent companies may, provided that they comply with the obligation to maintain their holding for the period set by that Member State, rely directly on the rights conferred by Article 5(1) and (3) of that directive before national courts. 3. Individuals injured by a breach of Community law attributable to a Member State are recognized as having a right to reparation when three conditions are met: the rule infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage suffered by the injured parties. Those conditions apply where a Member State incorrectly transposes a Community directive into national law. In this regard, a breach is sufficiently serious if a Community institution or a Member State, in the exercise of its rule-making powers, manifestly and gravely disregards the limits on those powers. One of the factors that may be taken into consideration is the clarity and precision of the rule breached. [ Bailii ] Â Pantochim v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1361) T-107/96 21 Oct 1996 ECFI European Â Carvel and Guardian Newspapers v Council T-19/96; [1996] EUECJ T-19/96 22 Oct 1996 ECFI European, Costs ECFI Procedure - Costs - Action for annulment - Applicants' withdrawal - Conditions for the award of costs against the other party not satisfied [ Bailii ] Â CSF and CSME v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1377) T-154/94; [1996] EUECJ T-154/94 22 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Salt Union v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1475) T-330/94; [1996] EUECJ T-330/94 22 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Skibsvaerftsforeningen and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1399) T-266/94; [1996] EUECJ T-266/94 22 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SNCF and British Railways v Commission T-79/95; [1996] EUECJ T-79/95 22 Oct 1996 ECFI CP Briet P European Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Error of fact underlying a decision applying the competition rules - Annulment of the decision - (EC Treaty, Art. 85; Council Regulation No 1017/68, Art. 5) A decision which applies the competition rules to an agreement between undertakings in the rail transport sector must be annulled if the legal reasoning applied by the Commission in assessing the anti-competitive effects of that agreement and in examining it in the light of Article 85(3) of the Treaty, Article 5 of Regulation No 1017/68 applying the rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterways and Article 53(3) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area is based on an error of fact. Council Regulation No 1017/68 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Dietz v Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam C-435/93; [1996] EUECJ C-435/93 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â De Venhorst v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Rec 1996,p I-5261) (Judgment) C-86/94; [1996] EUECJ C-86/94 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Elida Gibbs Ltd v Commissioners Of Customs And Excise Times, 12 November 1996; C-317/94; [1996] EUECJ C-317/94; [1996] STC 1387; [1996] CEC 1022; [1997] QB 499; [1997] BVC 80; [1996] ECR I-5339 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European, VAT ECJ Where (a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon, which is redeemable at the amount stated on the coupon by or at the expense of the manufacturer in favour of the retailer, (b) the coupon, which is distributed to a potential customer in the course of a sales promotion campaign, may be accepted by the retailer in payment for a specified item of goods, (c) the manufacturer has sold the specified item at the "original supplier' s price" direct to the retailer and (d) the retailer takes the coupon from the customer on sale of the item, presents it to the manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, or (a) the manufacturer, in the course of a promotion scheme, sells items of goods at the "manufacturer' s price" direct to a retailer, (b) a cash-back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging of those items entitles the customer, if he proves purchase of one of those items and satisfies other conditions printed on the coupon, to present the coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, Article 11(A)(1)(a) and Article 11(C)(1) of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount serving as a basis for determination of the value added tax payable by the manufacturer is equal to the selling price charged by the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler rather than directly to a retailer. That interpretation necessarily follows from the principle that the taxable amount serving as a basis for the VAT to be collected by the tax authorities cannot exceed the consideration actually paid by the final consumer which is the basis for calculating the VAT ultimately borne by him and from the principle of neutrality of the tax whereby within each country similar goods should bear the same tax burden whatever the length of the production and distribution chain. The VAT system is not disturbed as a result of that interpretation since there is no need to readjust the taxable amount for the intermediate transactions. That amount remains unchanged since, for those transactions, observance of the principle of neutrality is ensured by application of the conditions for deduction set out in the directive, which enable the intermediate links in the distribution chain, such as wholesalers and retailers, to pay to the tax authorities only the part of the VAT representing the difference between the price paid by each to his supplier and the price at which he supplied the goods to his purchaser. The Court described the basic principles of VAT: " The basic principle of the VAT system is that it is intended to tax only the final consumer. Consequently the taxable amount serving as a basis for the VAT to be collected by the tax authorities cannot exceed the consideration actually paid by the final consumer which is the basis for calculating the VAT ultimately borne by him. Thus in Staatssecretaris van Financien v Hong Kong Trade Development Council (Case 89/81) [1982] ECR 1277 at 1285, para 6 the court held that it was apparent from EC Council Directive 67/227 of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of the legislation of the member states concerning turnover tax (the First Directive) (JO 71 14.4.67 p 1301 (S Edn 1967 p 14)) that one of the principles on which the VAT system was based was neutrality, in the sense that within each country similar goods should bear the same tax burden whatever the length of the production and distribution chain. That basic principle clarifies the role and obligations of taxable persons within the machinery established for the collection of VAT. It is not, in fact, the taxable persons who themselves bear the burden of VAT. The sole requirement imposed on them, when they take part in the production and distribution process prior to the stage of final taxation, regardless of the number of transactions involved, is that, at each stage of the process, they collect the tax on behalf of the tax authorities and account for it to them." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Germany and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-5151) (Judgment) C-329/93; [1996] EUECJ C-329/93 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Argos Distributors v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 18 November 1996; C-288/94; [1996] STC 1359; [1996] ECR I-5311; [1996] EUECJ C-288/94; [1997] QB 499 24 Oct 1996 ECJ Advocate General Geelhoed European, VAT VAT was payable on the value of a discount voucher only, and not on the full price of the goods. "According to the court's settled case law, the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received for them." VAT had been charged on vouchers on a basis inconsistent with Community law. The reference raised no question about whether the same could be said about teacakes: "There is only one difference between the early vouchers claim and the [late vouchers and teacakes] claims; as regards the early vouchers claim, the national legislation itself contravened the Directive, whereas with respect to the other two claims that legislation was unimpeachable in itself but was misapplied. Yet the end result in the two instances was precisely the same: the Directive was breached…" and "It is manifestly clear from the documents before the court that, in regard to both teacakes and gift vouchers after August 1992, the commissioners applied national tax legislation in a manner inconsistent with the directive." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Aannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland 'the Dutch-Dykes case) C-72/95; [1997] 3 CMLR 1; [1996] ECR I-0503; [1996] EUECJ C-72/95; [1996] ECR I-5403 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European, Planning, Environment ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their discretion (see, in particular, VERBOND VAN NEDERLANDSE ONDERNEMINGEN). Consequently where, pursuant to national law, a court must or may raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a binding national rule which were not put forward by the parties, it must, for matters within its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion whether the legislative or administrative authorities of the Member State remained within the limits of their discretion under Article 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive. Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Viho v Commission [1996] ECR I-5457; C-73/95; [1996] EUECJ C-73/95P 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European, Company 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs independants v Picard (Rec 1996,p I-5625) (Judgment) C-335/95; [1996] EUECJ C-335/95 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1996,p I-5615) (Judgment) C-325/95; [1996] EUECJ C-325/95 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Lisrestal and others (Rec 1996,p I-5373) (Judgment) C-32/95; [1996] EUECJ C-32/95P 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Tremblay and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-5547) (Judgment) C-91/95; [1996] EUECJ C-91/95P 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Eismann Alto Adige v Ufficio IVA di Bolzano C-217/94; [1996] EUECJ C-217/94 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European, VAT ECJ Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule requiring accompanying documents to be drawn up in respect of goods transported within the confines of the Member State concerned. The complete and exhaustive harmonization of the formalities which the Member States may impose on internal transactions for the correct collection of value added tax and for the prevention of evasion has not yet been carried out by the Community legislature and the latter, when laying down the rule that internal transactions and those between Member States should be treated equally, did not intend to prohibit a Member State from imposing formalities which are stricter on internal transactions than those applying to intra-Community trade. [ Bailii ] Â Sucriere agricole de Maizy and Sucriere de Berneuil-sur-Aisne v Directeur regional des impots (Rec 1996,p I-5581) (Judgment) C-172/95; [1996] EUECJ C-172/95 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Royale belge (Rec 1996,p I-5501) (Judgment) C-76/95; [1996] EUECJ C-76/95 24 Oct 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lopes v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-487,II-1357) T-26/96; [1996] EUECJ T-26/96 25 Oct 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mazzocchi-Alemanni v Commission T-21/95; [1996] EUECJ T-21/95 5 Nov 1996 ECFI European ECFI Officials - Supplementary sickness insurance schene for officials serving in a third country - Procedure for reimbursement of medical expenses - Application of ceilings. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1996,p I-5743) (Judgment) C-315/95; [1996] EUECJ C-315/95 7 Nov 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Roquette Freres v Council (Rec 1996,p II-1531) T-298/94; [1996] EUECJ T-298/94 7 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1996,p I-5729) (Judgment) C-262/95; [1996] EUECJ C-262/95 7 Nov 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Luxembourg C-221/94; [1996] EUECJ C-221/94 7 Nov 1996 ECJ European, Media ECJ (Judgment) 1. National provisions simply reproducing the text of Directive 86/361 on the initial stage of the mutual recognition of type approval for telecommunications terminal equipment are not sufficient to transpose Directive 91/263 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity. Between Directive 86/361 and Directive 91/263 there are clear differences as a result of which a Member State cannot claim to have implemented the second simply by having transposed the first. Amongst other things, Directive 91/263 constitutes, in relation to Directive 86/361, a further stage for full mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment, has an aim and a scope wider than Directive 86/361, lays down three requirements for terminal equipment which do not appear in the list of the essential requirements set out in Directive 86/361 and introduces a system of EC marking for terminal equipment complying with the requirements of the directive, which was not provided for by Directive 86/361. 