

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: 1998 To: 1998 This page lists 547 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Volger v Parliament [1998] EUECJ T-176/96 13 Jan 1998 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Decision to assign to non-active status - Article 41 of the Staff Regulations - Duty to have regard to officials' interests. [ Bailii ] Â Â Vela Palacios v ESC; ECFI 14-Jan-1998 - T-30/97; [1998] EUECJ T-30/97 Â Obst v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-27) (Order) C-403/95 15 Jan 1998 ECJ European Â Quelle Schickedanz v Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main C-80/96; [1998] EUECJ C-80/96 15 Jan 1998 ECJ M. Wathelet, P European, Customs and Excise ECJ Common Customs Tariff - Classification of a set of goods - Validity of Point 6 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/94 [ Bailii ] Â Belgische Staat v Ghent Coal Terminal (Judgment) Times, 04 February 1998; C-37/95; [1998] ECR I-1; [1998] EUECJ C-37/95 15 Jan 1998 ECJ VAT, European Once a right of deduction had been exercised because the inputs were for the purpose of investment work intended to be used in connection with taxable transactions, the authorities may not claim repayment merely because the taxpayer has been unable to use the goods or services for the intended purpose. Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977 Art 17 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Intertronic v Commission (Order) C-196/97 15 Jan 1998 ECJ European Â Schoning-Kougebetopoulou v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Judgment) C-15/96; [1998] ECR I-47; [1998] EUECJ C-15/96 15 Jan 1998 ECJ European, Employment ECJ Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Promotion on grounds of seniority - Collective agreement applicable to public sector employees taking into account only periods of employment completed in the national public service but not periods of comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Justification - None (EC Treaty, Art. 48; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1) and (4)) Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Clause in a collective agreement contrary to the principle of non-discrimination - De jure nullity - Obligations of the national court (EC Treaty, Art 48; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1) and (4)) Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude a clause in a collective agreement applicable to the public service of a Member State which provides for promotion on grounds of seniority for employees of that service after eight years' employment in a salary group determined by that agreement without taking any account of previous periods of comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State. Such a clause is such as to infringe the principle of non-discrimination laid down by those provisions in that the conditions for promotion on grounds of seniority manifestly work to the detriment of migrant workers who have spent part of their careers in the public service of another Member State. As regards activities not falling within the scope of Article 48(4) of the Treaty, the clause cannot be justified either by arguments based on the specific characteristics of employment in the public service or, given the multiplicity of legally separate employers, by the desire to reward employee loyalty. A clause in a collective agreement entailing discrimination contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty and to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 is null and void by virtue of Article 7(4) of that regulation. Without requiring or waiting for that clause to be abolished by collective negotiation or by some other procedure, the national court must therefore apply the same rules to the members of the group disadvantaged by that discrimination as those applicable to the other workers. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Babahenini v Belgian State C-113/97; [1998] EUECJ C-113/97 15 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Goritz Intransco International v Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf (Judgment) C-292/96; [1998] EUECJ C-292/96 15 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Simon v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main (Rec 1998,p I-145) (Judgment) C-125/96; [1998] EUECJ C-125/96 15 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kogler v Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-15,II-35) T-160/96; [1998] EUECJ T-160/96 20 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Her Majesty's Treasury; Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Attorney General ex parte Shepherd Neame Limited Times, 02 February 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 43 21 Jan 1998 Admn Customs and Excise, European UK government has sole discretion on imposition of beer duties, not subject to challenge within European Community context. Finance (No 2) Act 1997 8 [ Bailii ] Â Costacurta v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-21,II-49) T-98/96; [1998] EUECJ T-98/96 22 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ladbroke Racing v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1) T-67/94; [1998] EUECJ T-67/94 27 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Camar v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-77) T-172/97; [1998] EUECJ T-172/97 28 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Greece v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-207) (Judgment) C-61/95; [1998] EUECJ C-61/95 29 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1998,p I-259) (Judgment) C-280/95; [1998] EUECJ C-280/95 29 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sudzucker Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v Hauptzollamt Mannheim (Rec 1998,p I-281) (Judgment) C-161/96; [1998] EUECJ C-161/96 29 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v Prolacto (Rec 1998,p I-345) (Judgment) C-346/96 29 Jan 1998 ECJ European Â Affatato v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-41,II-97) T-157/96; [1998] EUECJ T-157/96 29 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Edouard Dubois and Fils v Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-125) T-113/96; [1998] EUECJ T-113/96 29 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Corte v Commission T-62/96; [1998] EUECJ T-62/96 29 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sinochem v Council T-97/95; [1998] EUECJ T-97/95 29 Jan 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Lopex Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-317) (Judgment) C-315/96; [1998] EUECJ C-315/96 29 Jan 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Polyvios v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-153) T-68/96; [1998] EUECJ T-68/96 3 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Landuyt v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-213) T-94/95; [1998] EUECJ T-94/95 4 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Buhring v Council and Commission T-246/93; [1998] EUECJ T-246/93 4 Feb 1998 ECFI European (Rec 1998,p II-171) [ Bailii ] Â Laga v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-195) T-93/95; [1998] EUECJ T-93/95 4 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Abello and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-377) (Order) C-30/96; [1998] EUECJ C-30/96 5 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Interporc Im- und Export v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-231) T-124/96; [1998] EUECJ T-124/96 6 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Commission (Judgment) C-263/95; [1998] EUECJ C-263/95 10 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko C-245/95; [1998] EUECJ C-245/95P 10 Feb 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) Appeal - Dumping - Ball bearings originating in Japan - Interpretation 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Heathrow Airport v Forte (UK) Ltd and Others; ChD 11-Feb-1998 - Gazette, 11 February 1998; [1998] EuLR 98 Â Cordelle v Office national des pensions C-366/96; [1998] EUECJ C-366/96 12 Feb 1998 ECJ European Judgment - Free movement of persons [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1998,p I-613) (Judgment) C-144/97; [1998] EUECJ C-144/97 12 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain C-92/96; [1998] EUECJ C-92/96 12 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1998,p I-605) (Judgment) C-139/97; [1998] EUECJ C-139/97 12 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Raso and others (Rec 1998,p I-533) (Judgment) C-163/96; [1998] EUECJ C-163/96 12 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Blasi v Finanzamt Munchen C-346/95; [1998] ECR 1-481; [1998] EUECJ C-346/95 12 Feb 1998 ECJ European, VAT, Landlord and Tenant ECJ Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for guests is taxable, as constituting the provision of accommodation in sectors with a function similar to that of the hotel sector. In that regard, Article 13.B(b)(1) does not preclude taxation in respect of letting agreements concluded for a period of less than six months, if that duration is deemed to reflect the parties' intention. It is, however, for the national court to determine whether, in a case before it, certain factors (such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement) suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement does not reflect the parties' true intention, in which case the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to be taken into consideration. A distinction drawn by Member States, who enjoy a margin of discretion in this regard, between accommodation in the hotel sector and the letting of dwelling accommodation on the basis of its duration constitutes an appropriate criterion of distinction, since one of the ways in which hotel accommodation specifically differs from the letting of dwelling accommodation is the duration of the stay, and the use to this end of the criterion of the provision of short-term accommodation, being defined as less than six months, appears to be a reasonable means by which to ensure that the transactions of taxable persons whose business is similar to the essential function performed by a hotel, namely the provision of temporary accommodation on a commercial basis, are subject to tax. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Guerin automobiles v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-253) T-275/97; [1998] EUECJ T-275/97 13 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Guerin automobiles v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-261) T-276/97; [1998] EUECJ T-276/97 13 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Alexopoulou v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-51,II-117) T-195/96; [1998] EUECJ T-195/96 13 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Smanor and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-271) T-182/97; [1998] EUECJ T-182/97 16 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Maccaferri v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-57,II-133) T-56/96; [1998] EUECJ T-56/96 17 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Grant v South West Trains Ltd Times, 23 February 1998; Gazette, 24 June 1998; [1998] IRLR 188; C-249/96; [1998] ICR 449; [1998] 3 BHRC 578; [1998] EUECJ C-249/96 17 Feb 1998 ECJ Discrimination, European A company's ban on the provision of travel perks to same sex partners of employees did not constitute breach of European sex discrimination law. An employer's policy was not necessarily to be incorporated into the contract of employment. The court said that since the rule applied equally to male and female employees it was not discriminatory on grounds of "sex" narrowly understood. The Court then considered whether "persons who have a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex are in the same situation as those who are married or have a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex". The European Parliament, although deploring all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, had not yet introduced measures to support that view; and that the laws of the member states only gave limited protection to such a relationship. So far as the European Commission on Human Rights was concerned, national provisions which, for the purpose of protecting the family, accord more favourable treatment to married persons and persons of the opposite sex living together as man and wife than to persons of the same sex in a stable relationship are not contrary to article 14 of the Convention which prohibits, inter alia, discrimination on the ground of sex. Stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages and stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex. Consequently, an employer is not required by Community law to treat the situation of a person who has a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex as equivalent to that of a person who is married to or has a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex. Council Directive 75/117/EEC - EC Treaty 119 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hankart v Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-63,II-149) T-91/96; [1998] EUECJ T-91/96 17 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pharos v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-285) T-105/96; [1998] EUECJ T-105/96 17 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pantochim v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-311) T-107/96; [1998] EUECJ T-107/96 17 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â E v ESC (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-67,II-159) T-183/96; [1998] EUECJ T-183/96 17 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Comite d'entreprise de la Societe francaise de production and others v Commission T-189/97; [1998] EUECJ T-189/97 18 Feb 1998 ECFI European ECJ Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action brought by bodies representing the employees of the recipient undertaking - Inadmissible [ Bailii ] Â Eyckeler and Malt v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-401) T-42/96; [1998] EUECJ T-42/96 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Continolo v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-101,II-261) T-196/97; [1998] EUECJ T-196/97 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg (Rec 1998,p I-785) (Judgment) C-318/96; [1998] EUECJ C-318/96 19 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Campogrande v Commission T-3/97; [1998] EUECJ T-3/97 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European ECFI Officials - Vacancy notice - Level of the post to be filled - Appointment to a grade A4/A5 post of head of unit - Illegality of the decision of the Commission of 19 July 1988 - Rejection of application for post. [ Bailii ] Â Â NIFPO and Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation v Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland; ECJ 19-Feb-1998 - C-4/96; [1998] EUECJ C-4/96 Â Pierard v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-85,II-205) T-169/96; [1998] EUECJ T-169/96 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1998,p I-823) (Judgment) C-8/97; [1998] EUECJ C-8/97 19 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Toller v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-77,II-179) T-142/96; [1998] EUECJ T-142/96 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Chevassus-Marche v Council regional de la Reunion C-212/96; [1998] EUECJ C-212/96 19 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dir International Film and Ors v Commission (Commercial Policy) T-85/95; [1998] EUECJ T-85/95 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â DIR International Film and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-357) T-369/94; [1998] EUECJ T-369/94 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Dir International Film Srl and Ors v Commission Of The European Communities. (Action For Annulment) T-369/84; [1998] EUECJ T-369/84 19 Feb 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Council (Rec 1998,p I-655) (Judgment) C-309/95; [1998] EUECJ C-309/95 19 Feb 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Wright v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 23 February 1998 23 Feb 1998 QBD European Freedom of trade provisions in European Law did not prevent member nations limiting access for material thought to be indecent or obscene. European Community Treaty 1992 Â Gouvernement des Antilles neerlandaises v Council (Rec 1998,p II-455) T-310/97; [1998] EUECJ T-310/97 2 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Carlsen and others v Council (Rec 1998,p II-485) T-610/97; [1998] EUECJ T-610/97 3 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Abreu v Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-109,II-281) T-146/96; [1998] EUECJ T-146/96 4 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Manzo-Tafaro v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-115,II-307) T-221/96; [1998] EUECJ T-221/96 5 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Solred v Administracion General del Estado (Rec 1998,p I-937) (Judgment) C-347/96; [1998] EUECJ C-347/96 5 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kulzer v Freistaat Bayern C-194/96; [1998] EUECJ C-194/96 5 Mar 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Worker who has not exercised the right to freedom of movement - Retired civil servant - Article 73 - Family benefits - German institution competent - Article 77 - National legislation [ Bailii ] Â Pevasa v Commission (Agriculture) C-200/94; [1998] EUECJ C-200/94P 5 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Inpesca v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-831) (Judgment) C-199/94; [1995] EUECJ C-199/94P; [1998] EUECJ C-199/94P 5 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1998,p I-963) (Judgment) C-175/97; [1998] EUECJ C-175/97 5 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â MTV Europe (a Firm) v BMG Records (Uk) Ltd and others [1998] EWCA Civ 430 10 Mar 1998 CA European, Commercial The claimants sought damages for alleged breaches of the European Treaty by the defendants in anti-competitive behaviour. [ Bailii ] Â Germany v Council (Rec 1998,p I-973) (Judgment) C-122/95; [1998] EUECJ C-122/95 10 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â T. Port (Agriculture) C-365/95; [1998] EUECJ C-365/95 10 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â T Port v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-1023) (Judgment) C-364/95; [1998] EUECJ C-364/95 10 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece C-187/96; [1998] EUECJ C-187/96 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 48 of the EC Treaty - Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Person working in the public service of a Member State - Mutual recognition of periods of employment in the public service of another Member State)# [ Bailii ] Â Djabali v Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne (Rec 1998,p I-1149) (Judgment) C-314/96; [1998] EUECJ C-314/96 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1998,p I-1165) (Judgment) C-344/96; [1998] EUECJ C-344/96 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dethier Equipement v Dassy and Sovam C-319/94; [1998] EUECJ C-319/94 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-1181) (Judgment) C-163/97; [1998] EUECJ C-163/97 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Berthu v Council (Rec 1998,p II-509) T-207/97; [1998] EUECJ T-207/97 12 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1998,p I-1191) (Judgment) C-313/97; [1998] EUECJ C-313/97 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Laboratoires Sarget v FIRS (Rec 1998,p I-1121) (Judgment) C-270/96; [1998] EUECJ C-270/96 12 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lonuzzo-Murgante v Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-119,II-317) T-247/97; [1998] EUECJ T-247/97 13 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Bossa v Nordstress Ltd; EAT 13-Mar-1998 - Times, 13 March 1998 Â Goldstein v Commission T-235/95; [1998] EUECJ T-235/95 16 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Carraro v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-123,II-329) T-183/95; [1998] EUECJ T-183/95 17 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte British Council of Turkish Cypriot Associations and Another; Admn 19-Mar-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 341; 112 ILR 735 Â Tzoanos v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-129,II-343) T-74/96; [1998] EUECJ T-74/96 19 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â van der Wal v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-545) T-83/96; [1998] EUECJ T-83/96 19 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd Times, 02 April 1998; [1998] ECR I-1251; [1998] EUECJ C-1/96 19 Mar 1998 ECJ European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient. ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Directive 91/629/EEC - European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes - Recommendation concerning Cattle - Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation - Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State - Quantitative restrictions on exports - Exhaustive harmonisation - Validity of the Directive EC Treaty 34 36 - Directive 91/629/EEC 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-573) T-191/96 20 Mar 1998 ECFI European Â Â Buehler Ag v Chronos Richardson Ltd; CA 20-Mar-1998 - Times, 03 April 1998; [1998] 2 All ER 960; [1998] EWCA Civ 509 Â Feral v Committee of Regions (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-145,II-471) T-301/97; [1998] EUECJ T-301/97 20 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Sjoberg Times, 23 March 1998; C-387/96; [1998] EUECJ C-387/96 23 Mar 1998 ECJ Transport, European Regulation of road transport applied to passenger transport services contracted to public authority, and to carry duty roster extracts. