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.  















European - From: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 952 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Bavarian Lager Co Ltd v DTI [2002] 2 UKCLR 160
2002

Tomlinson J
European
The court was asked to enforce a beer tie agreement. Held: The court refused summarily to dismiss the claim on the ground, as claimed by the defendant, that it was contrary to Article 28 EC Treaty as amounting to a quantitative restriction on imports: "[Counsel] has done sufficient to satisfy me that the questions which arise are highly complex ones...I cannot regard it as very likely that the claimants in this action will succeed...but I cannot say that they have no prospect. The test which has to be applied is whether they have a real prospect and of course a prospect can be real, notwithstanding that it is a small prospect or one that does not seem terribly likely to eventuate."
1 Citers


 
Shaw v Commission [2002] ECR II-2023
2002
ECFI

European

1 Citers


 
Van den Bor C-428/99; [2002] EUECJ C-428/99
8 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Steiermark C-409/99; [2002] EUECJ C-409/99
8 Jan 2002
ECJ

European, VAT
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(6) and (7) - Right to deduct input VAT - Exclusions provided for under national laws at the date of entry into force of the directive - Exclusions for cyclical economic reasons - Consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax.
[ Bailii ]
 
French Republic v Monsanto Company and Commission of the European Communities C-248/99; [2002] EUECJ C-248/99P
8 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Appeal - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Application to include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit - Prohibition on placing that substance on the market - Rejection of the application for inclusion.
[ Bailii ]
 
Denkavit (Rec.2002,p.I-169) (Judgment) C-507/99
8 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Denkavit C-507/99; [2002] EUECJ C-507/99
8 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Starway v Council T-80/97
10 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Plant and others v Commission and South Wales Small Mines C-480/99; [2002] EUECJ C-480/99P
10 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Appeal - Action for annulment under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty - Admissibility - Audi alteram partem rule in judicial proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte British Sugar plc C-101/99; [2002] EUECJ C-101/99
10 Jan 2002
ECJ

European, Agriculture
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) - United Kingdom. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Attribution as "C sugar" of a quantity of sugar produced during a given marketing year - Charge payable in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market - Levied in the case of export with an export licence - Export refunds.
[ Bailii ]
 
British Sugar (Rec.2002,p.I-205) (Judgment) C-101/99
10 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Plant and others v Commission and South Wales Small Mines (Rec.2002,p.I-265) (Judgment) C-480/99
10 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Biret and Cie v Council T-210/00; [2002] EUECJ T-210/00
11 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Biret and Cie v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-47) (Judgment) T-210/00
11 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Diputacion Foral de Alava and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-81) (Order) T-77/01
11 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Diputacion Foral de Alava and others v Commission T-77/01; [2002] EUECJ T-77/01
11 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Biret International v Council T-174/00; [2002] EUECJ T-174/00
11 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Biret International v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-17) (Judgment) T-174/00
11 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Association contre l'heure d'ete v Parliament and Council T-84/01; [2002] EUECJ T-84/01
14 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-439/99; [2002] EUECJ C-439/99
15 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Failure to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) - Retention of certain national and regional rules regarding trade fairs, markets and exhibitions
[ Bailii ]
 
Liberos v Commission C-171/00; [2002] EUECJ C-171/00P
15 Jan 2002
ECJ

European, Legal Professions
ECJ Appeal - Possibility for the Judge-Rapporteur in the Court of First Instance to hear and determine a case sitting as a single Judge - Member of the temporary staff - Classification in grade - Professional experience
[ Bailii ]
 
Gottardo v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale C-55/00; [2002] EUECJ C-55/00
15 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC - Old-age benefits - Social security convention concluded between the Italian Republic and the Swiss Confederation - Refusal to take account of periods of insurance completed by a French national in Switzerland
[ Bailii ]
 
Weidacher v Bundesminister fur Land-und Forstwirtschaft C-179/00; [2002] EUECJ C-179/00
15 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Article 149 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden - Transitional measures - Surplus stocks - Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 - Competence - Holder of the goods - Import charge applicable - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment
[ Bailii ]
 