2. The fact that a practice is in conformity with the requirements of a directive in the matter of protection can provide no reason for not transposing that directive into national law by means of provisions capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to enable individuals to ascertain their rights and obligations. Similarly, a draft national regulation is not capable of transposing a directive. [ Bailii ] Â Cadi Surgeles and others (Rec 1996,p I-5647) (Judgment) C-126/94; [1996] EUECJ C-126/94 7 Nov 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1547) T-120/89 8 Nov 1996 ECFI European Â United Kingdom v Council of the European Union Times, 21 November 1996; C-84/94; [1997] IRLR 30; [1996] EUECJ C-84/94; [1997] ICR 443 12 Nov 1996 ECJ European, Employment, Health and Safety A directive limiting the maximum work hours for all employees was validly made under art 118a as a Health and Safety measure. LMA Measures appear initially to have derived from policies of job creation and increased employment. John Major's government saw the initiatives (together with other provisions as part of Social Chapter) as measures which would lead to unemployment and expected an unsympathetic response from business organisations. Government opt-out of Social Chapter of Maastricht Treaty (TEU) Working Time Directive introduced some of provisions of Social Chapter in the guise of health and safety. The measures were adopted as a health and safety measure on the basis of Art.118a EC What were the implications of this route to adoption? Art.118aEC (Council) Qualified majority voting - (European Parliament) Co-operation procedure - although the Council ultimately has the final say, it can only over-rule Parliament (and the Commission) if it acts unanimously) as opposed to Art.100EC - (Council) unanimous voting - (European Parliament) Consultation procedure - this procedure requires that the Council consult the Parliament before it adopts an act. Parliament's views must be considered but have no binding effect. The UK challenged the Directive on various grounds Defective legal basis (lack of competence) Breach of the principle of proportionality Misuse of powers Infringement of an essential procedural requirements. The ECJ concluded that the UK's application was unfounded apart from one provision The ECJ annulled the second sentence of Art. 5 of the Council Directive concerning minimum rest periods to include Sundays - could not be justified on basis of health and safety measure. The ECJ dismissed the remainder of the UK's application. European Treaty Article 118a 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Girish Ojha v Commission C-294/95; [1996] EUECJ C-294/95P 12 Nov 1996 ECJ European ECJ The reasons given for a decision adversely affecting an official are sufficient if the measure was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned which enable him to understand its scope. That is the case where a reassignment decision in the interests of the service has been preceded by a letter and by discussions, in which the superiors of the person concerned have explained to him the situation and the reasons for the proposed reassignment, and where the official has had the opportunity to put forward his arguments against the decision informing him that he had to take the necessary steps to prepare to move. The Community institutions have a wide discretion to organize their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, provided the staff are assigned in conformity with the principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade. Where they cause tensions prejudicial to the proper functioning of the service, internal relationship difficulties may justify the transfer of an official in the interests of the service. Such a measure may even be taken irrespective of the question of responsibility for the incidents in question. That rule applies a fortiori in the sphere of the external relations of a department, especially where it is entrusted with diplomatic tasks. The essential element of diplomatic functions is to prevent tensions from arising and to smooth out any which do. Such functions require the absolute confidence of those involved. Once that is shaken, for whatever reason, the official in question is no longer able to carry out the functions. So that the criticisms made against him do not extend to the whole of the department concerned, sound administration requires that the institution should distance him from the situation as soon as possible. If the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance reveal an infringement of Community law, but its operative part appears to be well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed. Since a decision to transfer or reassign an official may be taken on the basis of the mere existence of complaints, where the interests of the service so require, the institution cannot be impugned for adopting such a measure without first opening an enquiry in order to determine whether those complaints are well founded. In such a context, any non-performance of the duty to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations can only lead to the annulment of the decision refusing the assistance requested and, in some cases, may constitute maladministration for which the Community may be liable. A decision by the appointing authority concerning the administrative status and career of an official may not be based on matters concerning his conduct which are not included in his personal file and have not been communicated to him. A decision to redeploy an official necessarily affects his administrative status, since it alters the place and the conditions