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 [ Bailii ] Â International Procurement Services v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-601) T-175/94 24 Mar 1998 ECFI European Â Huguette Meyer and Ors v Court Of Justice Of The European Communities. (Officials) T-181/97; [1998] EUECJ T-181/97 24 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Becret-Danieau and others v Parliament T-232/97; [1998] EUECJ T-232/97 24 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic Times, 25 March 1998 25 Mar 1998 ECJ European Public service for one member government must be allowed as service under subsequent member government for salary scale increments. EC Treaty Art 16 Â Bayerische Hypotheken Und Wechselbank Ag v Dietringer Times, 25 March 1998 25 Mar 1998 ECJ Consumer, European A contract of guarantee by private individual was not subject to cooling off period even though it was supporting a person trading. Council Directive 85/577/EEC Art 4 Â Koopman v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-163,II-511) T-202/97; [1998] EUECJ T-202/97 25 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Petridi v Simou and others (Rec 1998,p I-1333) (Judgment) C-324/96; [1998] EUECJ C-324/96 26 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission (Competition) C-30/95; [1998] EUECJ C-30/95 31 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France and Societe commerciale des potasses and de l'azote and Entreprise miniere and chimique v Commission C-68/94; [1998] EUECJ C-68/94 31 Mar 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Preussag Stahl v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-609) T-129/96; [1998] EUECJ T-129/96 31 Mar 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Apostolidis v Court of Justice T-86/97; [1998] EUECJ T-86/97 2 Apr 1998 ECFI European Officials - Suspension of promotion procedure - Disciplinary proceedings. [ Bailii ] Â Norbrook Laboratories v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food C-127/95; [1998] EUECJ C-127/95 2 Apr 1998 ECJ C. Gulmann, P European ECJ Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC - Veterinary medicinal products - Marketing authorisation Directive 81/852/EEC - Directives81/851/EEC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader's Ferry Limited; HL 2-Apr-1998 - Gazette, 10 December 1998; Times, 16 November 1998; [1998] UKHL 40; [1999] 1 CMLR 1320; [1998] 3 WLR 1260; [1999] 2 AC 418; [1999] 1 All ER 129 Â Greenpeace and others v Commission [1998] ECR I-1651; C-321/95; [1998] EUECJ C-321/95P 2 Apr 1998 ECJ GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P European ECJ Appeal - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France C-367/95; [1998] EUECJ C-367/95P 2 Apr 1998 ECJ European (Rec 1998,p I-1719) (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Â Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Lunn Poly and another; Admn 2-Apr-1998 - Times, 08 April 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 391 Â Â Factortame Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport (No.5); CA 8-Apr-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 1971; [1998] Eu LR 456; [1998] 3 CMLR 192; [1998] COD 381; [1999] 2 All ER 640 Â Regina v Customs and Excise Commissioners, Ex Parte EMU Tabac Sarl and Others (Imperial Tobacco Ltd, Intervener) Times, 09 April 1998; C-296/95; [1998] EUECJ C-296/95 9 Apr 1998 ECJ Customs and Excise, European Excise duty is payable on cigarettes imported as if personal imports but by use of agent in Luxembourg organising he imports as a commercial enterprise. [ Bailii ] Â Camar v Commission and Council (Rec 1998,p I-1815) (Order) C-43/98 15 Apr 1998 ECJ European Â Camar v Commission and Council (Rec.1998,p.I-1815) (Order) C-43/98 15 Apr 1998 ECJ European Â Decker v Caisse de maladie des employes prives C-120/95; [1998] EUECJ C-120/95; [1998] ECR I-1831; ECLI:EU:C:1998:167 28 Apr 1998 ECJ European ECJ Judgment - Free movement of goods - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State - Prior authorisation of the competent institution - Purchase of spectacles [ Bailii ] Â Metronome Musik v Music Point Hokamp [1999] FSR 576; C-200/96; [1998] EUECJ C-200/96; [2000] ECDR 11; [1999] EMLR 93; [1998] ECR I-1953; [1998] 3 CMLR 919 28 Apr 1998 ECJ G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P European, Intellectual Property ECJ (Judgment) Copyright and related rights - Rental and lending right - Validity of Directive 92/100/EEC The principle of exhaustion of distribution rights where copyright works are offered for sale by the rightholder or with his consent is expressed in the settled case-law according to which, whilst Article 36 of the EC Treaty allows derogations from the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property, such derogations are allowed only to the extent to which they are justified by the fact that they safeguard the rights which constitute the specific subject-matter of that property. [ Bailii ] Â Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft v Council and Commission T-184/95; [1998] EUECJ T-184/95 28 Apr 1998 ECFI Bellamy P European ECJ 1 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Lawful or unlawful act - Damage - Causal link - Burden of proof (EC Treaty, Art. 215) 2 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Regulation imposing a trade embargo against a non-member country - Damage resulting from retaliatory measures taken by the government of that country - Causal link - None (EC Treaty, Arts 113 and 215; Council Regulation No 2340/90) 3 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Regulation imposing a trade embargo against a non-member country - Lawful act - Lack of unusual and special damage - Community liability - Not incurred (EC Treaty, Art. 215; Council Regulation No 2340/90) 4 If the Community is to incur non-contractual liability as the result of a lawful or unlawful act, it is necessary to prove that the alleged damage is real and the existence of a causal link between that act and the alleged damage. It is incumbent upon the applicant to produce to the Community judicature evidence to establish the fact of the loss which he claims to have suffered. 5 Liability on the part of the Community, as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation No 2340/90 prohibiting trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait, for damage caused by the impossibility, for an undertaking established in a Member State, of recovering its debts from the Government of Iraq following the latter's adoption, in response to the embargo imposed on it, of a law freezing the assets of undertakings established in the States responsible for the embargo, cannot be incurred unless there is a direct causal link between the adoption of that regulation and the damage. It is for the undertaking seeking compensation for the damage to establish that the adoption of that law constituted, as a retaliatory measure, an objectively foreseeable consequence, in the normal course of events, of the adoption of that regulation. In any event, there can be no causal link between the adoption of Regulation No 2340/90 and the damage concerned since the trade embargo against Iraq was imposed by a United Nations Security Council resolution. Whilst it is true that, under Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, only the Members of the United Nations are required to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council and were required, in that capacity, to take all necessary measures to give effect to the trade embargo imposed by it, the fact remains that those Members of the United Nations Organisation which were also Member States of the Community were able to take action to that effect only under the Treaty, since any measure of common commercial policy, such as the imposition of a trade embargo, falls, by virtue of Article 113 of the Treaty, within the exclusive competence of the Community. Regulation No 2340/90 was adopted on the basis of those considerations in order to ensure uniform implementation, throughout the Community, of the measures concerning trade with Iraq and Kuwait decided upon by the United Nations Security Council. The damage allegedly resulting from the counter-measures adopted by the Iraqi Government can therefore be attributed not to the adoption of Regulation No 2340/90 but only to the United Nations Security Council resolution which imposed the embargo. 6 In the event of the principle of Community liability for a lawful act being recognised in Community law, such liability can be incurred only if the damage alleged, if deemed to constitute a 'still subsisting injury', affects a particular circle of economic operators in a disproportionate manner by comparison with others (special damage) and exceeds the limits of the economic risks inherent in operating in the sector concerned (unusual damage), without the legislative measure that gave rise to the alleged damage being justified by a general economic interest. A Community undertaking whose claims against the government of a non-member country have become irrecoverable following the imposition by a Community regulation of a trade embargo against that country cannot be regarded as having suffered special damage where not only its claims were affected but also those of all other Community undertakings which, when the embargo was imposed, had not yet been paid. Furthermore, the damage resulting from the suspension of payments by that non-member country cannot be regarded as unusual damage, falling outside the foreseeable risks inherent in any provision of services in a 'high-risk' non-member country. In any event, whilst it is true that rules intended, by the imposition of a trade embargo against a non-member country, to maintain international peace and security have, by definition, effects which affect the freedom to pursue a trade or business, thereby causing harm to persons who are in no way responsible for the situation which led to the adoption of the sanctions, the fact nevertheless remains that the importance of the aims pursued by such rules is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some operators. Such damage cannot therefore render the Community liable. EC Treaty 215 [ Bailii ] Â Reiseburo Binder (Rec 1998,p I-1889) (Order) C-116/96 28 Apr 1998 ECJ European Â Kohll v Union des caisses de maladie (Rec 1998,p I-1931) (Judgment) C-158/96; [1998] EUECJ C-158/96 28 Apr 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cabour and Nord Distribution Automobile v Arnor 'SOCO' [1998] EUECJ C-230/96; C-230/96; [1998] EUECJ C-230/96 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European, Commercial ECJ (Judgment) Competition - Vehicle distribution - Validity of exclusive dealership agreement - Article 85(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 [ Bailii ] Â Cordiale v Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-177,II-551) T-205/95; [1998] EUECJ T-205/95 30 Apr 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Clarke and Sons and Ferne (Rec 1998,p I-2147) (Judgment) C-47/97 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European Â Bellone v Yokohama (Rec 1998,p I-2191) (Judgment) C-215/97; [1998] EUECJ C-215/97 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Vlaamse Gewest v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-717) T-214/95; [1998] EUECJ T-214/95 30 Apr 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salaries v Thibault (Rec 1998,p I-2011) (Judgment) C-136/95; [1998] EUECJ C-136/95 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sodiprem and others and Albert v Direction generale des douanes (Judgment) C-37/96; [1998] EUECJ C-37/96 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Sodiprem (Taxation) C-38/96; [1998] EUECJ C-38/96 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European ECJ Dock dues (octroi de mer) - Fiscal rules applicable to the French overseas departments - Decision 89/688/EEC - Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty - Internal taxation. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1998,p I-2133) (Judgment) C-24/97; [1998] EUECJ C-24/97 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Paul Jeremy Duffen v Fra Bo Spa Times, 15 June 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 748; [2000] EuLR 167 30 Apr 1998 CA Agency, Damages, European The plaintiff had been appointed as an exclusive sales agent for the defendant for a minimum period of four years. The defendants terminated it eighteen months early claiming fraudulent misrepresentation. Held: The clause setting the damages claim was a penalty clause and was unenforceable. The termination of the agency gave rise to a claim additional to the statutory claim. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated within the regulations was entitled to augment the common law damages due to him with the sums due to him by virtue of the Commercial Agents Regulations. The right approach was to look at net earnings which might have made during the remainder of the period for which his agency would have run had it not been terminated prematurely, but without taking into account common law concepts such as avoided loss and mitigation. An award based on gross earnings would give the agent an undeserved windfall. The judge awarded compensation for loss of future earnings, ignoring the ordinary rules of mitigation. Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Italia Testa and Modesti C-128/97 30 Apr 1998 ECJ European Â Cityflyer Express v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-757) T-16/96; [1998] EUECJ T-16/96 30 Apr 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Yiadom Times, 01 May 1998 1 May 1998 CA Immigration, European The decision to exclude an EU national from United Kingdom for the facilitation of illegal immigration was proper, even though the decision was also motivated by a wish to avoid the costs of prosecution and imprisonment for the national purse. Â Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1998] EWHC Admin 477 1 May 1998 Admn VAT, European [ Bailii ] Â BEUC v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-795) T-84/97; [1998] EUECJ T-84/97 4 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Compagnie Continentale v Commission C-391/96; [1998] EUECJ C-391/96P 5 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Loan - Documentary credit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - 'Directly concerned' [ Bailii ] Â Glencore Grain v Commission (Judgment) C-404/96; [1998] EUECJ C-404/96P 5 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dreyfus v Commission C-386/96; [1998] EUECJ C-386/96P 5 May 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Glencore Grain v Commission (Judgment) C-403/96; [1998] EUECJ C-403/96P 5 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â United Kingdom v Commission Times, 06 May 1998; C-180/96; [1996] EUECJ C-180/96R 5 May 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture, Health, Animals ECJ Order - 1. It is open to the Court hearing an application for interim relief to order the suspension of the operation of an act, or other interim measures, if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law and that it is urgent in so far as it must, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant' s interests, be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. The Court is also to balance the interests at stake. Suspension and other measures granted under Article 186 of the Treaty must, moreover, be provisional inasmuch as they must not prejudge the points of law or fact in issue or neutralize in advance the effects of the decision subsequently to be given in the main action. In the context of that overall examination, the Court hearing the application enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a preestablished scheme of analysis by reference to which the need to order interim measures must be assessed. 2. The urgency of an interim measure must be considered by reference to whether it is necessary to make a provisional ruling in order to avoid the occurrence of serious and irreparable harm as a result of immediate application of the measure contested in the main action. As regards the nature of the harm which may be invoked, it must be noted that the Member States are responsible for those interests, in particular of an economic and social nature, which are regarded as general interests at national level and are thereby entitled to defend such interests before the courts. They may therefore invoke damage affecting a whole sector of their economy, in particular when the contested Community measure may entail unfavourable repercussions on the level of employment and the cost of living. 3. Where an applicant seeking suspension of operation of a measure invokes the risk of its suffering serious and irreparable harm, the Court hearing the application must determine, when balancing the interests at stake, whether the possible annulment of the contested decision by the Court seised of the main action would allow the situation brought about by its immediate implementation to be reversed and, conversely, whether suspension of the operation of that decision would be such as to prevent its being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed. 4. An application by the United Kingdom for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy or even of part of it, or for interim measures qualifying its application, cannot be granted. Whilst some of the pleas in law put forward by the Member State contesting the lawfulness of that decision cannot be wholly ruled out at the stage of examination of the interim application, the Commission has none the less presented serious arguments as to the lawfulness of its decision as a whole. Furthermore, the balancing of the interests at stake inevitably leads to recognition that the protection of public health against a fatal risk, which can in no way be ruled out in the present state of scientific knowledge, must take precedence over the economic and social damage which the Member State may invoke as being likely to result from the application of the said decision, even if that damage is not easily reparable. Europa In order for an act of the Council or the Commission to form the subject-matter of an action for annulment, it must be intended to have legal effects. That is not the position in the case of an act of the Commission which reflects its intention, or that of one of its departments, to follow a particular line of conduct or which merely confirms a previous act in such a way that annulment of the confirmatory act would follow from annulment of the previous act. In adopting Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, the Commission acted within the framework of the powers conferred on it by Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade. First, the conditions governing the adoption of safeguard measures in accordance with those two directives were fulfilled, particularly since the power to adopt such measures is justified by the fact that a zoonosis, disease or other cause is likely to constitute a serious hazard. Second, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the directives are drafted in very wide terms, without imposing any restrictions as to the temporal or territorial scope of the measures concerned, it does not appear that the Commission clearly exceeded the bounds of its broad discretion in seeking to contain the disease within the territory of the United Kingdom by banning exports from that territory to other Member States and to third countries. Lastly, the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, since the Commission was prompted to act by concerns as to the risk of transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, after examining the measures adopted by the United Kingdom and consulting the Scientific Veterinary Committee and the Standing Veterinary Committee, its exclusive or main purpose not being to protect economic interests rather than health. Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, fulfils the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, does not breach the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination or legal certainty and is in accordance with the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39(1) of the Treaty. As regards, more particularly, the principle of proportionality, it was open to the Commission, in view of the great uncertainty as to the risks posed by the animals and products concerned, to take the protective measures in issue without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks became fully apparent. As regards the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the fact that, at the time of adoption of the decision, almost all the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Europe were recorded in the United Kingdom meant that the situation in that Member State could not be regarded as comparable with that in the other Member States. Article 43 of the Treaty is the appropriate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. In that connection, and having regard to the importance of the role played by the free movement of animals, animal products and products of animal origin in achieving those objectives, Article 43 constituted the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade, even though those directives authorise the Commission incidentally to adopt safeguard measures covering `products of animal origin', `products derived from those products' and `products derived' from animals which are not included in Annex II to the Treaty. EC Treaty 185 186 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte National Farmers' Union and others Times, 10 May 1999; Case C-293/97; C-157/96; [1998] EUECJ C-157/96 5 May 1998 ECJ Environment, European, European Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. "As regards . . . the principle of proportionality, it is settled law that, in order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with that principle, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it." Council Directive 91/676/EEC 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â United Kingdom v Commission ECLI:EU:C:1998:192; [1998] ECR I-2265; [1998] EUECJ C-180/96 5 May 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture Agriculture - Animal health - Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy - 'Mad cow disease' 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte National Farmers' Union and others Times, 10 May 1999; Case C-293/97; C-157/96; [1998] EUECJ C-157/96 5 May 1998 ECJ Environment, European, European Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. "As regards . . . the principle of proportionality, it is settled law that, in order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with that principle, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it." Council Directive 91/676/EEC 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-2643) (Judgment) C-145/97; [1998] EUECJ C-145/97 7 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Viscido and others v Ente Poste Italiane (Rec 1998,p I-2629) (Judgment) C-52/97; [1998] EUECJ C-52/97 7 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ireland v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-2655) (Order) C-239/97 7 May 1998 ECJ European Â Clean Car Autoservice v Landeshauptmann von Wien C-350/96 7 May 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) Â Lease Plan Luxembourg v Belgische Staat C-390/96; [1998] EUECJ C-390/96; [1998] ECR I-2553 7 May 1998 ECJ European, VAT ECJ Judgment - Sixth VAT Directive - Car-leasing services - Fixed establishment - Rules governing reimbursement of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the State - Principle of non-discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Gomez Rodriguez v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (Rec 1998,p I-2461) (Judgment) C-113/96; [1998] EUECJ C-113/96 7 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1998,p I-2501) (Judgment) C-124/96; [1998] EUECJ C-124/96 7 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Viscido (State Aid) C-53/97; [1998] EUECJ C-53/97 7 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ Aid granted by Member States - Meaning - National law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the obligation of observing a rule of general application relating to fixed-term employment contracts. [ Bailii ] Â Somaco v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-2587) (Judgment) C-401/96; [1998] EUECJ C-401/96P 7 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Viscido (State Aid) C-54/97; [1998] EUECJ C-54/97 7 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ Aid granted by Member States - Meaning - National law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the obligation of observing a rule of general application relating to fixed-term employment contracts. [ Bailii ] Â Moore v Piretta Pta Ltd Times, 11 May 1998; [1999] 1 All ER 174; [1998] CLY 113 11 May 1998 QBD John Mitting QC Agency, European, Commercial M had a series of agency contracts selling women's clothing. The last contract was in 1994, and on termination, M claimed an indemnity under the contract which itself applied the regulations. Reg 17(3) gave an indemnity for new customers, where the principal continued to derive benefit. Held: The agency contract was to be interpreted to include the series of contracts, including those before the regulations. The indemnity was capped at one year's average remuneration over the previous five years. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated during term of contract was entitled nevertheless to an indemnity in accordance with the Regulations for custom introduced for entire period. In an indemnity case, equitable principles might require there to be taken into account such part of the goodwill as the agent was able to exploit for himself, or for the benefit of another principal. John Mitting QC said: "Consistent with the purpose of achieving harmony between member states, it is in my judgment permissible to look into the law and practice of the country in which the relevant right . . originated . . ; and to do so for the purpose of construing the English (sic) Regulations and to use them as a guide to their application". and "There are three stages in assessing the amount of the indemnity. First, it has to be asked what is the value of the business to the principal of new customers brought . . by the agent and of existing customers whose business has been significantly increased. The factors to be taken into account in making that judgment include the loss of the business of such customers after the agency has been terminated, whether due to causes beyond the agent's and principal's control (for example insolvency on the part of the customer or a decision on the part of that customer to buy goods elsewhere) or to factors within the agent's control, for example the agent taking the custom of that customer with him. That is because the thing that has to be assessed is the extent to which the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the efforts of the agent. The value of the business which remains for the benefit of the principal can, and in some cases no doubt should be, assessed by reference to periods as short as a year. But there is nothing in the regulations that requires them to be thus limited. If on the evidence the benefits of the agent's efforts are likely to endure for more than a year after the termination of the agency then that fact can be taken into account in the assessment and need not be limited to looking at the period of one year after termination only. The second factor is that the payment must be equitable having regard to all the circumstances and particularly the commission 'lost' by the agent. . Other factors which can be taken into account under this head include . . the expenses which the agent would have incurred in earning the commission which was his due. Another factor common to all cases is accelerated payment: the indemnity is accrued as at the date of termination in respect of commission which would have occurred after it. Some discount on that account must be made. The purpose of the indemnity seems to me to be to award a share of the goodwill built up by the efforts of the agent to him on the termination of the agency. Otherwise the whole benefit of that goodwill will remain with his former principal. The third step in the calculation is this. Having calculated the amount of the indemnity, a cap is applied. The cap is provided for in reg 17(4)." Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053 - Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17 1 Citers Â United Kingdom v Commission (Judgment) C-106/96; [1998] EUECJ C-106/96 12 May 1998 ECJ European It follows from Articles 205 and 209 of the Treaty and the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the Financial Regulation, read together with paragraph 3(c) of Section IV of the Joint Declaration of 30 June 1982 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, that implementation of Community expenditure relating to any significant Community action presupposes not only the entry of the relevant appropriation in the budget of the Community, which is a matter for the budgetary authority, but in addition the prior adoption of a basic act authorising that expenditure, which is a matter for the legislative authority, whereas implementation of budgetary appropriations for Community action which does not fall within that category - namely non-significant Community action - does not require prior adoption of such a basic act. The requirement that a basic act must be adopted before an appropriation is implemented derives directly from the scheme of the Treaty, in accordance with which the conditions governing the exercise of legislative powers and budgetary powers are not the same. The fact that implementation of expenditure on the basis of the mere entry of the relevant appropriations in the budget is an exception to that fundamental rule means that it cannot be assumed that Community action is non-significant and the Commission must therefore prove it to be so. The appropriations under heading B3-4103 of the budget for the financial year 1995 were to cover expenditure under a programme to combat poverty and social exclusion to be proposed by the Commission; however, when its proposal was not adopted by the Council, the Commission decided to commit that expenditure to fund the projects to combat social exclusion announced in its Press Release IP/96/67 of 23 January 1996, but did not succeed in establishing before the Court that the projects in question constituted non-significant action. Consequently, it was not competent to commit that expenditure, thus acting in breach of Article 4(1) of the Treaty, and its decision must therefore be annulled. Since annulment of the Commission's decision referred to in its Press Release IP/96/67 of 23 January 1996, announcing certain grants for European projects seeking to overcome social exclusion, takes place at a time when all, or almost all, of the relevant payments have been made, important considerations of legal certainty, comparable with those arising where certain regulations are annulled, justify the Court in exercising the power conferred on it by the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Treaty when it annuls a regulation and in deciding that the annulment is not to affect the validity of payments made or undertakings given under contracts which were the subject of the funding in issue. [ Bailii ] Â Wenk v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-193,II-593) T-159/96; [1998] EUECJ T-159/96 12 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kefalas and others v Elliniko Dimosio and Organismos Oikonomikis Anasygkrotisis Epicheiriseon C-367/96; [1998] EUECJ C-367/96 12 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â O'Casey v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-183,II-565) T-184/94; [1998] EUECJ T-184/94 12 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Landbrugsministeriet v Steff-Houlberg Export and others (Rec 1998,p I-2661) (Judgment) C-366/95; [1998] EUECJ C-366/95 12 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Council C-170/96; [1998] EUECJ C-170/96 12 May 1998 ECJ European Europa 1. Article M of the Treaty on European Union makes it clear that a provision such as Article K.3(2), which provides for the adoption of joint action by the Council in the areas referred to in Article K.1 does not affect the provisions of the EC Treaty. In accordance with Article L of the Treaty on European Union, the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the powers of the Court of Justice and the exercise of those powers apply to Article M. It is therefore the task of the Court to ensure that acts which, according to the Council, fall within the scope of Article K.3(2) do not encroach upon the powers conferred by the EC Treaty on the Community. It follows that where an action is brought before the Court seeking a declaration that, in light of its objective, an act adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union falls within the scope of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, so that it should have been based on that provision, the Court has jurisdiction to review the content of the act in the light of Article 100c of the EC Treaty in order to ascertain whether the Act affects the powers of the Community under that provision. 2. Construed in the light of Article 3(d) of the EC Treaty, which includes among the activities of the Community for the purposes set out in Article 2, 'measures concerning the entry and movement of persons in the internal market as provided for in Article 100c', the phrase `crossing the external borders of the Member States' in Article 100c(1) refers, in the case of an airport, to the crossing of those borders at a border control point, permitting the holder of the visa to enter and to move within the internal market. The airport transit visa, introduced by the joint action adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3(2) of the Treaty on European Union on airport transit visas, does not authorise its holder to cross the external borders of Member States in the sense contemplated by Article 100c of the EC Treaty. Consequently, the act does not fall within the ambit of that provision. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Gilly v Directeur des services fiscaux du Bas-Rhin (Rec 1998,p I-2793) (Judgment) C-336/96; [1998] EUECJ C-336/96 12 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Clean Car Autoservice Gesmbh v Landeshauptmann Von Wien Times, 13 May 1998; C-350/96; [1998] EUECJ C-350/96 13 May 1998 ECJ Employment, European An employer can make use of EU legislation allowing free movement of workers as much as can individual employees. Member state requiring an own national head of company was invalid. ECTreaty Art 48 [ Bailii ] Â Ciasse Nationale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salries v Thibault Times, 13 May 1998 13 May 1998 ECJ Discrimination, European Rules which precluded an employee who was absent for maternity reasons from taking part in performance assessments affecting future promotion rights were breach of Council Directive. Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment Art 2(3) Art 5(1) Â Lucaccioni v Commission T-165/95; [1998] EUECJ T-165/95 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium C-368/97; [1998] EUECJ C-368/97 14 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/57/EC Directive 94/57/EC [ Bailii ] Â Metsa-Serla v Commission T-340/94; [1998] EUECJ T-340/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European ECJ Article 15, paragraph 2 of Regulation No 17 - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine [ Bailii ] Â Mo och Domsjo v Commission T-352/94; [1998] EUECJ T-352/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Metsa-Serla v Commission; ECFI 14-May-1998 - T-341/94; [1998] EUECJ T-341/94 Â Goldstein v Commission T-262/97; [1998] EUECJ T-262/97 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Finnboard v Commission T-338/94; [1998] EUECJ T-338/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gruber + Weber v Commission T-310/94; [1998] EUECJ T-310/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC-Treaty - Proof of participation in collusion - Fine - Determination of the amount - Statement of reasons - Products to which the infringement relates. [ Bailii ] Â Kartonfabriek de Eendracht v Commission T-311/94; [1998] EUECJ T-311/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Moritz J Weig v Commission T-317/94; [1998] EUECJ T-317/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Fiskeby Board v Commission T-319/94; [1998] EUECJ T-319/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â SCA Holding v Commission T-327/94; [1998] EUECJ T-327/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Cascades v Commission T-308/94; [1998] EUECJ T-308/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Liability for the infringement- Fine - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances. EC Treaty 85(1) [ Bailii ] Â Enso-Gutzeit v Commission T-337/94; [1998] EUECJ T-337/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Buchmann v Commission T-295/94; [1998] EUECJ T-295/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC-Treaty - Proof of participation in collusion - Fine - Determination of the amount - Statement of reasons. EC Treaty 85(1) [ Bailii ] Â Metsa-Serla and others v Commission T-339/94; [1998] EUECJ T-339/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft v Commission T-347/94; [1998] EUECJ T-347/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Enso Espanola v Commission T-348/94; [1998] EUECJ T-348/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Metsa-Serla v Commission; ECFI 14-May-1998 - T-342/94; [1998] EUECJ T-342/94 Â Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission T-354/94; [1998] EUECJ T-354/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Europa Carton v Commission; ECFI 14-May-1998 - T-304/94; [1998] EUECJ T-304/94 Â Sarrio v Commission T-334/94; [1998] EUECJ T-334/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European, Commercial Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC-Treaty - Concept of single infringement - Information exchange - Order to desist - Fine - Determination of the amount - Method of calculation - Statement of reasons - Mitigating circumstances. [ Bailii ] Â Koninklijke KNP BT v Commission T-309/94; [1998] EUECJ T-309/94 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Osterreichische Kreditversicherungs AG C-364/96; [1998] EUECJ C-364/96 14 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ Article 7 of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours is to be interpreted as covering, as security for the refund of money paid over, a situation in which the purchaser of a package holiday who has paid the travel organiser for the costs of his accommodation before travelling on his holiday is compelled, following the travel organiser's insolvency, to pay the hotelier for his accommodation again in order to be able to leave the hotel and return home. Directive 90/314 7 [ Bailii ] Â Council v De Nil and Impens C-259/96; [1998] EUECJ C-259/96P 14 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ Appeal - Officials - Internal competition - Measures implementing a judgment annulling a decision - Promotion to a higher category following a competition with no retroactive effect - Material and non-material damage [ Bailii ] Â Goycoolea v Commission T-21/97; [1998] EUECJ T-21/97 14 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Netherlands (Judgment) C-3/96; [1998] ECR I-3031; [1998] EUECJ C-3/96 19 May 1998 ECJ European ECJ The aim of the pre-litigation procedure provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to justify its position or, as the case may be, to comply of its own accord with the requirements of the Treaty. If that attempt to reach a settlement proves unsuccessful, the Member State is requested to comply with its obligations as set out in the reasoned opinion which concludes the pre-litigation procedure, within the period prescribed in that opinion. The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee intended by the Treaty not only to protect the rights of the Member State concerned but also to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter, the subject-matter being determined by the Commission's reasoned opinion. Where it is not disputed that the reasoned opinion and the procedure leading up to it were properly conducted, a Member State's right to a fair hearing is not infringed by the circumstance that the contentious procedure is opened by an application which takes no account of any new matters of fact or law put forward by the Member State concerned in its reply to the reasoned opinion. It is fully open to that State to raise those matters in the contentious procedure, to begin with in its first pleading in defence. Article 4(1) of Directive 74/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires Member States, if species mentioned in Annex I occur on their territory, to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for their conservation, an obligation which it is not possible to avoid by adopting other special conservation measures. Nor may the economic requirements mentioned in Article 2 of the directive be taken into account in this respect. As regards the Member States' margin of discretion in choosing the most suitable territories, that does not concern the appropriateness of classifying as special protection areas the territories which appear the most suitable according to ornithological criteria, but only the application of those criteria for identifying the most suitable territories for conservation of the species in question. Consequently, where it appears that a Member State has classified as special protection areas sites the number and total area of which are manifestly less than the number and total area of the sites considered to be the most suitable, it will be possible to find that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 4(1) of the directive; for assessing the extent to which the Member State has complied with that obligation, the Court may use as a basis of reference the Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community, 1989, which draws up an inventory of areas of great importance for the conservation of wild birds in the Community. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet v Landbrugsministeriet (Rec 1998,p I-2975) (Judgment) C-132/95 19 May 1998 ECJ European Â Drouot assurances v Consolidated metallurgical industries and others Times, 10 June 1998; Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-351/96; ECJ/Cfi Bulletin 14/98, 7; [1998] EUECJ C-351/96 19 May 1998 ECJ International, European (Judgment) Where proceedings were brought in two member states, the second proceedings should not be automatically stayed where there was a difference in the actions such as an additional cause of action in the second claim. Lis alibi pendens is not appropriate in such a case. Cases which in fact involved different parties (ship owner and insurer) could be treated as the same for purposes of the convention only if the interests of the differing parties were genuinely identical. Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 [ Bailii ] Â Broome and Wellington v Commission T-267/97; [1998] EUECJ T-267/97 25 May 1998 ECFI European ECJ Measures whose legal effects are binding and are capable of affecting the applicants' interests by clearly altering their legal position constitute acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. In the case of acts adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in principle only measures definitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusion of the procedure constitute acts which may be contested, as opposed to intermediate measures intended to pave the way for the final decision, whose legality may only be challenged in an action brought against the final decision. Moreover, only measures immediately and irreversibly affecting the legal position of the undertakings concerned are of such a nature as to justify, before completion of the administrative procedure, the admissibility of an action for annulment. Since the act by which the Commission initiates anti-dumping proceedings is a purely preparatory act, it cannot be regarded as an actionable measure. It follows from the provisions of anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 that the Commission is responsible for carrying out investigations and deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or to continue them, either by adopting provisional measures or by proposing to the Council that it adopt definitive measures. That conclusion cannot be called into question either by the fact that, before a particular complaint was submitted, the Commission's spokesman had stated that the Commission would immediately open a procedure if a new complaint were lodged - which is a matter which falls to be examined in connection with the substantive legality of the Notice of Initiation - or by any greater or lesser degree of certainty as regards the imposition of anti-dumping duties since, in law, the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding does not necessarily result in such duties being imposed. Moreover, the Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding does not have the legal effect of compelling the undertakings concerned to alter their commercial practices or to cooperate in the investigation. [ Bailii ] Â Nour v Burgenlandische Gebietskrankenkasse (Rec 1998,p I-3101) (Order) C-361/97 25 May 1998 ECJ European Â Costacurta v Commission T-177/96; [1998] EUECJ T-177/96 26 May 1998 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Remuneration - Weighting - Special derogations applying to officials posted to non-member countries - Contrary to the principles of the equivalence of purchasing power and equal treatment. [ Bailii ] Â Ecord Consortium v Commission (Rec.1998,p.II-2205) (Order) T-60/98 26 May 1998 ECFI European Â Ecord Consortium v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2205) T-60/98; [1998] EUECJ T-60/98 26 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bieber v Parliament T-205/96; [1998] EUECJ T-205/96 26 May 1998 ECFI European Officials - Belated reinstatement - Liability - Damage. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Lozano Palacios (Rec 1998,p I-3273) (Judgment) C-62/97; [1998] EUECJ C-62/97P 28 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â New Holland Ford v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-3175) (Judgment) C-8/95; [1998] EUECJ C-8/95P 28 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Goodwin and Unstead Times, 10 June 1998; Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-3/97; [1998] EUECJ C-3/97 28 May 1998 ECJ VAT, European ECJ (Judgment) VAT was payable on supplies of counterfeit drugs even though the income generated by the trade was unlawful. Fiscal neutrality prevented differentiation between lawful and unlawful supplies The defendants had sold counterfeit perfumes and had had VAT charges imposed retrospectively. It was held proper to charge VAT on sales which were illegal. Fiscal neutrality was set aside only where the special characteristic of a product required it Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977 2 [ Bailii ] Â W v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-239,II-745) T-78/96; [1998] EUECJ T-78/96 28 May 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1998,p I-3301) (Judgment) C-298/97; [1998] EUECJ C-298/97 28 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Council (Rec 1998,p I-3231) (Judgment) C-22/96; [1998] EUECJ C-22/96 28 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Deere v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-3111) (Judgment) C-7/95; [1998] EUECJ C-7/95P 28 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-3289) (Judgment) C-213/97; [1998] EUECJ C-213/97 28 May 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Keeling v Office de l'harmonisation dans le marche interieur T-148/97; [1998] EUECJ T-148/97 8 Jun 1998 ECFI European, Intellectual Property ECFI An action brought directly against a decision of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) by a member of a Board of Appeal of the Office on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. According to the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the Community judicature may review the legality of acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-a-vis third parties. It follows that acts emanating from Community bodies other than those listed in that provision may not be challenged on the basis of it. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is not one of the Community institutions listed in Article 4 of the Treaty, nor is it mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. Moreover, such a decision is not immune from all judicial review, having regard to the remedies provided for by Regulation No 40/94 which are potentially available against it. [ Bailii ] Â Unifrigo Gadus and CPL Imperial 2 v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2231) T-10/97; [1998] EUECJ T-10/97 9 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Unifrigo Gadus v Commission (Free Movement Of Goods); ECFI 9-Jun-1998 - T-11/97; [1998] EUECJ T-11/97 Â Biedermann and others v Court of Auditors (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-273,II-831) T-173/95; [1998] EUECJ T-173/95 9 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Chesi and others v Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-265,II-817) T-172/95; [1998] EUECJ T-172/95 9 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Al and others and Becker and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-257,II-803) T-171/95; [1998] EUECJ T-171/95 9 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hick v ESC (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-281,II-845) T-176/97; [1998] EUECJ T-176/97 9 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â AL EA v Commission (Staff Regulations) French Text; ECFI 9-Jun-1998 - T-191/95; [1998] EUECJ T-191/95 Â Chiciak (Agriculture) C-130/97; [1998] EUECJ C-130/97 9 Jun 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Exclusive competence of the Commission - Scope of the protection of names comprising several terms. Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Chiciak and Fol C-129/97; [1998] EUECJ C-129/97 9 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Cementir v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2261) T-116/95; [1998] EUECJ T-116/95 10 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-3401) (Judgment) C-206/96; [1998] EUECJ C-206/96 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe generale des grandes sources d'eaux minerales francaises v Bundesamt fur Finanzen (Rec 1998,p I-3495) (Judgment) C-361/96 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European Â Partridge v Adjudication Officer (Rec 1998,p I-3467) (Judgment) C-297/96 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European Â Belgische Staat v Foodic and others (Rec 1998,p I-3527) (Judgment) C-41/97; [1998] EUECJ C-41/97 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1998,p I-3343) (Judgment) C-232/95 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European Â Commission v Belgium and Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-3557) (Judgment) C-176/97; [1998] EUECJ C-176/97 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â H v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-3577) (Judgment) C-291/97; [1998] EUECJ C-291/97P 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Skrikas v Parliament T-167/97; [1998] EUECJ T-167/97 11 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Transport) C-177/97; [1998] EUECJ C-177/97 11 Jun 1998 ECJ European, Transport ECJ Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Freedom to provide maritime transport services - Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country - Cargo-sharing arrangement. [ Bailii ] Â Fichtner v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-293,II-873) T-173/97; [1998] EUECJ T-173/97 11 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Comunidad Autonoma de Cantabria v Council (Rec 1998,p II-2271) T-238/97; T-238/97; [1998] EUECJ T-238/97 16 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz C-162/96; [1998] EUECJ C-162/96 16 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Criminal Proceedings Against Johannes Martinus Lemmens; ECJ 16-Jun-1998 - Times, 20 July 1998; Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-226/97; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 7; [1998] ECR I-3711 Â Mecklenburg v Kreis Pinneberg C-321/96; [1998] EUECJ C-321/96 17 Jun 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Hill and Stapleton v The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-243/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin, 9; [1998] IRLR 466; [1998] EUECJ C-243/95 17 Jun 1998 ECJ Discrimination, European, European Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they switched to full-time employment but their position on the incremental pay scale was adjusted in accordance with an instruction that each year’s job-sharing service was only reckonable as six months full-time service. The issue for the ECJ was whether the principle of finally equal pay was contravened, if employees who convert from job-sharing to full-time work regress on the incremental scale, and hence on their salary scale due to the application by the employer of the criteria of service calculated by time worked in a job and, if so, did the employer have to provide special set of classification for re-course to the criterion of service to find his actual time worked in awarding incremental credit. Held: Treatment of job sharers as having acquired seniority of half that of time served (having worked half time) was discriminatory. 