Lutz Gmbh and others C-182/00; [2002] EUECJ C-182/00
15 Jan 2002
ECJ
P. Jann, P
European, Company
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling - Disclosure of annual accounts and annual report - Maintenance of a register of companies - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Grand-duche de Luxembourg C-196/01; [2002] EUECJ C-196/01
15 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ 1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 May 2001, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) (hereinafter `Directive 75/442'), and Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993 establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 (OJ 1994 L 5, p. 15). 2 Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 provides as follows: `For the purposes of this Directive: (a) "waste" shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. The Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18, will draw up, not later than 1 April 1993, a list of wastes belonging to the categories listed in Annex I. This list will be periodically reviewed and, if necessary, revised by the same procedure'. 3 The list referred to in the above provision was adopted by the Commission, under the title `European Waste Catalogue' (EWC), by Decision 94/3. According to point 5 of the introductory note of the annex to that decision: `The EWC is to be a reference nomenclature providing a common terminology throughout the Community with the purpose to improve the efficiency of waste management activities....' 4 The EWC was incorporated into Luxembourg law by the circular of the Minister for the Environment of 20 November 1998 introducing a waste nomenclature (Mémorial A 1998, p. 2548). According to the first indent of point 1 of that circular: `This circular has two objectives - to introduce a Luxembourg waste nomenclature - to take over the European Waste Catalogue (EWC).' 5 In accordance with the procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 226 EC, the Commission, after giving the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg an opportunity to submit observations, by letter of 25 July 2000 delivered a reasoned opinion calling upon that Member State to take the necessary measures to comply therewith within two months of notification of the opinion. Since the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to do so, the Commission brought the present action. 6 The Commission submits that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg infringed Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 and Decision 94/3, first, by incorporating the EWC by means of a ministerial circular binding on the administration but not on third parties, and, second, by introducing alongside the EWC a purely Luxembourg nomenclature differing from the EWC and having the effect of excluding the use of the EWC for a large number of operations in which the classification of waste is taken into account. 7 The Luxembourg Government does not dispute the Commission's submissions, but states that a Grand Ducal regulation ensuring integral and accurate use of the EWC is due to enter into force on 1 January 2002. 8 It is settled case-law that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, inter alia, Case C-261/98 Commission v Portugal [2000] ECR I-5905, paragraph 25). 9 As the Luxembourg Government does not dispute that it did not adopt the necessary measures to comply with Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 and Decision 94/3, the Commission's action must be regarded as well founded. 10 It must therefore be held that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 and Decision 94/3.
[ Bailii ]
 
Andersen og Jensen v Skatteministeriet C-43/00; [2002] EUECJ C-43/00
15 Jan 2002
ECJ
P. Jann P
European
ECJ Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares - Transfer of assets or of a branch of activity - Meaning
Directive 90/434/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland C-394/00; [2002] EUECJ C-394/00
17 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium C-423/00; [2002] EUECJ C-423/00
17 Jan 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement within the prescribed period
Council Directive 96/82/EC
[ Bailii ]
 
Rica Foods v Commission T-47/00; [2002] EUECJ T-47/00; T-47/00
17 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-593) (Judgment) C-423/00
17 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-581) (Judgment) C-394/00
17 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rica Foods v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-113) (Judgment) T-47/00
17 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Stauner and others v Parliament and Commission T-236/00
17 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Cisal di Battistello Venanzio and C C-218/00; [2002] EUECJ C-218/00
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Canal Satelite Digital SL v Adminstracion General del Estado, and Distribuidora de Television Digital SA (DTS) Times, 28 January 2002; C-390/99; [2002] EUECJ C-390/99
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