for the performance of his duties and also their nature. It may also affect his career by influencing his future prospects, since some functions, whilst being equally classified with others, lead more readily to promotion by reason of the nature of the responsibilities exercised. Therefore, by holding, on the one hand, that the purpose of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations is to ensure compliance with the official' s rights of defence by preventing decisions by the appointing authority which affect his administrative status and career from being based on facts concerning his conduct which are not mentioned in his personal file, and at the same time holding that the contested reassignment decision did not affect either the official' s administrative status or his career, the Court of First Instance failed to uphold Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. More particularly, by allowing documents not communicated to the official and relating to his conduct in the service to be used against him, the Court of First Instance failed to uphold the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations does not entail the annulment of a decision by the appointing authority affecting an official' s administrative status and career unless it is established that the documents concerning his conduct not placed on his personal file and not communicated to him could have had a decisive influence on the decision. The mere fact that documents were not placed on an official' s personal file is not enough to justify annulment of a measure adversely affecting him if they were in fact brought to his knowledge. It is apparent from the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations that the prohibition on using against an official documents concerning his ability, efficiency and conduct applies only to documents which were not previously communicated to him. It does not cover documents which, although brought to his knowledge, have not yet been placed on his personal file. [ Bailii ] Â Regina v The Medicines Control Agency, ex parte Smith and Nephew Pharmaceuticals and Primecrown v The Medicines Control Agency C-201/94; [1996] EUECJ C-201/94 12 Nov 1996 ECJ European, Licensing ECJ When the competent authority of a Member State concludes that a proprietary medicinal product covered by a marketing authorization in another Member State and a proprietary medicinal product for which it has already issued a marketing authorization are manufactured by independent companies pursuant to agreements concluded with the same licensor and that those two products, although not identical in all respects, have at least been manufactured according to the same formulation and using the same active ingredient and that they also have the same therapeutic effects, it must treat the imported proprietary medicinal product as being covered by the latter marketing authorization unless there are countervailing considerations relating to the effective protection of the life and health of humans. If the public health authorities of the Member State of importation already have in their possession, as a result of an application for a marketing authorization for the proprietary medicinal product in question, all the pharmaceutical particulars relating to that product and considered to be absolutely necessary for the purpose of checking that the product is effective and not harmful, it is clearly unnecessary, in order to protect the health and life of humans, for those authorities to require a second trader who has imported a proprietary medicinal product satisfying the abovementioned criteria to produce these particulars again. The fact that the grantor of the licences in respect of the two proprietary medicinal products in question is situated outside the European Community is irrelevant. However, if the competent national authority concludes that the proprietary medicinal product to be imported does not satisfy the abovementioned criteria, a new marketing authorization is required. That authorization can be issued only in accordance with the conditions laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 65/65 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, as amended in particular by Directive 87/21. It would, in particular, be contrary to those provisions, which preclude the issue of a marketing authorization unless all the information referred to in Article 4 has been supplied and the tests performed, for the competent authority, in the context of an application for a marketing authorization, to use information supplied by an independent company, without its agreement, in support of an application for a marketing authorization concerning another proprietary medicinal product. 2. The holder of an original marketing authorization issued under the procedure referred to in Directive 65/65 may rely on the provisions of that directive, as amended in particular by Directive 87/21, and specifically on Article 5 thereof, in proceedings before a national court in order to challenge the validity of an authorization issued by the competent national authority on the basis of that directive to one of its competitors for a proprietary medicinal product bearing the same name. The same applies where the authorization, although issued under another procedure laid down at national level, should have been issued on the basis of the directive. Those provisions are sufficiently unconditional and precise for that purpose. [ Bailii ] Â SDDDA v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1559) T-47/96; [1996] EUECJ T-47/96 12 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Her Majesty's Treasury ex parte British Telecommunications Plc [1996] EWHC Admin 228 14 Nov 1996 Admn European Utilities Supply and Works Contracts Regulations 1992 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Rotsart de Hertaing v Benoidt and IGC Housing Service (In Liquidation) and Another; ECJ 14-Nov-1996 - Times, 25 November 1996; [1997] IRLR 127; C-305/94; [1996] EUECJ C-305/94 Â Tetra Pak v Commission C-333/94; [1997] 4 CMLR 662; [1996] EUECJ C-333/94P 14 Nov 1996 ECJ European, Commercial When defining the relevant market for the purpose of applying Article 86 of the Treaty, the competitive conditions and the structure of supply and demand on the market are relevant criteria for determining whether certain products are interchangeable with