98% of job sharing civil servant employees were women. Otherwise only if difference based on objective non-sex related factors. Council Directive 75/117/EEC Equal Pay Directive 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Svenska Journalistforbundet (Supported by Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands, Interveners) v Council of Europe (Supp France and Uk) Gazette, 09 September 1998; Times, 22 June 1998; T-174/95; [1998] EUECJ T-174/95 17 Jun 1998 ECFI Costs, European When European Council refused access to documents on grounds of public security a proper reason must be shown, and in its absence the decision was annulled. Wrongful publication of documents reflected in costs. Council Decision 93/731/EC on Public Access to Council documents [ Bailii ] Â Hill and Stapleton v The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-243/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin, 9; [1998] IRLR 466; [1998] EUECJ C-243/95 17 Jun 1998 ECJ Discrimination, European, European Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they switched to full-time employment but their position on the incremental pay scale was adjusted in accordance with an instruction that each year’s job-sharing service was only reckonable as six months full-time service. The issue for the ECJ was whether the principle of finally equal pay was contravened, if employees who convert from job-sharing to full-time work regress on the incremental scale, and hence on their salary scale due to the application by the employer of the criteria of service calculated by time worked in a job and, if so, did the employer have to provide special set of classification for re-course to the criterion of service to find his actual time worked in awarding incremental credit. Held: Treatment of job sharers as having acquired seniority of half that of time served (having worked half time) was discriminatory. 98% of job sharing civil servant employees were women. Otherwise only if difference based on objective non-sex related factors. Council Directive 75/117/EEC Equal Pay Directive 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-3839) (Judgment) C-214/97; [1998] EUECJ C-214/97 17 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â UEAPME v Council (Rec 1998,p II-2335) T-135/96; T-135/96; [1998] EUECJ T-135/96 17 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Grundig Italiana v Ministero delle Finanze C-68/96; [1998] EUECJ C-68/96 17 Jun 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) National tax on audiovisual and photo-optical products - Internal taxation - Possible incompatibility with Community law [ Bailii ] Â Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Supported by United Kingdom Intervener) Times, 02 July 1998; C-43/96; [1998] EUECJ C-43/96 18 Jun 1998 ECJ VAT, European (Judgment) It was open to member states to refuse to allow claim VAT input reclaims on articles purchased for transport which constituted the very tool of the trade of a taxpayer. Driving instructors may not reclaim VAT on their transport. Council Directive 77/388/EEC - EC Treaty 169 [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-4005) (Judgment) C-183/97; [1998] EUECJ C-183/97 18 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-4017) (Judgment) C-208/97; [1998] EUECJ C-208/97 18 Jun 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Burgemeester en wethouders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and others v Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland C-81/96; [1998] EUECJ C-81/96 18 Jun 1998 ECJ European, Environment ECJ Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 85/337 - Project for which consent was obtained prior to the deadline for transposing the directive into national law - New consent procedure initiated after that deadline - Project subject to obligations relating to environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337) Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment is to be interpreted as not permitting Member States to waive the obligations regarding environmental assessments in the case of projects listed in Annex I of the directive where - the projects have already been the subject of a consent granted prior to 3 July 1988, the date by which the directive was to have been transposed into national law, - the consent was not preceded by an environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the directive and no use was made of it, and a fresh consent procedure was formally initiated after 3 July 1988. It is true that the principle of compulsory environmental assessment in accordance with the directive does not apply where the consent procedure was initiated before 3 July 1988 and was still in progress on that date. The reason for that is to avoid making more cumbersome and time-consuming, as a result of the specific requirements imposed by the directive, procedures which are already complex at national level and which were formally initiated before that date. Those considerations do not apply, however, in the circumstances mentioned above, particularly as national legal remedies are available in respect of the new consent procedure. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851; C-35/96; [1998] EUECJ C-35/96 18 Jun 1998 ECJ C Gulmann P European, Commercial Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fixing of business tariffs - Customs agents - Legislation reinforcing the effects of an agreement [ Bailii ] Â Dalmine v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2383) T-596/97; T-596/97; [1998] EUECJ T-596/97 24 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gouvernement des Antilles neerlandaises v Council (Rec.1998,p.I-4147) (Order) C-159/98 25 Jun 1998 ECJ European Â Godts v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-305,II-893) T-185/97; T-185/97; [1998] EUECJ T-185/97 25 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sofivo and others v Council (Rec 1998,p II-2601) T-14/97; T-14/97; [1998] EUECJ T-14/97 25 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â British Midland Airways v Commission T-394/94; [1998] EUECJ T-394/94 25 Jun 1998 ECFI European ECFI State aid - Air transport - Airline company in a critical financial situation - Authorisation for an increase in capital. [ Bailii ] Â Fichtner v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4135) (Order) C-312/97 25 Jun 1998 ECJ European Â British Airways and others and British Midland Airways v Commission T-371/94; [1998] EUECJ T-371/94 25 Jun 1998 ECFI Bellamy P European, Transport ECFI 1 Far from enjoying the same rights to a fair hearing as those which individuals against whom a procedure has been instituted are recognised as having, concerned parties, within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, have only the right to be involved in the administrative procedure to the extent appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case. There may be two reasons for restricting the extent of the right to participate and to be informed which such parties enjoy. First, where a Member State notifies the Commission of planned aid and submits supporting documentation, and the relevant Commission departments subsequently hold a series of meetings with officials from the Member State in question, the amount of information in the Commission's possession may already be relatively extensive, leaving outstanding only a small number of doubts which information supplied by the parties concerned may dispel. In so far as they relate to the details of the planned aid, to the economic, financial and competitive position of the recipient undertaking and to its internal operations, the discussions between the Member State and the Commission will inevitably be more thorough than those conducted with the parties concerned. While providing such parties with general information on the essentials of the planned aid, therefore, the Commission may confine itself to concentrating its communication in the Official Journal on those aspects of the planned aid concerning which it still harbours doubts. Second, the Commission is required, under Article 214 of the Treaty, not to disclose to interested parties information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular information relating to the internal operations of the recipient undertaking. The limited nature of the rights of concerned parties to participate and to be informed, in so far as they relate solely to the administrative procedure, is not at variance with the Commission's duty under Article 190 of the Treaty to provide, in its final decision authorising planned aid, sufficient reasons which must address all the essential complaints which parties directly and individually concerned by that decision have made either on their own initiative or as a result of information supplied by the Commission. Thus, even on the assumption that the Commission may validly prefer to use other sources of information and thereby reduce the significance of the participation of concerned parties, it is not thereby released from its obligation to include an adequate statement of reasons in its decision. 2 There is nothing in the Treaty or in Community legislation requiring decisions on State aid adopted at the conclusion of the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty to comply with a fixed period. On the assumption that the Commission acted with excessive haste and did not give itself sufficient time to examine proposed aid, such conduct could not, by itself, justify annulment of the decision authorising that aid. To entail annulment, such conduct would have to involve a breach of specific rules governing procedure, the duty to provide reasons or the internal legality of the decision in question. Nor is there anything in the Treaty or in Community legislation which requires the Commission to seek assistance from external experts in order to draft a decision relating to State aid. 3 In view of the fact that interveners must, under Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, accept the case as they find it at the time of their intervention and that their submissions in an application to intervene are, under the fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, limited to supporting the submissions of one of the main parties, an intervener is not entitled to raise a plea in law that was not raised by the applicant. 4 The text of Article 93 of the Treaty does not require the Commission to forward to the other Member States observations which it has received from the Government of the State seeking authorisation to grant aid. On the contrary, it follows from the third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty that the other Member States may be involved in a specific case of aid only where that case has, at the request of the State concerned, been submitted to the Council. 5 The Commission enjoys a broad discretion in the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty. Since that discretion involves complex economic and social appraisals, the Court must, in reviewing a decision adopted in that context, confine itself to verifying whether the Commission complied with the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons, whether the facts on which the contested finding was based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error in the assessment of those facts or misuse of powers. In that regard, in the context of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty, the legality of a Community measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot depend on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy. In particular, the complex assessments made by the Commission must be examined solely on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time when those assessments were made. 6 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the contested measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Community judicature to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question. While the Commission, in the statement of reasons for a decision, is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by interested parties during the administrative procedure, it must none the less take account of all the circumstances and all the relevant factors of the case in question. In regard to a decision authorising State aid, the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations, are to be regarded as concerned parties within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty and considered, in that capacity, to be directly and individually concerned by that decision. Since the requirement of a statement of reasons must be assessed on the basis, in particular, of the interest which those to whom the measure is addressed or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, may have in receiving explanations, it cannot be determined solely on the basis of the interest which the Member State to which that decision is addressed may have in obtaining information. Where a Member State has obtained from the Commission that which it was seeking, namely authorisation for its planned aid, its interest in having a reasoned decision addressed to it may be greatly reduced, in contrast to that of competitors of the beneficiary of the aid, in particular where it has received sufficient information during the negotiations with the Commission through, inter alia, exchange of correspondence with that institution before the authorising decision was taken. 7 Since, according to well-established case-law of the Court of Justice and a consistent administrative practice on the part of the Commission, investment in normal modernisation intended to maintain an undertaking's competitiveness should be carried out using the undertaking's own financial resources, and not through State aid, and investment intended for the renovation and technical modernisation of a production line, which has to be carried out periodically, cannot be regarded as designed to facilitate the development of certain economic activities within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission must, when replying to the observations of concerned parties regarding specific planned aid during the administrative procedure and relating to that case-law and administrative practice, provide precise indications as to whether the criteria established by that case-law and practice can be regarded as having been satisfied or whether it is appropriate, for specific reasons, to derogate from them. 8 The operative part and the statement of reasons of a decision, which must be reasoned under Article 190 of the Treaty, constitute an indivisible whole, with the result that it is for the college of Commissioners alone, in accordance with the principle of collegiate responsibility, to adopt both the one and the other, any alteration to the statement of reasons going beyond simple corrections of spelling or grammar being the exclusive province of that college. 9 In regard to State aid, while there can be no grounds for denying that the Commission is entitled to compare the restructuring measures envisaged by the recipient undertaking with those taken by other undertakings operating in the same economic sector, the fact remains that the restructuring of an undertaking must be targeted at its own specific problems and that the experiences of other undertakings, in different economic and political contexts and at other times, may be irrelevant. 10 The Commission was entitled to form the view that genuine restructuring of one of the three largest European airline companies, which was the recipient of State aid, would have the effect of facilitating the economic development of the European civil aviation sector. 11 Information as to the situation on the markets in question, in particular the position of the undertaking benefiting from the aid and of competing undertakings, constitutes an essential element in the reasoning of a decision relating to the compatibility of planned aid with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, both where the decision has been taken pursuant to Article 92(1) and where it has been taken pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty and Article 61(3)(c) of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area in regard to the question whether the aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. 12 Economic assessments pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, in respect of which the Commission enjoys a broad discretion, must be made in a Community context. The Commission is for that reason under an obligation to examine the impact of the aid on competition and intra-Community trade. In order to determine whether aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, it is necessary to consider, in particular, whether there is an imbalance between the charges imposed on the undertakings concerned on the one hand and the benefits derived from the aid in question on the other. The Commission is under an obligation, when examining the impact of State aid, to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition. The Commission may in principle make a decision authorising aid under Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty subject to conditions for ensuring that authorised aid does not alter trading conditions to an extent contrary to the general interest. The legal and practical utility of such conditions of authorisation lies in the fact that, if the recipient undertaking were to fail to observe them, it would be for the Member State concerned to ensure proper implementation of the authorisation decision and for the Commission to assess whether it was appropriate to demand that the aid be repaid. If the State were not to comply with the conditions imposed by the Commission in a decision approving aid, the Commission would be entitled, under the second subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, to refer the matter directly to the Court of Justice by way of derogation from Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty. Having regard to the way in which the conditions underlying a decision to authorise aid thus operate, the mere assertion that one of those conditions will not be complied with cannot cast doubt on the legality of that decision. In general, the legality of a Community act cannot depend on the possible existence of opportunities for circumvention or on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy. 13 Since the purpose of Article 155 of the Treaty is to provide a general definition of the Commission's powers, it cannot be argued that each time the Commission infringes a specific Treaty provision such infringement involves an infringement of the general provision of Article 155 of the Treaty. [ Bailii ] Â Beside and Besselsen v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer C-192/96; [1998] EUECJ C-192/96 25 Jun 1998 ECJ European, Environment ECJ The expression 'municipal/household waste' referred to under point AD 160 of the amber list in Annex III to Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Decision 94/721 adapting, pursuant to Article 42(3), Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation No 259/93, includes both waste which for the most part consists of waste mentioned on the green list in Annex II to that regulation, mixed with other categories of waste appearing on that list, and waste mentioned on the green list mixed with a small quantity of materials not referred to on that list. Such mixed waste does not come within the green list unless it has been collected separately or properly sorted. The information listed in Article 11(1) of the regulation, which must accompany shipments of waste intended for recovery appearing in Annex II, constitutes the minimum evidence which the competent authority may, in the absence of notification, require in order to establish that `green waste' is intended for recovery. In the case of shipments of waste which have not been notified to all the competent authorities concerned (illegal traffic), the Member State of destination may not unilaterally return waste to the Member State of dispatch without prior notification to the latter; the Member State of dispatch may not oppose its return where the Member State of destination produces a duly motivated request to that effect. The reference to the storage of materials in point R 13 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, which lists waste recovery operations, covers not only cases in which storage takes place in the undertaking in which the other operations mentioned in that annex must be carried out but also cases in which storage precedes transport to such an undertaking, regardless of whether the latter is established inside or outside the Community. [ Bailii ] Â Altmann and others and Stott v Commission T-177/94 25 Jun 1998 ECFI European, Costs Taxation of costs. Â Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp and others v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer [1998] ECR I-4075; C-203/96; [1998] EUECJ C-203/96 25 Jun 1998 ECJ European, Environment ECJ Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, and Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community cannot be interpreted as meaning that the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity are applicable to shipments of waste for recovery. That follows from the provisions of the directive and the regulation and from the preparatory texts. Furthermore, the difference in treatment between waste for recovery and waste for disposal reflects the intention of the Community legislature to encourage recovery of waste in the Community as whole, in particular by eliciting the best technologies, which means that waste of that type should be able to move freely between Member States for processing, thus excluding the application of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity. Article 130t of the Treaty, which authorises Member States to adopt protective measures which are more stringent than those adopted pursuant to Article 130s, in so far as they are compatible with the Treaty, does not permit them to extend the application of those principles to waste for recovery when it is clear that those principles create a barrier to exports which is not justified either by an imperative measure relating to protection of the environment or by one of the derogations provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty. Article 90 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 86, precludes rules such as the Netherlands' Long-term Plan for the Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993, whereby a Member State requires undertakings to deliver their waste for recovery, such as oil filters, to a national undertaking on which it has conferred the exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste unless the processing of their waste in another Member State is of a higher quality than that performed by that undertaking if, without any objective justification and without being necessary for the performance of a task in the general interest, those rules have the effect of favouring the national undertaking and increasing its dominant position. [ Bailii ] Â Lilly Industries v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2571) T-120/96; T-120/96; [1998] EUECJ T-120/96 25 Jun 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gouvernement des Antilles neerlandaises v Council (Rec 1998,p I-4147) (Order) C-159/98 25 Jun 1998 ECJ European Â Â Brown v Rentokil Ltd; ECJ 30-Jun-1998 - Times, 02 July 1998; Gazette, 09 September 1998; [1998] IRLR 445; C-394/96; ECJ/CFI Bulletin 18/98, 1; [1998] EUECJ C-394/96; [1998] ECR I-4185; [1998] ICR 790; [1998] Fam Law 597; [1999] 1 FCR 49; [1998] 2 FLR 649; [1998] 2 CMLR 1049; [1998] CEC 829 Â British Shoe and others v Commission [1998] EUECJ T-73/97 30 Jun 1998 ECFI European, Commercial ECJ Dumping - Textile footwear originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia - Commission Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Subsequent regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate. [ Bailii ] Â Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-311,II-905) T-236/97; T-236/97; [1998] EUECJ T-236/97 2 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Partridge v Adjudication Officer Case Times, 02 July 1998; C-297/96; [1998] EUECJ C-297/96 2 Jul 1998 ECJ Benefits, European Attendance allowance payable in England was properly withdrawn after claimant left England to live in France permanently. Attendance allowance is in special category under the regulations. Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991 - EC Treaty Art 177 [ Bailii ] Â Â Fischer v Finanzamt Donaueschingen; ECJ 2-Jul-1998 - Times, 02 July 1998; Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-283/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 16; [1998] EUECJ C-283/95 Â Kapasakalis and others v Elliniko Dimossio (Rec 1998,p I-4239) (Judgment) C-225/95; [1998] EUECJ C-225/95 2 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Hill and Another v Revenue Commissioners and Another Times, 02 July 1998; C-243/95 2 Jul 1998 ECJ Discrimination, European Rule under which job-share employees lost out on pay rates when converted into full time equivalents were discriminatory against women since more women had job-share arrangements ECTreaty 119 Council Directive 75/117/EEC Â Regina v Secretary of State for Health; Scientific Committee for Tobacco and Health ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited and Others [1998] EWHC Admin 712 6 Jul 1998 Admn European, Media, Health 1 Citers Â Regina v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1154; [1998] EWCA Civ 1155 6 Jul 1998 CA European, Agriculture [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Goldstein v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2629) T-286/97; T-286/97; [1998] EUECJ T-286/97 6 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Telchini and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-327,II-947) T-116/96; T-116/96; [1998] EUECJ T-116/96 7 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Beton Express and others v Direction generale des douanes de la Reunion C-405/96 7 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Moncada v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-339,II-989) T-178/97; T-178/97; [1998] EUECJ T-178/97 7 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mongelli and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-319,II-925) T-238/95; T-238/95; [1998] EUECJ T-238/95 7 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Van den Bergh Foods v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2641) T-65/98; [2003] EUECJ T-65/98 7 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2667) T-85/94 8 Jul 1998 ECFI European Â Agostini v Ligue francophone de judo and disciplines associees and Ligue belge de judo (Rec.1998,p.I-4261) (Order) C-9/98; C-9/98 8 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Cecom v Council (Rec 1998,p II-2679) T-232/95; T-232/95; [1998] EUECJ T-232/95 8 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â X v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-347,II-1003) T-200/95; [1998] EUECJ T-200/95 8 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Aquilino v Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-351,II-1017) T-130/96; T-130/96; [1998] EUECJ T-130/96 8 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-4291) (Judgment) C-343/97; [1998] EUECJ C-343/97 9 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Smanor and Segaud v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4269) (Order) C-317/97 9 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-4281) (Judgment) C-323/97; [1998] EUECJ C-323/97 9 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Safety Hi-Tech v S and T (Rec 1998,p I-4301) (Judgment) C-284/95 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Bettati v Safety Hi-Tech (Rec 1998,p I-4355) (Judgment) C-341/95; [1998] EUECJ C-341/95 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Brems v Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-381,II-1085) T-219/97; T-219/97; [1998] EUECJ T-219/97 14 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v First National Bank of Chicago Times, 20 July 1998; C-172/96; [1998] EUECJ C-172/96 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European, VAT The Bank dealt in foreign exchange, not charging a commission, but relying on the profit it made over a period between the prices at which respectively it bought and sold the currency. The Bank contended that the foreign exchange transactions were subject to VAT as supplies effected for a consideration and that the value of the consideration was the full value of the currency received in exchange for that provided by the Bank. The European Court held that the supply of foreign currency being legal tender was not the supply of tangible property, but of a service. The supply of foreign currencies in the way described was the provision of a service for consideration being the difference between what it paid and what it received for the currency. The currencies received by the Bank were not the remuneration it received. That consisted in what the Bank could keep for itself, calculated as the net result of all transactions over a given period of time. Trading in foreign currencies where no charge was made, but the company relied upon the spread did constitute provision of taxable supplies. Amount of consideration was the total spread of transactions over a period of time Europa Foreign exchange transactions, performed even without commission or direct fees, are supplies of services provided in return for consideration, that is to say supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. More particularly, transactions between parties for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency, both such amounts being deliverable on the same value date, and in respect of which transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally, electronically or in writing) the currencies involved, the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and sold, which party will purchase which currency and the value date, constitute supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive. 2 Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be construed as meaning that, in foreign exchange transactions in which no fees or commission are calculated with regard to certain specific transactions, the taxable amount is the overall result of the transactions of the supplier of the services over a given period of time. Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive provides that the taxable amount is, in respect of supplies of services, that which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser for such supplies. Determining the consideration comes down to determining what the bank in question receives for foreign exchange transactions, that is to say the remuneration on foreign exchange transactions which it can actually take for itself. Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lebedef v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-371,II-1071) T-42/97; T-42/97; [1998] EUECJ T-42/97 14 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Aher-Waggon v Bundesrepublik Deutschland C-389/96; [1998] EUECJ C-389/96 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European, Transport, Environment ECJ (Judgment) Measures having equivalent effect - Directives on noise emissions from aircraft - Stricter domestic limits - Barrier to the importation of an aircraft - Environmental protection [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Goerres (Rec 1998,p I-4431) (Judgment) C-385/96; [1998] EUECJ C-385/96 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lebedef v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-363,II-1047) T-192/96; T-192/96; [1998] EUECJ T-192/96 14 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regeling v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid C-125/97 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Glasoltherm v Commission and others (Rec 1998,p I-4521) (Order) C-399/97 14 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Hauer v Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2713) T-119/95; T-119/95; [1998] EUECJ T-119/95 14 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â LPN and GEOTA v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2751) T-155/95; T-155/95; [1998] EUECJ T-155/95 15 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Opel Austria v Council (Rec 1998,p II-2739) T-115/94; T-115/94 15 Jul 1998 ECFI European Â Prayon-Rupel v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2769) T-73/98 15 Jul 1998 ECFI European Â Federation Belge des chambres syndicales de medecins v Gouvernement flamand and others C-93/97; [1998] EUECJ C-93/97 16 Jul 1998 ECJ Health Professions, European ECJ Directive 93/16/EEC - Specific training in general medical practice - Article 31 [ Bailii ] Â Kia Motors Nederland and Broekman Motorships v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2907) T-195/97; T-195/97; [1998] EUECJ T-195/97 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Scotch Whisky Association v Compagnie financiere europeenne de prises de participation and others Times, 21 August 1998; C-136/96; [1998] EUECJ C-136/96 16 Jul 1998 ECJ Commercial, European, European A drink being a blend of various whisky's and water but with minimum strength only greater than 30 per cent was not entitled to be called a whisky. Dilution destroyed the right to claim the title. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 [ Bailii ] Â Proderec v Commission T-72/97; [1998] EUECJ T-72/97 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European ECJ 1 The period which an undertaking has in which to bring an annulment action against Commission decisions reducing amounts of financial assistance initially granted to it by the European Social Fund does not start to run until the date on which that undertaking acquired precise knowledge of the author, the content and the grounds of the decisions, the latter having been notified to the competent national authorities, and not having been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 2 The certification referred to in Article 5(4)of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 on the tasks of the European Social Fund consists, as far as Member States are concerned, in checking the factual and accounting accuracy of the data forwarded in support of the claim for payment of the balance of aid by the beneficiary. The act of certification by the Member State does not absolve it from its other obligations under the relevant Community legislation. Thus, even if it has already carried out such certification, it remains bound by the obligations under Article 2(2)of Decision 83/516 and Article 7 of Decision 83/673 respectively, concerning the management of the fund, to guarantee the successful completion of the operations financed with the fund's aid and to notify the Commission of any suspected irregularities. Those obligations are not subject to any time restriction, and must be interpreted as applying throughout the management of an operation financed by the European Social Fund. Moreover, the exercise of the exclusive power of the Commission to reduce Community financial assistance under the European Social Fund cannot be made conditional upon the certification referred to in Article 5(4)of Regulation No 2950/83. Accordingly, any certification under Article 5(4)of Regulation No 2950/83 must be regarded as being by its nature an operation carried out by Member States subject to all reservations. A different interpretation would undermine the effectiveness of Article 7 of Decision 83/673, which requires Member States to give notice of irregularities found in the management of operations to be financed through the European Social Fund. 3 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which enacted the measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Community judicature to exercise its powers of review. The scope of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure in question and the context in which it was adopted. 4 A measure may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at least the main purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case. 5 Since the defence rights of a beneficiary of financial assistance from the European Social Fund must be respected where the Commission reduces the amount of that assistance, the Commission may not adopt a decision reducing such assistance without first giving the beneficiary the possibility, or ensuring that it has had the possibility, of effectively setting forth its views on the proposed reduction. [ Bailii ] Â Imperial Chemical Industries v Colmer Times, 20 August 1998; C-264/96; [1999] 1 WLR 108; [1998] ECR I-4695; [1998] STC 874; [1998] EUECJ C-264/96 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European, Corporation Tax A member state was not allowed to impose a tax regime which discriminated against the subsidiaries of a company based in that state where they were based in other member states, but discrimination was allowed where the subsidiaries were based outside EU. United Kingdom legislation restricting fiscal reliefs or advantages to cases where the relevant companies are resident in the United Kingdom may be inconsistent with the EC Treaty. ICI remained bound by domestic legislation upon its ordinary meaning notwithstanding that in certain circumstances such a construction would be incompatible with European Community rights. Europa In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 177, it is solely for the national courts before which proceedings are pending, and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is manifest that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the true facts or the subject-matter of the main proceedings. Article 52 of the Treaty precludes legislation of a Member State which, in the case of companies established in that State belonging to a consortium through which they control a holding company, by means of which they exercise their right to freedom of establishment in order to set up subsidiaries in other Member States, makes a particular form of tax relief subject to the requirement that the holding company's business consist wholly or mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries that are established in the Member State concerned. Such legislation, which makes a tax advantage in the form of consortium relief available solely to companies which control, wholly or mainly, subsidiaries whose seat is in the national territory, applies the test of the subsidiaries' seat to establish differential tax treatment of consortium companies established in that Member State and is not justified in terms of a need to ensure the cohesion of the national tax system arising from the fact that the revenue lost through the granting of tax relief on losses incurred by resident subsidiaries cannot be offset by taxing the profits of non-resident subsidiaries, since there is no direct link between the consortium relief granted for losses incurred by a resident subsidiary and the taxation of profits made by non-resident subsidiaries. When deciding an issue concerning a situation which lies outside the scope of Community law, the national court is not required, under Community law, either to interpret its legislation in a way conforming with Community law or to disapply that legislation. Where a particular provision must be disapplied in a situation covered by Community law, but that same provision could remain applicable to a situation not so covered, it is for the competent body of the State concerned to remove that legal uncertainty in so far as it might affect rights deriving from Community rules. EC Treaty 52 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-4903) (Judgment) C-339/97; [1998] EUECJ C-339/97 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Roque v The Lieutenant Governor of Jersey C-171/96; [1998] EUECJ C-171/96; [1998] ECR I-4607; [1998] 3 CMLR 143 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) Free movement of persons - Act of Accession 1972 - Protocol No 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man - Jersey 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Gut Springenheide and Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt (Rec 1998,p I-4657) (Judgment) C-210/96; [1998] EUECJ C-210/96 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Presle v Cedefop (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-387,II-1111) T-93/96; T-93/96; [1998] EUECJ T-93/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Von Lowis v Commission T-204/96; [1998] EUECJ T-204/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European ECFI (Law Governing The Institutions) Freelance conference interpreters - Lawfulness of levying Community tax on their remuneration. [ Bailii ] Â Scotch Whisky Association v Compagnie financiere europeenne de prises de participation and others Times, 21 August 1998; C-136/96; [1998] EUECJ C-136/96 16 Jul 1998 ECJ Commercial, European, European A drink being a blend of various whisky's and water but with minimum strength only greater than 30 per cent was not entitled to be called a whisky. Dilution destroyed the right to claim the title. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 [ Bailii ] Â Y v Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-405,II-1153) T-144/96; T-144/96; [1998] EUECJ T-144/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Von Lowis and Alvarez-Cotera v Commission T-202/96; T-202/96; [1998] EUECJ T-202/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â AGS Assedic Pas-de-Calais v Dumon and Froment C-235/95; [1998] EUECJ C-235/95 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Forcheri v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-421,II-1203) T-162/96; T-162/96; [1998] EUECJ T-162/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Y v Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-429,II-1235) T-219/96; T-219/96; [1998] EUECJ T-219/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â N v Commission C-252/97 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European (Order) Â Regione Toscana v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2889) T-81/97; [1998] EUECJ T-81/97 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Jensen v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-411,II-1173) T-156/96; T-156/96; [1998] EUECJ T-156/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gebhard v Parliament T-109/96; [1998] EUECJ T-109/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Oelmuhle Hamburg and Schmidt Sohne v Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung C-298/96; [1998] EUECJ C-298/96 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European Unduly paid Community subsidy - Recovery - Application of national law - Conditions and limits [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal C-285/97; [1998] EUECJ C-285/97 16 Jul 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2805) T-199/96; T-199/96; [1998] EUECJ T-199/96 16 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sateba v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4913) (Order) C-422/97 17 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â ITT Promedia v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2937) T-111/96; T-111/96; [1998] EUECJ T-111/96 17 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Thai Bicycle Industry v Council (Rec 1998,p II-2991) T-118/96; T-118/96; [1998] EUECJ T-118/96 17 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hubert v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-435,II-1255) T-28/97; T-28/97; [1998] EUECJ T-28/97 17 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Regeling v Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsverenging Voor De Metaalnijverheid Times, 20 July 1998; C-125/97; [1998] EUECJ C-125/97 20 Jul 1998 ECJ European An employee who had received partial payment of wages since before start of period of wages guaranteed on employers insolvency, was entitled to treat part earned after start as payment of wages earned before period and could claim his entire losses [ Bailii ] Â Meoro Aviles v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-443,II-1289) T-61/96; [1998] EUECJ T-61/96 20 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mellett v Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-449,II-1305) T-66/96; [1998] EUECJ T-66/96 21 Jul 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gibbs Mew Plc v Graham Gemmell and Gibbs Mew Plc and Centric Pub Company Ltd v Graham Gemmell [1998] EWCA Civ 1262; [1998] EuLR 588; [1999] 1 EGLR 43 22 Jul 1998 CA Peter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ, Schiemann LJ Commercial, European, Landlord and Tenant The brewery sought possession of a public house, tied by type. The lessee claimed damages for breach of Art. 81 and a declaration that the Block Exemption was inapplicable to his lease. His appeal from the judge's order in favour of the brewery was dismissed. The Court agreed with the majority in Greenalls. "There is no express requirement in [the Block Exemption] that the specification required must be by brand or denomination. Article 7 (1) (a) refers to beers supplied under the agreement as of a type; the tenant may be precluded from selling beers of that type supplied by other undertakings. Thus, the comparison between the agreement beers and those which he may not sell is by reference to the type of beer. The same comparison is apparent in Article 7 (1) (b), and there appears to be an assumption that the agreement will identify beers by type. Article 7 (2) defining drinks of the same type by reference to "their composition appearance and taste", is consistent with the interpretation of Gibbs Mew. Article 8 (2) (b) requires the tenant to have the right to obtain from other undertakings non-beer drinks "of the same type" as those supplied under the agreement but which bear different trademarks. "Type" there cannot mean brand or denomination. The regulation, in short, does not point to the specification having to be by brand or denomination but is consistent with it having to be by type. The present case differs from Delimitis in that in the lease itself are specified the types of beer and other drinks. The landlord cannot unilaterally enlarge the scope of the tie beyond those types. The landlord can change the brands or denominations on the price list, but unless it has freedom to do that, no brand or denomination could be added to or removed from the price list without a variation of the lease itself, requiring the tenants consent. That consideration seems to me to add practical force to the considerations based on the language of [the Block Exemption] which persuaded the majority in the Greenalls case." Though the tenant had had the benefit of protection under the 1954 Act, by hus conduct he had surrenedered his tenancy and taken an unprotected tenancy at will. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Alexopoulou v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4935) (Order) C-155/98 23 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â Alexopoulou v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4943) (Order) C-155/98 23 Jul 1998 ECJ European Â H J Banks and Co Ltd v Coal Authority and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1998] EWCA Civ 1342 30 Jul 1998 CA Commercial, European Application to amend details of reference to the European Court. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â H.J. Banks and Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority And The Secretary of State For Trade And Industry [1998] EWCA Civ 1363 31 Jul 1998 CA European, Commercial The appellant resisted payment under licences under which it had operated open cast mining, on the basis that the agreements were discriminatory under the ECSC Treaty. [ Bailii ] Â Ingmar GB Limited v Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc [1998] EWCA Civ 1366 31 Jul 1998 CA Peter Gibson, Aldous, Potter LJJ Commercial, Agency, European Case referred to ECJ. Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17 - Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Eppe v Commission (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-455,II-1347) (Order) T-77/98 4 Aug 1998 ECFI European Â Eppe v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-455,II-1347) T-77/98; [1998] EUECJ T-77/98 4 Aug 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Brookes and 334 Others v Borough Care Services and CLS Care Services Ltd Gazette, 10 December 1998; [1998] IRLR 636; [1998] UKEAT 210_98_0408; [1998] ICR 1198 4 Aug 1998 EAT Employment, European Where a transfer of a business had been arranged by way of a transfer of shares rather than of the business and particularly in order to avoid the Regulations, the transfer of shares took effect as a transfer of the undertaking and so the regulations caught the transaction, even though the Directive made no mention of such a transfer. Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sabbatucci v Parliament (Rec 1998,p II-3043,IA-459,II-1353) T-42/98; T-42/98 12 Aug 1998 ECFI European Â Emesa Sugar v Council - T-43/98 T-43/98; [2001] EUECJ T-43/98 14 Aug 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Emesa Sugar v Commission - T-44/98 [2001] EUECJ T-44/98 14 Aug 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gevaert v Commission T-160/97; [1998] EUECJ T-160/97 19 Aug 1998 ECFI European Officials - Judgment of the Court of First Instance - Application for reclassification in grade - Objection of inadmissibility - Material new fact - Admissibility. [ Bailii ] Â Collins v Committee of Regions T-132/97; [1998] EUECJ T-132/97 20 Aug 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Kapasakalis, Skiathitis and Kougiagkas v Greek State; ECJ 9-Sep-1998 - Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-227/95; C-255/95; C-226/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 18/98, 3; [1998] EUECJ C-226/95; [1998] EUECJ C-227/95 Â EC Commission v French Republic Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-43/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 27 9 Sep 1998 ECJ VAT, European It was open to a member state to disallow reclaim of VAT on a motor vehicle even though it was the very tool of the owners trade. State had right to retain regulations predating the Council Directive disallowing such allowances. Sixth VAT Directive Art 17(6) Â Hermes International v FHT Marketing Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-53/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98; [1998] EUECJ C-53/96 9 Sep 1998 ECJ Intellectual Property, European Where interim orders had been granted following seizure of goods under TRIPS agreement, the court gave guidance on what characteristics where required for it to be considered provisional measures under TRIPS and so imposed time limits. ECJ Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - TRIPS Agreement - Article 177 of the Treaty - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement - Provisional measures Council Decision 94/800/EC Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â EC Commission v Hellenic Republic Gazette, 09 September 1998; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 14; C-232/95; [1998] EUECJ C-232/95 9 Sep 1998 ECJ Environment, European The court emphasised the need for the member states to implement the Directive to reduce pollution from the listed substances. States should also state how they intended to test the implementation and also the time scale for implementation Council Directive 76/464/EEC [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo and Bazzochi v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3105) T-269/97; [1998] EUECJ T-269/97 9 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Societe Generale Des Grandes Sources D'Eaux Minerales Francaises v Bundesant Fur Finanzen; ECJ 9-Sep-1998 - Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-361/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 7; [1998] EUECJ C-361/96 Â Burgemeester En Wethouders Van Haarlemmerlied En Spaarnwoude v Gedeputerde Staten Van Noord-Holland Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-81/96; Wcj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 28 9 Sep 1998 ECJ Environment, European, Planning Where a development which might have significant environmental impact was proposed it was necessary to ensure that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out. It was not open to member states to exempt some types of development. Council Directive 90/313/EEC Freedom of Access to information on the environment. Â Â Jensen v Landbrugsministeriet - Ef - Direktorat; ECJ 9-Sep-1998 - Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-132/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98; [1998] EUECJ C-132/95 Â Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica v Ministero delle Finanze [1998] ECR I-4951; [1998] EUECJ C-231/96 15 Sep 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law [ Bailii ] Â BP Chemicals v Commission T-11/95 T-11/95; [1998] EUECJ T-11/95 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European EJ Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Date on which the measure came to the applicant's knowledge - Subsidiary criterion - Date of publication (EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and 173, fifth para.) 2 Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision finding that a form of State aid is compatible with the common market - Rival undertaking which did not participate in the proceeding before the Commission - Right of action (EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and 173, fourth para.) 3 Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision classifying a State measure as State aid or finding that aid is compatible with the common market - Inter partes procedure not opened - Rival undertaking - Right of action (EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and (3), and 173, fourth para.) 4 State aid - Commission investigation of a capital injection - Preliminary stage and adversarial stage - Classification of a State measure as State aid - Difficulties in making the assessment - Commission's obligation to open the inter partes procedure (EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and (3)) [ Bailii ] Â Ryanair v Commission T-140/95; T-140/95; [1998] EUECJ T-140/95 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European, Transport [ Bailii ] Â Michailidis and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3115) T-100/94; T-100/94; [1998] EUECJ T-100/94 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mediocurso v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3477) T-180/96; [1998] EUECJ T-180/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECFI Mediocurso - Estabelecimento de ensino particular, Lda v Commission of the European Communities. European Social Fund - Approval decision - Reduction of financial assistance - Prior hearing of beneficiary - Consultation of the Member State - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment. [ Bailii ] Â European Night Services and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3141) T-374/94; T-374/94; [1998] EUECJ T-374/94 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â BFM v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3437) T-126/96; T-126/96; [1998] EUECJ T-126/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3567) T-142/97; T-142/97; [1998] EUECJ T-142/97 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Gestevision Telecinco v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3407) T-95/96; [1998] EUECJ T-95/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ansaldo Energia and others v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and others (Rec 1998,p I-5025) (Judgment) C-279/96; [1998] EUECJ C-279/96 15 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Oleifici Italiani and Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3377) T-54/96; [1998] EUECJ T-54/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mediocurso v Commission T-181/96 [1998] EUECJ T-181/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECFI (Social Policy) European Social Fund - Approval decision - Reduction of financial assistance - Prior hearing of beneficiary - Consultation of Member State - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland C-431/97 [1998] EUECJ C-431/97 15 Sep 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directive 94/57/EC - Failure to transpose Council Directive 94/57/EC [ Bailii ] Â Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3301) T-136/95; T-136/95; [1998] EUECJ T-136/95 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â De Persio v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-483,II-1413) T-23/96; T-23/96; [1998] EUECJ T-23/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Molkerei Grossbraunshain and Bene Nahrungsmittel v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3533) T-109/97; T-109/97; [1998] EUECJ T-109/97 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Ministero delle Finanze v SPAC C-260/96; [1998] EUECJ C-260/96 15 Sep 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law [ Bailii ] Â Haas and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-475,II-1395) T-3/96; T-3/96; [1998] EUECJ T-3/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Hagleitner v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-489,II-1467) T-94/96; [1998] EUECJ T-94/96 15 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Jouhki v Commission T-215/97 [1998] EUECJ T-215/97 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European Officials - Notice of competition - Refusal to admit to competition. [ Bailii ] Â Rasmussen v Commission T-234/97 [1998] EUECJ T-234/97 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European Officials - Promotion - Equal treatment - Consideration of comparative merits. [ Bailii ] Â IECC v Commission T-133/95 T-133/95; T-133/95; [1998] EUECJ T-133/95 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECJ 1 A claim in an action for annulment that the Commission should be required to adopt appropriate measures to comply with its obligations under Article 176 of the Treaty is inadmissible. While it is for the institution concerned, under that provision, to adopt the measures required to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, it is not the function of the Community judicature to issue directions to the Community institutions or to substitute itself for those institutions when exercising its powers of review. 2 Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 17 provides that natural or legal persons claiming a legitimate interest may file a complaint alleging infringement of Articles 85 or 86 of the Treaty. The Commission is therefore entitled, and without prejudice to its right to institute, where appropriate, proceedings ex proprio motu in order to establish an infringement, not to pursue a complaint from an undertaking unable to demonstrate a legitimate interest. Determining the stage of the investigation at which the Commission ascertained that this condition has not been met does not therefore matter. 3 The interception by public postal operators of international ABA remail which, originating within the geographical monopoly of one of those operators, has been transported and put by private companies into the postal system of another country in order to be sent back via the traditional international postal system to the country of origin cannot be regarded as lawful under Article 86 of the Treaty in so far as such interception - cannot be justified solely by the existence of the postal monopoly and its alleged circumvention by ABA remail, - cannot be justified by any imbalance between the costs which a public postal operator bears in delivering incoming mail and the remuneration which it receives if such imbalance is the result of an agreement concluded among the public postal operators themselves, and - cannot, in the absence of evidence by the Commission to the contrary, be the only means by which the public postal operator of the country of destination can recover the costs involved in delivering that mail. 4 Only acts of the institutions which are tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated by the Community legal order are to be treated as non-existent in law. Given the gravity of the consequences attaching to a finding that an act of a Community institution is non-existent, such a finding must, for reasons of legal certainty, be reserved for very extreme situations 5 The statement of reasons for an individual decision must be such as, first, to enable the person to whom it is addressed to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that he can, if necessary, defend his rights and verify whether or not the decision is well founded and, second, to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review. The precise extent of the duty to state reasons, moreover, depends on the nature of the act in question and on the context in which it was adopted. 6 Having regard, first, to the general objective which Article 3(g) of the Treaty assigns to Community action in the area of competition law, second, to the task conferred on the Commission in this area by Article 89(1) of the Treaty and, finally, to the fact that Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer on a person making an application under that article the right to obtain a decision, within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty, as to whether or not there has been an infringement of Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty or of both those articles, the Commission is lawfully entitled to decide, on condition that it provides reasons for such a decision, that it is not appropriate to pursue a complaint denouncing practices which have subsequently been discontinued. In particular, subject to review by the Community judicature, the Commission is entitled to take the view that, where operators against which a complaint has been made have given undertakings and the applicant has failed to provide any evidence whatever that those undertakings have been disregarded, and the Commission has carefully examined the facts of the case, it is unnecessary for it to examine that complaint any further. Nor is the Commission obliged to refer expressly to the concept of `Community interest'. It is sufficient, for that purpose, that this concept should underlie the reasoning on which the decision in question is based. 7 A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken for the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated. [ Bailii ] Â Rasmussen v Commission T-193/96; [1998] EUECJ T-193/96 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECJ Officials - Staff report - Reiteration of the contents of the previous report - Belated inclusion in the personal file of the person concerned. [ Bailii ] Â IECC v Commission T-204/95 (Competition)e [1998] EUECJ T-204/95 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECJ Competition - Remail - Action for annulment - Partial rejection of a complaint [ Bailii ] Â Waterleiding Maatschappij 'Noord-West Brabant' v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3713) T-188/95; T-188/95; [1998] EUECJ T-188/95 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â IECC v Commission T-28/95 [1998] EUECJ T-28/95 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECJ Actions for failure to act - Failure cured after the action has been brought - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to proceed to judgment [ Bailii ] Â IECC v Commission T-110/95 [1998] EUECJ T-110/95 16 Sep 1998 ECFI European ECJ 1 A claim in an action for annulment that the Commission should be required to adopt appropriate measures to comply with its obligations under Article 176 of the Treaty is inadmissible. While it is for the institution concerned, under that provision, to adopt the measures required to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, it is not the function of the Community judicature to issue directions to the Community institutions or to substitute itself for those institutions when exercising its powers of review. 2 Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer on 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 or Article 86 of the Treaty or of both. Further, the Commission is entitled to reject a complaint when it forms the view, either before commencing investigation of the case or after taking investigative measures, that the case does not display a sufficient Community interest to justify further investigation. In order to assess the Community interest in further investigation of a case, the Commission must take account of the circumstances of the case, and especially of the legal and factual particulars set out in the complaint referred to it. The Commission should, in particular, after assessing with all due care the legal and factual particulars submitted by the complainant, balance the significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the common market, the probability of establishing the existence of the infringement and the scope of the investigation required in order to fulfil, under the best possible conditions, its task of ensuring that Articles 85 and 86 are complied with. However, since the assessment of the Community interest is necessarily based on an examination of the circumstances particular to each case, the Commission is entitled to take account of other relevant factors when making its assessment. In this regard, given the general objective of the activities of the Community laid down by Article 3(g) of the Treaty, namely, the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted, and the general supervisory role conferred on the Commission by Articles 89 and 155 of the Treaty, the latter may, subject to the requirement that it give reasons for such a decision, decide that it is not appropriate to investigate a complaint alleging practices contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty where the facts under examination give it proper cause to assume that the conduct of the undertakings concerned will be amended in a manner conducive to the general interest. In such a situation, it is for the Commission, as part of its task to ensure that the Treaty is properly applied, to decide whether it is in the Community interest to encourage undertakings challenged in administrative proceedings to change their conduct in view of the complaints made against them and to require from them assurances that such conduct will in fact be altered along the lines recommended by the Commission, rather than formally holding in a decision that such conduct by undertakings is contrary to the Treaty rules on competition. 3 Where the Commission rejects, on grounds of a lack of Community interest, an application for a finding under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 that an infringement has been committed, the review of legality which the Community judicature must undertake focuses on whether or not the contested decision is based on materially incorrect facts, or is vitiated by an error of law, a manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers. 4 A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken for the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated. 5 The statement of reasons on which an individual decision is based must, first, be such as to enable the person concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that, if necessary, he can defend his rights and verify whether the decision is well founded, and, secondly, enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review of the legality of the decision. The extent of the duty to state reasons depends on the nature of the act in question and on the circumstances in which it was adopted. The obligation to provide a statement of reasons under Article 190 of the Treaty is essential for the exercise of judicial review of the way in which the Commission uses the concept of Community interest in rejecting certain complaints. In regard to the Commission's obligation to state reasons when conducting an examination under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, the legitimate interests of complainants are fully protected where they are informed of the outcome of the confidential negotiations between the undertakings concerned by the investigation and the Commission in order to determine which alterations are necessary to satisfy the latter's objections, without their having the right as such to access to the specific documents which were the subject of those negotiations. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-5063) (Judgment) C-323/96; [1998] EUECJ C-323/96 17 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pagliarani v Commission (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-515,II-1555) (Order) T-40/98 17 Sep 1998 ECFI European Â Pagliarani v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-515,II-1555) T-40/98; T-40/98; [1998] EUECJ T-40/98 17 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Harpegnies (Rec 1998,p I-5121) (Judgment) C-400/96; [1998] EUECJ C-400/96 17 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Branco v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3761) T-271/94; T-271/94 17 Sep 1998 ECFI European Â Primex Produkte Import-Export and others v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3773) T-50/96; T-50/96; [1998] EUECJ T-50/96 17 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Pontillo v Donatab (Rec 1998,p I-5091) (Judgment) C-372/96; [1998] EUECJ C-372/96 17 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne (Rec 1998,p I-5141) (Judgment) C-412/96; [1998] EUECJ C-412/96 17 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Progoulis v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-521,II-1569) T-237/97; T-237/97; [1998] EUECJ T-237/97 21 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributrer, acting on behalf of Egmont Film and others v Laserdisken (Rec 1998,p I-5171) (Judgment) C-61/97; [1998] EUECJ C-61/97 22 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd; ECJ 22-Sep-1998 - Times, 01 October 1998; Gazette, 10 December 1998; C-185/97; [1998] IRLR 656; [1999] ICR 100; [1998] ECR I-5199; [1998] EUECJ C-185/97 Â Togel v Niederosterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse (Rec 1998,p I-5357) (Judgment) C-76/97; [1998] EUECJ C-76/97 24 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Stinco and Panfilo v INPS (Rec 1998,p I-5225) (Judgment) C-132/96; [1998] EUECJ C-132/96 24 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Skatteministeriet v Sportgoods (Rec 1998,p I-5285) (Judgment) C-413/96; [1998] EUECJ C-413/96 24 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Dethlefs and others v Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3819) T-112/95; T-112/95; [1998] EUECJ T-112/95 24 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1998,p I-5325) (Judgment) C-35/97; [1998] EUECJ C-35/97 24 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Brinkmann Tabakfabriken v Skatteministeriet (Rec 1998,p I-5255) (Judgment) C-319/96; [1998] EUECJ C-319/96 24 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â EvoBus Austria v Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorganisation C-111/97; [1998] EUECJ C-111/97 24 Sep 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Pharos v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5441) (Order) C-151/98 28 Sep 1998 ECJ European Â Regina v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading and others C-263/97; [1997] Eu LR 195; [1998] EUECJ C-263/97 29 Sep 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef - Export refunds -Beef of British origin repatriated to the United Kingdom as a result of the announcements and decisions made in relation to 'mad cow disease' - Force majeure. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Refunds paid in advance - Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of export - Repayment of refunds paid in advance - Obligation incumbent on the exporter - Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 - Regulation No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance - Breach of the principles of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity - None - Validity of Regulation No 773/96 (Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239). Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation No 1615/90, must be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result of, in particular, force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the Member State of export, the exporter is obliged to repay any export refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, the formalities for release of the product for consumption in the country of destination have not been completed, so that it cannot be regarded, for the purposes of payment of the differentiated refund, as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87. By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef from the United Kingdom from retaining all or part of any export refunds paid in advance in circumstances where (1 exports of beef from the United Kingdom to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (2 bans on the importation of beef from the United Kingdom have also been imposed by a number of third countries, (3 exporters of beef were in the process of carrying goods to third countries on the date on which Decision 96/239 was adopted, (4 those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the United Kingdom, (5 the exporters had received, in accordance with Regulation No 565/80 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products and Regulation No 3665/87, advance payments of export refunds in respect of the export transactions in issue, and (6 the exporters suffered loss as a result of their inability to sell their beef on the export markets in question, Regulation No 3665/87 does not contravene the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity. Furthermore, and since none of those principles require exporters, in the circumstances described, to be authorised to retain all or part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation No 773/96 laying down special measures derogating from Regulations No 3665/87, No 3719/88 and No 1964/82 in the beef and veal sector does not provide for such retention does not render it invalid 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany C-191/95 [1998] EUECJ C-191/95 29 Sep 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer C-39/97; [1999] RPC 117; [1998] ECR I-5507; [1998] EUECJ C-39/97 29 Sep 1998 ECJ European, Intellectual Property In a complaint of trade mark infringement, and when comparing the mark and sign, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods/services and vice versa. Europa On a proper construction of Article 4(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion. The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. That global assessment implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular a similarity between the trade marks and between the goods and services covered by those marks. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa. However, since the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the risk of confusion, trade marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with less distinctive character. Accordingly, for the purposes of Article 4(1)(b), registration of a trade mark may have to be refused, despite a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services covered, where the marks are very similar and the earlier mark, in particular its reputation, is highly distinctive. Even if such an interpretation may make the registration procedure much lengthier, it is, in any event, for reasons of legal certainty and proper administration, necessary to ensure that trade marks whose use could successfully be challenged before the courts are not registered. For the purposes of applying Article 4(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, even where one trade mark is identical to another with a highly distinctive character, it is still necessary to adduce evidence of similarity between the goods or services covered. In contrast to Article 4(4)(a), which expressly refers to the situation in which the goods or services are not similar, Article 4(1)(b) provides that the likelihood of confusion presupposes that the goods or services covered are identical or similar. In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their end users and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. There is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks where the public can be mistaken as to the origin of the goods or services in question. Article 2 of the directive provides that a trade mark must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, while the tenth recital in the preamble to the directive states that the function of the protection conferred by the mark is primarily to guarantee the indication of origin. The essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others which have another origin. Furthermore, for the trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish, it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have originated under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality. Accordingly, there may be a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) even where the public perception is that the goods or services have different places of production. By contrast, there can be no such likelihood where it does not appear that the public could believe that the goods or services come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings. Council Directive 89/104 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ryan v Court of Auditors (Rec 1998,p II-3885) T-121/97; T-121/97; [1998] EUECJ T-121/97 30 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Losch v Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-543,II-1633) T-13/97; T-13/97; [1998] EUECJ T-13/97 30 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Busacca and others v Court of Auditors (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-565,II-1699) T-164/97; T-164/97; [1998] EUECJ T-164/97 30 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Mighell v Reading and Another and Evans v Motor Insurers Bureau and White v White and Another Times, 12 October 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1465; [1999] 1 LLR 30 30 Sep 1998 CA Hobhouse LJ European, Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance Passengers were injured in motor vehicles. The drivers were uninsured, and the MIB had declined to make payment. The doctrine of direct effect did not apply where the allegation was that the Motor Insurers Bureau arrangement did not comply with a European Directive. It was not clear whether the Bureau was an emanation of state, but government had had a choice of institutions through which to implement the Directive. As to the nature of the MIB: "Its members are private law insurance companies who have chosen for the time being to write motor insurance business. It is true that they have a statutory position in that it is compulsory for the user of a motor vehicle on the road to take out a policy with a company which is a member of the Bureau. (Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988). But the Motor Insurers' Bureau scheme has been in existence from a time earlier than the United Kingdom's membership of the European Communities (or Union) and agreements between the Bureau and the Secretary of State relating to uninsured drivers and untraced drivers have long formed part of that scheme." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Chvatal and others v Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-527,II-1579) T-154/96; T-154/96; [1998] EUECJ T-154/96 30 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Adine-Blanc v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-557,II-1683) T-43/97; T-43/97; [1998] EUECJ T-43/97 30 Sep 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â Netherlands v Commission; ECJ 1-Oct-1998 - C-27/94; [1998] EUECJ C-27/94 Â United Kingdom v Commission C-209/96 [1998] EUECJ C-209/96 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture (Judgment) In the context of intervention measures in the beef and veal sector, and in particular of the system of buying-in by tendering procedures, Article 9(1) of Regulation No 859/89 provides that tenderers must undertake to comply with all the relevant provisions and Article 9(2) that interested parties may submit one tender only per category in response to each invitation to tender. Since the need to ensure legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them, the wording of Article 9(2) cannot provide any support for the interpretation that, on account of the difference in meaning between the words `interested party' and `tenderers', the latter may submit one tender only in response to an invitation to tender where they are part of a single group. Such an interpretation would thus be tantamount to applying retroactively Article 11 of Regulation No 2456/93, which introduces into the Community legislation provisions on the relationship between tenderers. That being the case, although the rule that tenders must be independent, an essential requirement for the validity and effectiveness of any tender procedure, which underlies Articles 9(6) (confidentiality of tenders), 12(2) (prohibition on the transfer of rights and obligations arising from the tender procedure), 9(4)(c) (tenderers' obligation to lodge a security) and 15 (tenderers' obligation to receive payment personally) of Regulation No 859/89 and Article 6(6) of Regulation No 805/68 (equality of access for all persons concerned), does not prevent several companies belonging to one group from taking part at the same time in one tender procedure, it does preclude those same companies from agreeing on the terms and conditions of the tenders which they each submit, if the tender procedure is not to be distorted. Article 8(1) of Regulation No 729/70, which constitutes a specific expression in the agricultural area of the obligations imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the Treaty, defines the principles according to which the Community and the Member States must ensure the implementation of Community decisions on agricultural intervention financed by the EAGGF and combat fraud and irregularities in relation to those operations. It imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures, particularly when there is evidence such as to give rise to serious suspicions that a prohibition laid down by the Community act in question has been circumvented. Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 permit the Commission to charge to the EAGGF only sums paid in accordance with the rules laid down in the various sectors of agricultural production, leaving the Member States to bear the burden of any other sum paid, and in particular any amounts which the national authorities wrongly believed themselves authorised to pay in the context of the common organisation of the markets. Although it is therefore for the Commission to prove an infringement of the Community rules, the Member State concerned must demonstrate that the Commission committed an error as to the financial consequences to be attributed to it. Where it has established that a Member State infringed several Community rules in the field of agriculture and that harm was probably caused to the Community budget, the Commission cannot be required to do more, since it cannot carry out systematic checks and analysis of the current state of a given market depends on information gathered by the Member States. The extent of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted. A decision concerning the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF by which the charging to the EAGGF of part of the expenditure declared is refused does not require detailed reasons if the government concerned was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF. [ Bailii ] Â Librandi (Rec 1998,p I-5955) (Judgment) C-38/97; [1998] EUECJ C-38/97 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5699) (Judgment) C-232/96; [1998] EUECJ C-232/96 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Denmark v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5759) (Judgment) C-233/96; [1998] EUECJ C-233/96 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1998,p I-5935) (Judgment) C-285/96; [1998] EUECJ C-285/96 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain (Rec 1998,p I-5991) (Judgment) C-71/97; [1998] EUECJ C-71/97 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Natural van Dam and Danser Container Line v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3921) T-155/97; T-155/97; [1998] EUECJ T-155/97 1 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Â International Express Carriers Conference v Commission of the European Communities (Supported by UK, Deutsche Post Ag, the Post Office and La Poste Interveners); ECJ 1-Oct-1998 - Times, 01 October 1998; T-133/95; T-204/95 Â Italy v Commission C-242/96; [1998] EUECJ C-242/96 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1992 and 1993 - Beef and veal [ Bailii ] Â Burstein v Freistaat Bayern C-127/97; [1998] EUECJ C-127/97 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ireland v Commission C-238/96; [1998] EUECJ C-238/96 1 Oct 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1992 and 1993 - Beef and veal [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6039) (Judgment) C-79/98; [1998] EUECJ C-79/98 6 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kuchlenz-Winter v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-6047) (Order) C-228/97 8 Oct 1998 ECJ European Â Â Optident Ltd and Another v Secretary of State and Industry and Another; QBD 9-Oct-1998 - Times, 09 October 1998 Â Campoli v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-577,II-1731) T-235/97; [1998] EUECJ T-235/97 12 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Martinez del Peral Cagigal v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-581,II-1741) T-224/97; [1998] EUECJ T-224/97 14 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Industrie des poudres spheriques v Council (Rec 1998,p II-3939) T-2/95; T-2/95; [1998] EUECJ T-2/95 15 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6069) (Judgment) C-268/97; [1998] EUECJ C-268/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1998,p I-6115) (Judgment) C-385/97; [1998] EUECJ C-385/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6081) (Judgment) C-283/97; [1998] EUECJ C-283/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6107) (Judgment) C-326/97; [1998] EUECJ C-326/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1998,p I-6091) (Judgment) C-284/97; [1998] EUECJ C-284/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Italy (Rec 1998,p I-6099) (Judgment) C-324/97; [1998] EUECJ C-324/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Portugal C-229/97; [1998] EUECJ C-229/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece (Rec 1998,p I-6127) (Judgment) C-386/97; [1998] EUECJ C-386/97 15 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â V v Commission T-40/95 16 Oct 1998 ECFI European Â Vicente-Nunez v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-591,II-1779) T-100/96; T-100/96; [1998] EUECJ T-100/96 21 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec.1998,p.I-6393) (Judgment) C-26/98 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European Â Wolfs v Office national des pensions (Rec 1998,p I-6173) (Judgment) C-154/96; [1998] EUECJ C-154/96 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany (Rec 1998,p I-6135) (Judgment) C-301/95; [1998] EUECJ C-301/95 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Office national des pensions v Conti (Rec 1998,p I-6365) (Judgment) C-143/97; [1998] EUECJ C-143/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v France (Rec 1998,p I-6197) (Judgment) C-184/96; [1998] EUECJ C-184/96 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kellinghusen v Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (Agriculture) C-37/97; [1998] EUECJ C-37/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ On the interpretation and validity, in Case C-36/97, of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), and, in Case C-37/97, of Article 30a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 49). [ Bailii ] Â Â Jokela (Agriculture); ECJ 22-Oct-1998 - C-118/97; [1998] EUECJ C-118/97 Â Procedures contre Jokela and Pitkaranta C-9/97; [1998] EUECJ C-9/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European (Rec 1998,p I-6267) (Judgment) [ Bailii ] Â In.Co.Ge. 90 (Principles Of Community Law) C-22/97; [1998] EUECJ C-22/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European ECJ Recovery of sums paid but not due - Treatment of a national charge incompatible with Community law. [ Bailii ] Â The Howden Court Hotel (Taxation) C-94/97; [1998] EUECJ C-94/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European, VAT ECJ VAT - Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Scheme for travel agents and tour operators - Hotel undertakings - Accommodation and travel package - Basis of calculation of the margin. [ Bailii ] Â Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Madgett and Baldwin (trading as Howden Court Hotel); ECJ 22-Oct-1998 - C-308/96; [1998] STC 1189; [1998] EUECJ C-308/96 Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-6393) (Judgment) C-26/98; [1998] EUECJ C-26/98 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Kellinghusen v Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel and Ketelsen v Amt fur Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum (Judgment) C-36/97; [1998] EUECJ C-36/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Ministero delle Finanze v IN CO GE '90 and others (Rec 1998,p I-6307) (Judgment) C-10/97; [1998] EUECJ C-10/97 22 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regione Puglia v Commission and Spain (Rec 1998,p II-4051) T-609/97; [1998] EUECJ T-609/97 23 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-6593) (Judgment) C-364/97; [1998] EUECJ C-364/97 27 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Abruzzi Gas v Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano (Rec 1998,p I-6553) (Judgment) C-152/97; [1998] EUECJ C-152/97 27 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fecsa (Taxation) C-32/97; [1998] EUECJ C-32/97 27 Oct 1998 ECJ European, Stamp Duty ECJ Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment of debenture loans. [ Bailii ] Â Â Boyle and Others v Equal Opportunities Commission; ECJ 27-Oct-1998 - Times, 29 October 1998; C-411/96; [1998] EUECJ C-411/96 Â Â Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others v Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another; ECJ 27-Oct-1998 - Times, 16 November 1998; C-51/97; [1998] ECR I-6511; [1998] EUECJ C-51/97 Â Nonwoven (Rec 1998,p I-6469) (Judgment) C-4/97; [1998] EUECJ C-4/97 27 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fuerzas Electricas de Catalunya and Autopistas Concesionaria Espanola v Departament d'Economia i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Rec 1998,p I-6491) (Judgment) C-31/97; [1998] EUECJ C-31/97 27 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Goldstein v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4063) T-100/98; T-100/98; [1998] EUECJ T-100/98 28 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Goldstein v Commission (Rec.1998,p.II-4063) (Order) T-100/98 28 Oct 1998 ECFI European Â de Castro Freitas and Escallier v Ministre des Classes moyennes and du Tourisme C-193/97; [1998] EUECJ C-193/97 29 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Awoyemi (Rec 1998,p I-6781) (Judgment) C-230/97; [1998] EUECJ C-230/97 29 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â De Castro Freitas; ECJ 29-Oct-1998 - C-194/97; [1998] EUECJ C-194/97 Â Â Wilson and Others v St Helens Borough Council; Meade and Another v British Fuels Ltd; HL 29-Oct-1998 - Times, 30 October 1998; Gazette, 25 November 1998; [1998] UKHL 37; [1999] 2 AC 52; [1998] 4 All ER 609; [1998] 3 WLR 1070 Â TEAM v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4073) T-13/96; T-13/96; [1998] EUECJ T-13/96 29 Oct 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-6813) (Judgment) C-410/97; [1998] EUECJ C-410/97 29 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain C-114/97; [1998] EUECJ C-114/97 29 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Zaninotto v Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi - Ufficio di Conegliano - Ministero delle risorse agricole, alimentari e forestali (Rec 1998,p I-6629) (Judgment) C-375/96; [1998] EUECJ C-375/96 29 Oct 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Greece [2001] 1 CMLR 28; C-185/96; [1998] EUECJ C-185/96; [1998] ECR I-6601 29 Oct 1998 ECJ European, Benefits ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Benefits for large families - Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Kaysersberg v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4105) T-290/94; T-290/94 30 Oct 1998 ECFI European Â Â Regina v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association; Admn 6-Nov-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 1052 Â Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v The Environment Agency Times, 03 December 1998; Gazette, 10 February 1999; [1998] EWHC Ch 286 9 Nov 1998 ChD Environment, Licensing, European Whether materials were a waste, requiring waste management licenses and procedures, was determined by whether any further process of reclamation or recycling was required. Materials used without further processing were not waste materials under the Act. Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (1994/1056) [ Bailii ] Â Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden v BFI Holding (Rec 1998,p I-6821) (Judgment) C-360/96; [1998] EUECJ C-360/96 10 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Europieces v Sanders and Automative Industries Holding Company C-399/96; [1998] EUECJ C-399/96; ECLI:EU:C:1998:532; [1999] All ER (EC) 831; [2001] 1 CMLR 25; [1998] ECR I-6965 12 Nov 1998 ECJ European, Enmployment ECJ (Judgment) Social policy - Harmonisation of laws - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of workers' rights - Directive 77/187/EEC - Scope - Transfer of an undertaking in voluntary liquidation [ Bailii ] Â Erstein v Fonds d'Intervention et de Regularisation du Marche du Sucre C-269/96; [1998] EUECJ C-269/96 12 Nov 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1785/81 and 2225/86 - Aid for the marketing of cane sugar produced in the French overseas departments - Concept of refinery [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Germany [1998] ECR I-6871; C-102/96; [1998] EUECJ C-102/96 12 Nov 1998 ECJ G. Hirsch, P European, Agriculture ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 64/433/EEC, 91/497/EEC and 89/662/EEC - Requirement for special marking and heat treatment of meat from boars Directive 64/433/EEC - Directive 91/497/EEC - Directive 89/662/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Commission C-415/96 [1998] ECR I-6993; [1998] EUECJ C-415/96 12 Nov 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) State aid for undertakings in the textile sector - Consequences of an annulling judgment for acts preparatory to the act annulled [ Bailii ] Â Institute of the Motor Industry v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1998] STC 1219; [1999] 1 CMLR 326; C-149/97; [1998] EUECJ C-149/97; [1998] BTC 5484; [1999] BVC 21; [1998] ECR I-7053 12 Nov 1998 ECJ European, VAT ECJ VAT - Exemptions - Non-profit-making organisations with aims of a trade-union nature [ Bailii ] Â Italy v Council C-352/96 [1998] EUECJ C-352/96 12 Nov 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1522/96 - Introduction and administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice [ Bailii ] Â Carrasco Benitez v Commission T-294/97; [1998] EUECJ T-294/97 12 Nov 1998 ECFI European ECFI Officials - Internal competition reserved for Category A temporary staff - Application by a Grade B 5 official - Unlawfulness of the notice of competition. [ Bailii ] Â Victoria Film A/S C-134/97; [1998] EUECJ C-134/97 12 Nov 1998 ECJ European, VAT ECJ Act of accession of the Kingdom of Sweden - Sixth VAT Directive - Transitional provisions - Exemptions - Services provided by authors, artists and performers - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court [ Bailii ] Â Antillean Rice Mills v Council (Rec 1998,p II-4117) T-41/97; T-41/97 16 Nov 1998 ECFI European Â Antilles Neerlandaises v Council and Commission T-163/97; [1998] EUECJ T-163/97 16 Nov 1998 ECFI European ECFI Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action, pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by a natural or legal person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, and Article 178 of the Treaty, concerning the introduction, in the first case by the Commission and in the second by both the Commission and the Council, of safeguard measures in respect of imports - Another action, also pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by the same person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty, concerning the introduction of those measures by the Council - Joinder of the two cases - Action pending before the Court of Justice, brought by a Member State, for annulment of the Council measure - In the interests of the proper administration of justice that the Court of Justice should take into consideration the arguments of the natural or legal person - Disjoinder of the two cases pending before the Court of First Instance - Jurisdiction in the second case declined by the Court of First Instance - Proceedings before the Court of First Instance stayed in the first case (EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, third para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 50) [ Bailii ] Â Aprile v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Rec 1998,p I-7141) (Judgment) C-228/96; [1998] EUECJ C-228/96 17 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Fabert-Goossens v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-607,II-1841) T-217/96; T-217/96; [1998] EUECJ T-217/96 17 Nov 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Kruidvat v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7183) (Judgment) C-70/97; [1998] EUECJ C-70/97P 17 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Gomez de Enterria y Sanchez v Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-613,II-1855) T-131/97; T-131/97; [1998] EUECJ T-131/97 17 Nov 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Van Uden Maritime v Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and others (Judgment) Times, 01 December 1998; [1999] 2 WLR 1181; C-391/95; [1998] ECR I-7091; [1998] EUECJ C-391/95 17 Nov 1998 ECJ Arbitration, European Applications under the Brussels Convention for Interim Measures were capable of being heard by courts notwithstanding a clause referring disputes under the contract in issue exclusively to arbitration. Even in the case of Article 24 of the Brussels Convention it has been made clear that the granting of provisional or protective measures on the basis of Article 24 is conditional on, inter alia, the existence of a real connecting link between the subject matter of the measures sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the contracting state of the court before which those measures are sought. Jurisdiction existed because, despite the existence of an arbitration, the subject matter of provisional measures was not arbitration: " … it must be noted…that provisional measures are not in principle ancillary to arbitration proceedings but are ordered in parallel to such proceedings and are intended as measures of support. They concern not arbitration as such but the protection of a wide variety of rights. Their place in the scope of the Convention is thus determined not by their own nature but by the nature of the rights which they serve to protect …" 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Toller v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7623) (Order) C-149/98 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European Â Parliament v Gaspari (Rec 1998,p I-7597) (Judgment) C-316/97; [1998] EUECJ C-316/97P 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Champion Stationery Mfg and others v Council (Rec 1998,p II-4137) T-147/97; T-147/97; [1998] EUECJ T-147/97 19 Nov 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Portugal"v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7379) (Judgment) C-159/96; [1998] EUECJ C-159/96 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Institute of the Motor Industry v Customs and Excise Commissioners Times, 19 November 1998 19 Nov 1998 ECJ VAT, European A trade union could be any organisation of employees, workers, employers, independent professionals or traders which took upon itself representation of its members interests as against third parties, and any such is VAT exempt. Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC Art 13(A)(1)(1) Â United Kingdom v Council (Rec 1998,p I-7235) (Judgment) C-150/94; [1998] EUECJ C-150/94 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Parliament v Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens C-252/96; [1998] EUECJ C-252/96P 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European ECJ (Judgment) Appeals - Proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Prohibition of new pleas - Applicability to the Court of First Instance - Officials - Inter-institutional transfer [ Bailii ] Â Spain v Council C-284/94; [1998] EUECJ C-284/94 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European (Judgment) Action for annulment - Common commercial policy - Regulations (EC) Nos 519/94 and 1921/94 - Import quotas for certain toys from the People's Republic of China [ Bailii ] Â Toller v Commission (Rec.1998,p.I-7623) (Order) C-149/98 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European Â Handels Og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark (Acting On Behalf of Pedersen) v Faellesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (Acting On Behalf of Kvickly Skive) Times, 01 December 1998; C-66/96; [1998] EUECJ C-66/96 19 Nov 1998 ECJ Discrimination, European It was discriminatory to refuse payment of maternity benefits where a worker suffered a pathological illness connected to a pregnancy with an allowance of benefits where someone ordinarily sick would receive full pay. Council Directive 75/117/EEC on Equal Pay for Men and Women [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Nilsson and others (Rec 1998,p I-7477) (Judgment) C-162/97; [1998] EUECJ C-162/97 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Societe financiere d'investissements v Belgian State (Rec 1998,p I-7447) (Judgment) C-85/97; [1998] EUECJ C-85/97 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â France v Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7555) (Judgment) C-235/97; [1998] EUECJ C-235/97 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Akman v Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises C-210/97; [1998] EUECJ C-210/97 19 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Royscott Leasing Ltd and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Allied Domecq Plc v Same; T C Harrison Group Ltd v Same Times, 23 November 1998 23 Nov 1998 CA European The court has the power to with draw a reference of a case to the European Court of Justice. This should only normally be done, however, where it had become clear that the reference would no longer serve any useful purpose. 1 Citers Â Steffens v Council and Commission T-222/97; [1998] EUECJ T-222/97 25 Nov 1998 ECFI European, Limitation ECJ The limitation period laid down in Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice in respect of actions brought against the Community in matters concerning non-contractual liability cannot begin to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases in which liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced. As regards the injury suffered by producers of milk and milk products who, following their entry into non-marketing or conversion undertakings under Regulation No 1078/77, were unable by operation of Regulation No 857/84 to obtain a reference quantity or, consequently, to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy, the limitation period started to run on the date on which, following the expiry of their non-marketing undertaking, the producers concerned could have resumed deliveries of milk if they had not been refused a reference quantity; that is to say, in cases where the undertaking expired before the date on which Regulation No 857/84 entered into force, time started to run on that date. Moreover, since the damage was not caused instantaneously but continued to be sustained from day to day for a certain period as a result of the maintenance in force of an illegal measure, the time-bar under Article 43 of the Statute applies, with respect to the date of the event which interrupted the limitation period, to the period more than five years prior to that date and does not affect rights which arose during subsequent periods. So far as regards, specifically, the notion of an event which interrupts a limitation period, the waiver of the right to plead limitation - provided for by the Communication of the Council and the Commission concerning the subsequent adoption of Regulation No 2187/93 which provided for an offer of compensation to the producers concerned - does not constitute such an event. The Communication merely provided for a self-imposed restriction of the right to plead limitation. The producers were able to rely on that waiver in the circumstances referred to in Regulation No 2187/93, since it ceased to have effect at the end of the period allowed for accepting the compensation offer, from which time, in the absence of acceptance of the offer or commencement of proceedings, the institutions once again became entitled to plead limitation. [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Spain C-214/96; [1998] EUECJ C-214/96 25 Nov 1998 ECJ European, Environment (Judgment) Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 76/464/EEC Directive 76/464/EEC [ Bailii ] Â Courage Limited v Crehan [1998] EWHC Ch 281 25 Nov 1998 ChD Contract, Commercial, European 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Manfredi v Regione Puglia C-308/97; [1998] EUECJ C-308/97; [1998] ECR I-7685 25 Nov 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture (Judgment) Wine - New planting of vines - Table grapes [ Bailii ] Â Covita v Elliniko Dimosio (Rec 1998,p I-7711) (Judgment) C-370/96; [1998] EUECJ C-370/96 26 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Oscar Bronner v Mediaprint (Judgment) C-7/97; [1998] ECR 1-7791; [1998] EUECJ C-7/97 26 Nov 1998 ECJ Jacobs AG European A major newspaper proprietor had refused to allow a small competitor access to its efficient distribution service. Held: That amounted to an abuse of a dominant position: "First, it is apparent that the right to choose one's trading partners and freely to dispose of one's property are generally recognised principles in the laws of the Member States, in some cases with constitutional status. Incursions on those rights require careful justification. Secondly, the justification in terms of competition policy for interfering with a dominant undertaking's freedom to contract often requires a careful balancing of conflicting considerations. Thirdly, in assessing this issue it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of Article 86 is to prevent distortion of competition – and in particular to safeguard the interests of consumers – rather than to protect the position of particular competitors. In assessing such conflicting interests particular care is required where the goods or services or facilities to which access is demanded represent the fruit of substantial investment. That may be true in particular in relation to refusal to license intellectual property rights. Where such exclusive rights are granted for a limited period, that in itself involves a balancing of the interest in free competition with that of providing an incentive for research and development and for creativity. It is therefore with good reason that the Court has held that the refusal to license does not of itself, in the absence of other factors, constitute an abuse. To accept Bronner's contention would be to lead the Community and national authorities and courts into detailed regulation of the Community markets, entailing the fixing of prices and conditions for supply in large sectors of the economy. Intervention on that scale would not only be unworkable but would also be anti-competitive in the longer term and indeed would scarcely be compatible with a free market economy." Jacobs AG: "… it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the principal purpose of Article [82] is to prevent distortion of competition -and in particular to safeguard the interests of consumers - rather than to protect the position of particular competitors. It may therefore, for example, be unsatisfactory, in a case in which a competitor demands access to a raw material in order to be able to compete with the dominant undertaking on a downstream market in a final product, to focus solely on the latter's upstream market power and conclude its conduct in reserving to itself the downstream market is automatically an abuse. Such conduct will not have an adverse impact on customers unless the dominant undertaking's final product is sufficiently insulated from competition to give it market power." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Birden v Stadtgemeinde Bremen (Rec 1998,p I-7747) (Judgment) C-1/97; [1998] EUECJ C-1/97 26 Nov 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â N v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-621,II-1879) T-97/94; T-97/94; [1998] EUECJ T-97/94 30 Nov 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Ambry (Rec 1998,p I-7875) (Judgment) C-410/96; [1998] EUECJ C-410/96 1 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Â Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd; ECJ 1-Dec-1998 - Times, 10 December 1998; C-326/96; [1999] All ER (EC) 1; [1998] EUECJ C-326/96; [1999] CEC 3; [1998] ECR I-7835; [1999] 2 CMLR 363; [1999] ICR 521; [1999] IRLR 36 Â Ecotrade v Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola (Judgment) C-200/97; [1998] EUECJ C-200/97 1 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Criminal Proceedings Against Bickel and Franz Times, 01 December 1998; C-274/96; C-274/96; [1998] EUECJ C-274/96 1 Dec 1998 ECJ Criminal Practice, European Where a court had specific rules allowing a case against its own citizens to be heard in their own language, the same facility must be offered to an accused visiting from another member state. ECTreaty Art 177 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Clees (Rec 1998,p I-8127) (Judgment) C-259/97 3 Dec 1998 ECJ European Â Belgocodex (Rec 1998,p I-8153) (Judgment) C-381/97; [1998] EUECJ C-381/97 3 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Iraco (Rec 1998,p I-7943) (Judgment) C-337/96; [1998] EUECJ C-337/96 3 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act 1968 (Acting by the Medicine Control Agency) Ex P Generics (Uk) Ltd (Er Squibb and Sons Ltd, Intervening Etc Times, 04 January 1999; C-368/96; [1998] EUECJ C-368/96 3 Dec 1998 ECJ Licensing, European When assessing a medicinal product for licensing under the abridged procedure the Authority must consider its essential similarity with a product licensed for ten years, of the same constitution both as to structure and proportions and with bio-equivalence. ECTreaty art 177 [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Bluhme (Rec 1998,p I-8033) (Judgment) C-67/97; [1998] EUECJ C-67/97 3 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Schoonbroodt v Belgian State C-247/97; [1998] EUECJ C-247/97 3 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â KappAhl (Rec 1998,p I-8069) (Judgment) C-233/97; [1998] EUECJ C-233/97 3 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Consorzio Del Prosciutio Di Parma v Asda Stores Ltd and Another Times, 04 December 1998; Gazette, 13 January 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1878; [1998] EWCA Civ 1879 4 Dec 1998 CA Commercial, European, Intellectual Property A rule regarding the designation of origin of goods, disallowing the use of an origin name, must be readily ascertainable in the detail of the regulation, in order to be directly applicable. Designations for Parma Ham, were not readily discoverable, and had no such direct effect. EC Regulation 2081/92 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI and others v Council (Rec 1998,p II-4207) T-39/98; T-39/98; [1998] EUECJ T-39/98 8 Dec 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Associazione nazionale bieticoltori and others v Council (Rec 1998,p II-4191) T-38/98; T-38/98; [1998] EUECJ T-38/98 8 Dec 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Sadam Zuccherifici and others v Council (Rec.1998,p.II-4207) (Order) T-39/98 8 Dec 1998 ECFI European Â ANB and others v Council (Rec.1998,p.II-4191) (Order) T-38/98 8 Dec 1998 ECFI European Â Hidalgo and Others v Asociacion de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva; Horst Ziemann v Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst C-173/96; C-247/96; [1999] IRLR 136; [1998] EUECJ C-173/96; [1998] EUECJ C-247/96 10 Dec 1998 ECJ European Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the Directive applies to a situation in which a public body which has contracted out its home-help service for persons in need or awarded a contract for maintaining surveillance of some of its premises to a first undertaking decides, upon expiry of or after termination of that contract, to contract out the service or award the contract to a second undertaking, provided that the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings. The term `economic entity' refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets enabling an economic activity which pursues a specific objective to be exercised. The mere fact that the service successively provided by the old and the new undertaking to which the service is contracted out or the contract is awarded is similar does not justify the conclusion that a transfer of such an entity has occurred. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Glob-Sped AG v Hauptzollamt Lorrach C-328/97; [1998] EUECJ C-328/97 10 Dec 1998 ECJ P. Jann, P European ECJ Combined Nomenclature - Headings Nos 3004 and 2106 - Vitamin C-based preparations [ Bailii ] Â Â Bruner v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-8333) (Judgment); ECJ 10-Dec-1998 - C-290/97; [1998] EUECJ C-290/97 Â Schroder and Thamann v Commission C-221/97; [1998] EUECJ C-221/97P 10 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Voeten and Beckers (Rec 1998,p I-8293) (Judgment) C-279/97; [1998] EUECJ C-279/97 10 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Francisco Hernandez Vidal SA v Perez, and Contratas y Limpiezas SL; Gomez Montana v Claro Sol SA and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Espanoles (Renfe) C-127/96; [1999] IRLR 132; C-229/96; C-74/97; [1998] EUECJ C-127/96; [1998] EUECJ C-229/96; [1998] EUECJ C-74/97 10 Dec 1998 ECJ European, Employment Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the Directive applies to a situation in which an undertaking which used to entrust the cleaning of its premises to another undertaking decides to terminate its contract with that other undertaking and in future to carry out the cleaning work itself, provided that the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings. The term `economic entity' refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets enabling an economic activity which pursues a specific objective to be exercised. The mere fact that the maintenance work carried out first by the cleaning firm and then by the undertaking owning the premises is similar does not justify the conclusion that a transfer of such an entity has occurred. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Scottish Soft Fruit Growers v Commission (Rec.1998,p.II-4219) (Order) T-22/98 11 Dec 1998 ECFI European Â Scottish Soft Fruit Growers v Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4219) T-22/98; T-22/98; [1998] EUECJ T-22/98 11 Dec 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â de Compte v Parliament T-25/98; [1998] EUECJ T-25/98 15 Dec 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Bang-Hansen v Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-625,II-1889) T-233/97; T-233/97; [1998] EUECJ T-233/97 15 Dec 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â de Compte v Parliament (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-629,II-1903) (Order) T-25/98 15 Dec 1998 ECFI European Â Rentzos v Parliament (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-635,II-1923) (Order) T-93/98 16 Dec 1998 ECFI European Â Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited [1998] EWHC Admin 1139; [1998] EWHC Admin 1140 16 Dec 1998 Admn European, Media, Health [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Vorderbruggen (Rec 1998,p I-8385) (Judgment) C-374/96; [1998] EUECJ C-374/96 16 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Rentzos v Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-635,II-1923) T-93/98; [1998] EUECJ T-93/98 16 Dec 1998 ECFI European [ Bailii ] Â Embassy Limousines and Services v Parliament Europeen T-203/96; [1999] 1 CMLR 667; [1998] EUECJ T-203/96; [1998] ECR II-4239 17 Dec 1998 ECFI European ECJ 1 Procedure - Reference to the Court of Justice on the basis of an arbitration clause - Condition - Existence of a valid contract - Contract governed by Directive 92/50 requiring a written agreement - Requirement not fulfilled - Application inadmissible (EC Treaty, Art. 181; Council Decision 88/591; Council Directive 92/50, Art. 1) 2 European Community public procurement contracts - Conclusion of a contract following an invitation to tender - Discretion of the institutions - Judicial review - Limits 3 Community law - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - European Community public procurement contracts - Tenderer encouraged, before the contract is awarded, to make irreversible investments - Community's non-contractual liability thereby incurred 4 European Community public procurement contracts- Tendering procedure - Obligation to comply with the principles of the equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency and to adopt a coherent line of conduct 5 European Community public procurement contracts - Tendering procedure - Expenses incurred by a tenderer - Right to compensation - None 6 The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, on the basis of the combined provisions of Decision 88/591, as amended, and Article 181 of the Treaty, to hear actions brought before it by natural or legal persons pursuant to an arbitration clause presupposes that the contract containing the clause is a valid contract. An application made on the basis of an arbitration clause provided for in a framework contract forming part of an invitation to tender for the award of a contract by a Community institution is therefore inadmissible, where the framework contract has never been signed, in so far as such a contract is governed by Directive 92/50, which defines the contracts concerned as contracts concluded in writing. In that last regard, the existence of a valid contract cannot be inferred from the fact that a committee on procurements and contracts - an advisory body within the institution at issue - has given an opinion in favour of awarding the contract to the applicant, notwithstanding the importance generally accorded, in practice, to such an opinion in connection with an invitation to tender. 7 The institutions have a broad discretion in assessing the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender, and the Court's review should be limited to checking that there has been no serious and manifest error. 8 The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is apparent that the Community administration has led him to entertain justified expectations. Although it is true, in that regard, that traders must bear the economic risks inherent in their activities and that, in connection with a tendering procedure for a public procurement contract, those economic risks include, inter alia, the costs connected with the preparation of the bid, there may be a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations capable of giving rise to liability on the part of the Community where, before the contract in question is awarded to the successful tenderer, a tenderer is encouraged by the contracting institution to make irreversible investments in advance and thereby to go beyond the risks inherent in the business under consideration, consisting in making a bid. 9 In procedures for concluding public procurement contracts, the contracting institution must comply, at each stage of a tendering procedure, not only with the principle of the equal treatment of tenderers, but also with the principle of transparency. Therefore, a person who is closely involved in a tendering procedure and who has even been judged to be the successful tenderer, must receive, without any delay, precise information concerning the conduct of the entire procedure. Furthermore, the institution is obliged to show a coherent and consistent attitude towards its tenderers. Any interventions by various administrative and political bodies within that institution cannot therefore justify the failure to comply with its obligations to the tenderers. 10 It is clear from the General Terms and Conditions applicable to the Communities' public procurement contracts that the contracting institution is not liable for any compensation with respect to tenderers whose tenders have not been accepted. It follows that the charges and expenses incurred by a tenderer in connection with his participation in a tendering procedure cannot in principle constitute damage capable of being remedied by the award of damages. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Grajera Rodriguez (Rec 1998,p I-8645) (Judgment) C-153/97; [1998] EUECJ C-153/97 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Commission v Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-8565) (Judgment) C-353/96; [1998] EUECJ C-353/96 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Baustahlgewebe v Commission C-185/95; [1998] EUECJ C-185/95P 17 Dec 1998 ECJ Advocate General Leger European, Commercial, Crime (Judgment) The imposition of penalties following the breach of competition law is a criminal rather than civil procedure. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Skatteministeriet v Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan C-236/97; [1998] EUECJ C-236/97 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lustig (Judgment) C-244/97; [1998] EUECJ C-244/97 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Lauge and others (Rec 1998,p I-8737) (Judgment) C-250/97; [1998] EUECJ C-250/97 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Emesa Sugar v Council and others C-363/98 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European Â Demand v Hauptzollamt Trier C-186/96; [1998] EUECJ C-186/96 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European, Agriculture ECJ Milk - Additional levy scheme - Additional reference quantity - Temporary withdrawal - Conversion into a definitive reduction - Loss of compensation - General principles of law and fundamental rights [ Bailii ] Â Connemara Machine Turf (Rec 1998,p I-8761) (Judgment) C-306/97; [1998] EUECJ C-306/97 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â IP (Rec 1998,p I-8597) (Judgment) C-2/97; [1998] EUECJ C-2/97 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European [ Bailii ] Â Emesa Sugar v Commission and others C-364/98 17 Dec 1998 ECJ European Â Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1998] EWHC 1143 (Admin); [1999] STC 205; [1999] Eu LR 450; [1999] 1 CMLR 1152; [1999] BTC 5073; [1999] BVC 107 21 Dec 1998 Admn Moses J VAT, European 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

European - From: 1998 To: 1998