Media, European
The complainant company manufactured lawful TV decoders. It complained that Spain applied a requirement for prior approval before they could be used in Spain. They complained that the system operated to restrict the free movement of goods within the Community. Held: The scheme did infringe the right of free movement of goods, but the court must test as to its proportionality vis a vis the objective sought to be obtained. It must be based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria, and not duplicate testing procedures in the home state. It would be unlawful if it imposed such an impediment as to restrict the flow of goods.
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Supremo - Spain. Articles 30 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 49 EC) - National legislation requiring operators of conditional-access television services to register in a national register created for that purpose, indicating the characteristics of the technical equipment they use, and subsequently to obtain administrative certification thereof - Meaning of "technical regulation"
Council Directive 95/47/EC - Council Directive 83/189/EEC
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Canal Satelite Digital (Rec.2002,p.I-607) (Judgment) C-390/99
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Conseil national de l'ordre des architectes v Nicolas Dreessen C-31/00; [2002] EUECJ C-31/00
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

European, Employment
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour de cassation - Belgium. Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 10 EC and 43 EC - National legislation restricting access to the profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or professional qualification - Community national holding a diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC - Obligation on the host Member State when presented with an application to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the qualifications required by its national legislation.
Council Directive 85/384/EEC
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dreessen (Rec.2002,p.I-663) (Judgment) C-31/00
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Cisal (Rec.2002,p.I-691) (Judgment) C-218/00
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Holto Ltd (Rec.2002,p.I-735) (Order) C-447/00
22 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Goncalves v Parliament (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-13,II-55) (Judgment) T-386/00
23 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Martin de Pablos v Commission T-101/00; [2002] EUECJ T-101/00; T-101/00
23 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Goncalves v Parliament T-386/00; [2002] EUECJ T-386/00
23 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reynolds v Parliament T-237/00; [2002] EUECJ T-237/00
23 Jan 2002
ECFI

European
ECJ 1. Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Power of the appointing authority to terminate prematurely - Existence - Conditions
(Staff Regulations, Arts 37, first para. (a), and 38(b))
2. Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Request to terminate prematurely by the service to which seconded - Discretion of the appointing authority - Scope
(Staff Regulations, Art. 38)
3. Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Decision terminating prematurely - Respect for the rights of the defence - Obligation to hear person concerned before adopting decision which must be observed even in the absence of an express provision - Limits
(Staff Regulations, Art. 38)v4. Officials - Decision having an adverse effect - Obligation to hear person concerned before adopting decision - Failure to observe - Irregularity having a particular impact on the content of the decision - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Judicial review - Scope
5. Officials - Actions - Actions for compensation brought without a pre-litigation procedure consistent with the Staff Regulations - Inadmissible
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
[ Bailii ]
 
Martin de Pablos v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-1,II-1) (Judgment) T-101/00
23 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-819) (Judgment) C-372/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Finlande v Commission C-170/00; [2002] EUECJ C-170/00
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Temco C-51/00; [2002] EUECJ C-51/00
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v United Kingdom C-35/00; [2002] EUECJ C-35/00; [2002] ECR I-00953
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European, Environment
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Waste -Directives - Waste management plans. "The United Kingdom does not dispute its alleged failure to meet its obligations. It admits that, during the period under consideration, it failed to adopt and/or notify waste management plans capable of covering the entire territory of the United Kingdom … It accepts that the Commission has valid grounds for a declaration of failure to fulfil treaty obligations in the application. It states that competent authorities are engaged in rectifying that situation, by replacing local plans with national strategies, which should constitute the appropriate means of satisfying the requirements of … [the Waste Framework Directive] …"
Council Directive 75/442/EEC - Council Directive 91/689/EEC - Council Directive 94/62/EC
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Conserve Italia v Commission C-500/99; [2002] EUECJ C-500/99P
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-372/99 [2002] EUECJ C-372/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Portugaia Construcoes (Rec.2002,p.I-787) (Judgment) C-164/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-851) (Judgment) C-466/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Conserve Italia v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-867) (Judgment) C-500/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v United Kingdom (Rec.2002,p.I-953) (Judgment) C-35/00
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Temco (Rec.2002,p.I-969) (Judgment) C-51/00
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Finlande v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-1007) (Judgment) C-170/00
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Portugaia Construcoes C-164/99; [2002] EUECJ C-164/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
France v Commission C-118/99; [2002] EUECJ C-118/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Clearance of accounts - EAGGF - 1995 financial year - Arable crops.
[ Bailii ]
 