others. Application of Article 86 presupposes a link between the dominant position and the alleged abusive conduct, which is normally not present where conduct on a market distinct from the dominated market produces effects on that distinct market. In the case of distinct, but associated, markets, application of Article 86 to conduct found on the associated, non-dominated, market and having effects on that associated market can only be justified by special circumstances. An undertaking which enjoys a quasi-monopoly on certain markets and a leading position on distinct, though closely associated, markets is placed in a situation comparable to that of holding a dominant position on those markets as a whole. Conduct by such an undertaking on those distinct markets which is alleged to be abusive may therefore be covered by Article 86 of the Treaty without any need to show that it is dominant on them. The list of abusive practices set out in the second paragraph of Article 86 of the Treaty is not exhaustive. Consequently, even where tied sales of two products are in accordance with commercial usage or there is a natural link between the two products in question, such sales may still constitute abuse within the meaning of Article 86 unless they are objectively justified. When determining whether an undertaking has practised predatory pricing for the purposes of applying Article 86 of the Treaty, a distinction must be drawn between prices below average variable costs, which must always be considered abusive, and prices below average total costs but above average variable costs, which are only to be considered abusive if an intention to eliminate can be shown. It would not be appropriate to require in addition, in order to categorize its pricing as predatory, proof that the undertaking concerned had a realistic chance of recouping its losses. It must be possible to penalize predatory pricing whenever there is a risk that competitors will be eliminated. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Brulant v Parliament (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-513,II-1397) T-272/94; [1996] EUECJ T-272/94 19 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Siemens v Nold (Rec 1996,p I-6017) (Judgment) C-42/95; [1996] EUECJ C-42/95 19 Nov 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Z v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-519,II-1413) T-135/95; [1996] EUECJ T-135/95 20 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Syndicat des producteurs de viandes bovines and others v Commission T-53/96; [1996] EUECJ T-53/96 21 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Michael v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-529,II-1429) T-144/95; [1996] EUECJ T-144/95 21 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kuchlenz-Winter v Parliament (Rec 1996,p II-1593) T-164/95; [1996] EUECJ T-164/95 26 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kuchlenz-Winter v Council (Rec 1996,p II-1607) T-167/95; [1996] EUECJ T-167/95 26 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â T Port v Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung C-68/95; [1996] EUECJ C-68/95 26 Nov 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Kuchlenz-Winter v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1619) T-226/95; [1996] EUECJ T-226/95 26 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Graffione v Ditta Fransa C-313/94; [1996] EUECJ C-313/94 26 Nov 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â AITEC v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1631) T-447/93 28 Nov 1996 ECFI European Â Ryan-Sheridan v FEACVT C-119/96; [1996] EUECJ C-119/96P 28 Nov 1996 ECJ J.L. Murray, P European ECJ The basic function of a competition notice is to give those interested the most accurate information possible on the conditions of eligibility for the post to be filled, in order to enable them to determine whether they should apply for it. [ Bailii ] Â Odigitria v Council and Commission C-293/95; [1996] EUECJ C-293/95P 28 Nov 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Order) 1. Under Article 168a of the Treaty, an appeal is confined to points of law and this limitation is further embodied in the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Thus, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to infringements of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of facts, and is therefore admissible only in so far as the decision of the Court of First Instance is claimed to be incompatible with rules of law the observance of which it had to ensure. 2. It follows from Article 168a of the Treaty, Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, read in combination, that an appeal must indicate precisely which elements of the contested judgment are challenged, and also the legal arguments which specifically support the appeal. This requirement is not satisfied by pleas in law which are confined to repeating or reproducing word for word the arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, without containing any legal argument in support of the form of order sought in the appeal. In reality, such pleas merely seek to obtain a re-examination of the application and the reply submitted to the Court of First Instance, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. [ Bailii ] Â Lenz v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-6109) (Order) C-277/95; [1996] EUECJ C-277/95P 28 Nov 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Antonissen v Council and Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1641) T-179/96; [1996] EUECJ T-179/96 29 Nov 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Portugal v Council C-268/94; [1996] EUECJ C-268/94 3 Dec 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) 1 Development cooperation - Conclusion by the Community of international agreements - EC-India Cooperation Agreement - Provision concerning respect for human rights - Legal basis - Article 130y of the Treaty - Whether permissible (EC Treaty, Arts 130u(2), 130y and 235; EC-India Cooperation Agreement, Art. 1(1); Council Decision 94/578) 2 Development cooperation - Conclusion by the Community of international agreements - Agreement containing clauses relating to specific matters - Legal basis - Article 130y of the Treaty - Whether permissible - Conditions - EC-India Cooperation Agreement (EC Treaty, Art. 130u(1) and 130y; EC-India Cooperation Agreement, Arts 7, 10, 13, 15, and 19; Council Decision 94/578) 3 So far as concerns Article 1(1) of the Agreement providing for respect for human rights and democratic principles, Decision 94/578 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of India on Partnership and Development could be validly based on Article 130y of the Treaty and did not require recourse to Article 235 as the legal basis. In that respect, the mere fact that the provision in question describes respect for human rights as an essential element of cooperation does not justify the conclusion that it goes beyond the objective stated in Article 130u(2) of the Treaty, the very wording of which demonstrates the importance to be attached to respect for human rights and democratic principles, so that development cooperation policy must be adapted to the requirement of respect for those rights and principles. 4 A development cooperation agreement concluded between the Community and a non-member country and adopted on the basis of Article 130y of the Treaty may lay down provisions on specific matters without there being any need to have recourse to other legal bases, or indeed to participation of the Member States in the conclusion of the agreement, in so far as the essential purpose of the agreement is to pursue the objectives referred to in Article 130u(1), and on condition that the clauses concerning specific matters do not impose obligations so extensive that they in fact constitute objectives distinct from those of development cooperation. In that respect, the cooperation provided for by the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of India on Partnership and Development is specified - in the provisions concerning the Agreement's objectives - in terms that take particular account of the needs of a developing country and, consequently, amongst other things, contributes to furthering the pursuit of the objectives mentioned in Article 130u(1) of the Treaty. As regards more particularly the provisions of the Agreement which relate to specific matters concerning energy, tourism and culture (Articles 7, 13 and 15), drug abuse control (Article 19) and intellectual property (Article 10), those provisions establish the framework of cooperation between the contracting parties and are limited to determining the areas for cooperation and to specifying certain of its aspects and various actions to which special importance is attached, but do not for that reason contain anything that prescribes in concrete terms the manner in which cooperation in each specific area envisaged is to be implemented. The mere inclusion of provisions for cooperation in a specific field does not therefore necessarily imply a general enabling power to serve as the basis of a competence to undertake any kind of cooperation action in that field, with the result that it does not predetermine the allocation of spheres of competence between the Community and the Member States or the legal basis of Community acts for implementing cooperation in such a field. From the point of view of the incorporation into the Agreement of Articles 7, 10, 13, 15 and 19, it must be concluded that it was possible for Decision 94/578 on the conclusion of the Agreement, to be validly adopted on the basis of Article 130y of the Treaty. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece C-91/96; [1996] EUECJ C-91/96 5 Dec 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to fulfil obligations not contested [ Bailii ] Â Lopes v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p I-6409) (Order) C-175/96; [1996] EUECJ C-175/96P 5 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lopes v Court of Justice (Rec 1996,p I-6401) (Order) C-174/96; [1996] EUECJ C-174/96P 5 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Commission (Rec 1996,p I-6233) (Judgment) C-69/95; [1996] EUECJ C-69/95 5 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Merck v Primecrown and Beecham v Europharm (Rec.1996,p.I-6285) C-267/95; [1996] EUECJ C-267/95 5 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Reisdorf v Finanzamt Koln-West C-85/95; [1996] EUECJ C-85/95 5 Dec 1996 ECJ European Judgment [ Bailii ] Â Stadt Mainz v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1655) T-155/96; [1996] EUECJ T-155/96 6 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Zuchner v Handelskrankenkasse (Ersatzkasse) Bremen Times, 09 December 1996; C-77/95; [1996] EUECJ C-77/95 9 Dec 1996 ECJ Discrimination, European A wife caring for her paraplegic husband is not in that capacity 'a worker' sufficient to be protected from sex discrimination. European Communities Treaty 177 [ Bailii ] Â Soktas v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1689) T-75/96 10 Dec 1996 ECFI European Â Atlanta and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert v Commission T-18/95; [1996] EUECJ T-18/95 10 Dec 1996 ECFI European, Agriculture, Customs and Excise Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation increasing the tariff quota for imports of bananas for traders affected by a natural disaster [ Bailii ] Â Atlanta and others v Communaute europeenne (Rec 1996,p II-1707) T-521/93; [1996] EUECJ T-521/93 11 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Van Megen Sports Group v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1799) T-49/95; [1996] EUECJ T-49/95 11 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1741) T-70/94; [1996] EUECJ T-70/94 11 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Barreaux and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-541,II-1451) T-177/95; [1996] EUECJ T-177/95 11 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kruidvat v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1931) T-87/92; [1996] EUECJ T-87/92 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Lozano Palacios v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-575,II-1535) T-33/95; [1996] EUECJ T-33/95 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Air France v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-2109) T-358/94; [1996] EUECJ T-358/94 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Reiseburo Broede v Sandker C-3/95; [1996] ECR I-6511; [1997] 1 CMLR 224; [1996] EUECJ C-3/95 12 Dec 1996 ECJ J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, P European, Legal Professions ECJ (Judgment) 1 Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Whether permissible - Conditions (EC Treaty, Art. 59) 2 Freedom to provide services - Judicial recovery of debts - Restrictions - Obligation to use the services of a lawyer - Justification on grounds of the general interest - Protection of recipients of services and proper administration of justice - Permissible (EC Treaty, Art. 59) 3 A national rule preventing nationals of other Member States from engaging in the provision of services does not fall outside the prohibition laid down by Article 59 of the Treaty unless four conditions are fulfilled, namely that it must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner, must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it, and restrictions justified by overriding reasons in the general interest are permissible only if that interest is not already safeguarded by the rules to which the provider of the service is subject in the Member State where he is established. 