France v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-747) (Judgment) C-118/99
24 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Groupe Origny v Commission T-38/95; [2002] EUECJ T-38/95; T-38/95; [2000] EUECJ T-38/95
24 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
TSN Kunststoffrecycling Gmbh v Harry Maria Jurgens Times, 20 February 2002; Gazette, 15 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 11
25 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Rix, And, Lord Justice Dyson
Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules, European
The claimant sought to register and enforce here, a judgment obtained by default in Germany. It was argued that he had not had, under section 27(2) sufficient opportunity to make a proper reply to the proceedings, and that the Brussels Convention created a right of appeal outside the range of appeals under the Civil Procedure Rules. An initial two week period had been set by the German Court, but extended to five weeks, in effect two weeks after delivery of notice of the proceedings. The defendant was absent on holiday when the proceedings were served, and he argued that that should have been taken as exceptional reasons for extending the time allowed for answering the claim. Held: The needs to simplify registration of judgements abroad, and to safeguard those served with notice of proceedings commenced in a foreign court had to be balanced. The court should test the question of sufficient time against the full facts, and not merely enter judgement because there has been a default of appearance. The crucial time was the entire period up to judgement being entered. The appeal was dismissed, and reference to European Court refused.
courtcommentary.com For purposes of article 27(2) of Brussels Convention (service "in sufficient time” to enable party, against whom enforcement is sought, to arrange for defence), the relevant period of time begins with due service and ends with issue of default judgment
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 - Access to Justice Act 1999 - Civil Procedure Rules - Brussels Convention 1968 27(2)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Van Parijs and Pacific Fruit Company v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-233) (Judgment) T-160/98
29 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Van Parijs and Pacific Fruit Company v Commission T-160/98; [2002] EUECJ T-160/98; T-160/98
29 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer C-162/00; [2002] EUECJ C-162/00
29 Jan 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer (Rec.2002,p.I-1049) (Judgment) C-162/00
29 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Nuove Industrie Molisane v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-347) (Judgment) T-212/00
30 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Keller and Keller Meccanica v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-261) (Judgment) T-35/99
30 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
max.mobil v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-313) (Judgment) T-54/99
30 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
La Conqueste v Commission C-151/01
30 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
La Conqueste v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-1179) (Order) C-151/01
30 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
max mobil v Commission T-54/99; [2002] EUECJ T-54/99; T-54/99
30 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Commission C-107/99
30 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Keller and Keller Meccanica v Commission T-35/99; [2002] EUECJ T-35/99; T-35/99
30 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Nuove Industrie Molisane v Commission T-212/00; [2002] EUECJ T-212/00
30 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-1091) (Judgment) C-107/99
30 Jan 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hult v Commission T-206/00; [2002] EUECJ T-206/00
31 Jan 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hult v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-19,II-81) (Judgment) T-206/00
31 Jan 2002
ECFI

European


 
Henderson v Jaouen and Another Times, 07 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002
1 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
International, Personal Injury, Damages, European
The plaintiff had been injured in an accident and had sued and recovered damages for his injuries in France. Later, his condition deteriorated. In France he would have been able to revive his action to claim further damages, but he sought a similar right from an English Court, claiming a right to do so under the Act because the deterioration had occurred exclusively whilst he was in England. The defendant and his insurers appealed a refusal to strike out the claimant's claim. Held: The claim should be struck out. The harmful even required by the Convention had occurred in France. The Bier case was not on all fours and was to be interpreted restrictively.
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 (Cmnd 7395) - Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Anna Humer C-255/99; [2002] EUECJ C-255/99
5 Feb 2002
ECJ

European, Benefits
Europa Definition of 'family benefits - Payment of advances on maintenance payments - Condition that the minor child must be resident within the national territory - Entitlement to benefits abroad.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
[ Bailii ]
 
Kaske (Rec.2002,p.I-1261) (Judgment) C-277/99
5 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Kaske C-277/99; [2002] EUECJ C-277/99
5 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Humer (Rec.2002,p.I-1205) (Judgment) C-255/99
5 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Turbon International (Rec.2002,p.I-1389) (Judgment) C-276/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