4 Article 59 of the Treaty does not preclude a national rule which prohibits an undertaking established in another Member State from securing judicial recovery of debts owed to others on the ground that the exercise of that activity in a professional capacity is reserved to the legal profession. Such a prohibition is not discriminatory, since it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, is intended to protect recipients of services against the harm which they could suffer as a result of using the services of persons not possessing the necessary professional or personal qualifications and to safeguard the proper administration of justice, is capable of achieving that objective on account of the guarantee of competence attaching to the services of a lawyer, and cannot be described as disproportionate, even if it is not applied in other Member States, since it is for the Member States to decide the extent to which activities are to be reserved to the legal profession. "the application of professional rules to lawyers, in particular those relating to organization, qualifications, professional ethics, supervision and liability, ensures that the ultimate consumers of legal services and the sound administration of justice are provided with the necessary guarantees in relation to integrity and experience". 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Altmann and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-2041,IA-553,II-1471) T-177/94; [1996] EUECJ T-177/94 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â RTI and others v Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni C-320/94; [1996] EUECJ C-320/94 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Leclerc v Commission T-88/92; [1996] EUECJ T-88/92 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Association internationale des utilisateurs de fils de filaments artificiels et synthetiques et de soie naturelle (AIUFFASS) and Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance (AKT) v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1996,p II-2169) T-380/94; [1996] EUECJ T-380/94 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European Europa 1 Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision authorizing State aid -Action brought by associations representing the main international and national producers in the sector concerned, which took part in the administrative procedure for adopting the decision and played an active role vis-à-vis the Commission with regard to aid to that sector - Admissibility (EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and Art. 173, fourth para.) [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte British Telecommunications C-302/94; [1996] EUECJ C-302/94 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European, Utilities ECJ 1 Approximation of laws - Telecommunications services - Open network provision to leased lines - Directive 92/44 - Scope - `Telecommunications organizations' defined as bodies holding special or exclusive rights - Concept (Council Directives 90/387, Arts 1(1) and 2(1), and 92/44, Art. 2(1); Commission Directives 90/388 and 94/46, Art. 2) 2 Approximation of laws - Telecommunications services - Open network provision to leased lines - Directive 92/44 - Bodies holding special or exclusive rights - Identification - Fact of having been the subject of a notification made pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 90/387 - Holding of an operating licence required by national law but granted on a non-discriminatory basis - Enjoyment of special prerogatives granted on a non-discriminatory basis permitting telecommunications networks to be set up - Irrelevant (Council Directives 90/387, Art. 2(1), second subpara., and 92/44) 3 Approximation of laws - Telecommunications services - Open network provision to leased lines - Directive 92/44 - Bodies holding special or exclusive rights - Concept - Undertakings with exclusive responsibility for operating international lines - Undertaking responsible for the exclusive operation of a public telecommunications network covering part of the country - Included (Council Directives 90/387, Art. 2(1) and 92/44) 4 Approximation of laws - Telecommunications services - Open network provision to leased lines - Directive 92/44 - Obligation to provide a minimum set of leased lines imposed by a Member State only on certain telecommunications organizations - Whether permissible - Conditions (Council Directive 92/44, Art. 7) 5 Community law - Principles - Proportionality - Obligation referred to in Directive 92/44 to provide, irrespective of whether there is an actual demand, a certain number of lines complying with certain technical characteristics - Breach - None [ Bailii ] Â Da Silva v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-583,II-1559) T-74/95; [1996] EUECJ T-74/95 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Olasagasti and others/ Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Rec 1996,p I-6579) (Judgment) C-47/95; [1996] EUECJ C-47/95 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kontogeorgas v Kartonpak (Rec 1996,p I-6643) (Judgment) C-104/95; [1996] EUECJ C-104/95 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Stott v Commission T-99/95; [1996] EUECJ T-99/95 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against X C-74/95; [1996] ECR I-6609; [1996] EUECJ C-74/95 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European, Crime (Judgment) Criminal proceedings may not be brought in respect of conduct not clearly defined as culpable. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ministero delle Finanze v Foods Import (Rec 1996,p I-6543) (Judgment) C-38/95; [1996] EUECJ C-38/95 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Associazione agricoltori della provincia di Rovigo and others v Commission and others (Rec 1996,p I-6669) (Judgment) C-142/95; [1996] EUECJ C-142/95P 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Commission v Germany; ECJ 12-Dec-1996 - C-297/95; [1996] EUECJ C-297/95 Â Commission v Germany C-298/95; [1996] EUECJ C-298/95 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) 1 Approximation of laws - Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life and quality required of shellfish waters - Directives 78/659 and 79/923 - Need for exact transposition by the Member States (Council Directives 78/659 and 79/923) 2 Member States - Obligations - Implementation of directives - Failure to implement - Justification - Not permissible (EC Treaty, Art. 169) 3 Approximation of laws - Quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life and quality required of shellfish waters - Directives 78/659 and 79/923 - Obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution (Council Directives 78/659, Art. 5, and 79/923, Art. 5) 4 Directives 78/659 and 79/923 seek to protect human health through the monitoring of the quality of waters which support, or could support, fish suitable for human consumption or shellfish directly edible by man. This objective implies that in all cases where non-implementation of the measures required could endanger human health those concerned must be in a position to rely on mandatory rules in order to be able to assert their rights. Correct transposition therefore requires the adoption of measures which are indisputably binding. 5 A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. 6 It follows clearly from the wording of Article 5 of Directives 78/659 and 79/923 as well as from the detailed arrangements for monitoring water quality laid down by those directives that Member States have an obligation to establish specific programmes in order to reduce pollution of fresh waters and shellfish waters within five and six years respectively. Neither, with regard to Directive 78/659, general water-purification programmes designed to reduce water pollution caused by effluent nor, with regard to Directive 79/923, the finding, through the taking of samples, that shellfish waters meet the requirements of that directive can exempt a Member State from the obligation to establish specific programmes in accordance with Article 5 of those directives. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1996,p I-6817) (Judgment) C-218/96; [1996] EUECJ C-218/96 12 Dec 1996 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Ligue Royale Belge pour la Protection des Oiseaux and Societe d'etudes Ornithologiques AVES v Region Wallonne; ECJ 12-Dec-1996 - [1996] ECR I-6775; C-10/96; [1996] EUECJ C-10/96 Â Gammeltoft v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-611,II-1633) T-132/95; [1996] EUECJ T-132/95 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mozzaglia v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-619,II-1657) T-137/95; [1996] EUECJ T-137/95 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Rendo and others v Commission (Rec 1996,p II-1827) T-16/91 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European Â Â Regina v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte Accrington Beef Co Ltd and Others; ECJ 12-Dec-1996 - C-241/95; [1996] EUECJ C-241/95 Â X v Commission (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-603,II-1609) T-130/95; [1996] EUECJ T-130/95 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Leclerc v Commission T-19/92; [1996] EUECJ T-19/92 12 Dec 1996 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â National Union of Teachers and others v Governing Body of St Mary's Church of England (Aided) Junior School and others; CA 12-Dec-1996 - Times, 16 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1194; [1997] ICR 334; (1997) 3 CMLR 630 Â Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1996,p FP-IA-629,II-1679) T-128/96; [1996] EUECJ T-128/96 13 Dec 1996 ECFI European, Employment Europa Officials - Refusal by the Commission to distribute through its internal messenger services communications to the staff from an independent trade union - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Claims for damages - Subject-matter of the dispute - Summary of the pleas in law -Admissibility. [ Bailii ] Â Â Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European Communities; ECFI 17-Dec-1996 - T-164/96 Â Scottish Premier Meat Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland Times, 20 December 1996 20 Dec 1996 OHCS European Regulations not ultra vires though over implemented EU beef slaughter demands. Â Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Another Ex Parte First City trading Etc Times, 20 December 1996; [1997] 1 CMLR 250 20 Dec 1996 QBD Laws J European, Administrative EU law principles do not apply in domestic law unless implementing EU law. Laws J said that: "Wednesbury and European review are two different models - one looser, one tighter -of the same juridical concept, which is the imposition of compulsory standards on decision-makers so as to secure the repudiation of arbitrary power". 1 Citers Â Coal Authority v H J Banks and Company Ltd; H J Banks and Company Ltd v The Coal Authority and Anoher [1997] Eu LR 610 20 Dec 1996 ComC Tuckey J European, Litigation Practice ComC Summary judgment under RSC Order 14 - claim for royalties - previous decision of the European Commission - claim for damages for breach of article 4 European Coal and Steel Treaty. The defence to the Coal Authority's claim for royalties alleging breaches of article 4 was struck out because the matters complained of had been the subject of a previous decision by the Commission - the question as to whether articles 4(b) & (c) were of direct effect so as to permit Banks to litigate them in this court would have had to be referred to the European Court if it had been necessary to decide this point – Banks' claim for damages against Secretary of State was not sustainable in any event. 1 Cites 1 Citers Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1996 To: 1996