European



 
 Schulte v Council and Commission; ECFI 7-Feb-2002 - T-261/94; [2002] EUECJ T-261/94
 
Kustermann v Council and Commission T-201/94; [2002] EUECJ T-201/94; T-201/94
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kauer (Rec.2002,p.I-1343) (Judgment) C-28/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Weber (Rec.2002,p.I-1461) (Judgment) C-328/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Gosch v Commission T-199/94; [2002] EUECJ T-199/94; T-199/94
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mag Instrument v OHMI T-88/00; [2002] EUECJ T-88/00
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property
1. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, under which marks which are devoid of any distinctive character are to be refused registration, draws no distinction between different categories of mark. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to apply more stringent criteria or impose stricter requirements when assessing the distinctiveness of three-dimensional marks comprising the shape of the goods themselves than are applied or imposed in the case of other categories of mark. In order to assess a mark's distinctiveness, it is necessary to take account of all relevant elements linked to the specific circumstances of the case and one such element is the fact that it cannot be excluded that the nature of the mark in respect of which registration is sought might influence the perception which the targeted public will have of the mark.
The distinctiveness requirements applicable to three-dimensional marks comprising the shape of the goods cannot be less strict than those applicable to word marks, since consumers are more accustomed to directing their attention to the latter.
2. The three-dimensional marks consisting of cylindrical torch shapes in respect of which registration was sought for apparatus for lighting and accessories for such apparatus are devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, since a cylinder is a common shape for a torch which corresponds to shapes commonly used by other torch manufacturers on the market and thus, rather than enabling the product to be differentiated and linked to a specific commercial source, gives the consumer an indication as to the nature of the product. Moreover, the aesthetic qualities and the unusually original design of the shapes claimed as marks appear, as a result of those features, as variants of a common torch shape rather than as shapes capable of differentiating the goods and indicating, on their own, a given commercial origin.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-279/00 [2002] EUECJ C-279/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kuijer v Council T-211/00; [2002] EUECJ T-211/00
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kuijer v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-485) (Judgment) T-211/00
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-1305) (Judgment) C-5/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Felix v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-23,II-101) (Judgment) T-193/00
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Felix v Commission T-193/00; [2002] EUECJ T-193/00
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kauer C-28/00; [2002] EUECJ C-28/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rudolph v Council and Commission T-187/94; [2002] EUECJ T-187/94; T-187/94
7 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Morton v South Ayrshire Council Times, 01 March 2002
14 Feb 2002
IHCS
Lord Justice-Clerk (Lord Gill), Lord MacLean and Lord Caplan
Scotland, Employment, Discrimination, European
The applicants were head teachers employed in junior schools. They alleged sex discrimination, and sought to use as comparators head teachers from different local authorities. The comparators had been put forward on the basis that the teacher in question was male and was being paid at a higher rate for work that was like work or work of equal value. Held: Teachers were paid under a system of nationally settled wages. That system was recognised by statute. Accordingly it was appropriate to allow applicants to take as comparators other workers who were not employed by the same employer. The case did not need to be referred to the European Court of Justice, but was instead remitted to the tribunal.
Equal Pay Act 1970 1 - Education (Scotland) Act 1980 - EU Treaty Art 141
1 Cites


 
Commission v Artegodan (Rec.2002,p.I-1489) (Order) C-440/01
14 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Artegodan C-440/01
14 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

1 Cites


 
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council etc Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2001] EWCH Admin 195; [2003] QB 151
18 Feb 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Crane
Constitutional, European, Consumer
Various shopkeepers appealed convictions for breach of regulations requiring food sold by weight to be described in metric amounts. They claimed that the Regulations made under the 1985 Act, to the extent that they were inconsistent with it impliedly repealed the 1972 Act to that extent (2(2)). Held: The EC Treaty was unlike others in creating a new and unique legal order which was supreme above the legal systems of the member states. On accession under the 1972 Act, the United Kingdom bowed its head to that supremacy. The 1972 Act was a constitutional Act, and at common law could only be repealed by express provision. All specific rights and obligations created by European Law were incorporated into domestic law and ranked supreme by the 1972 Act, which was a constitutional statute, and could not be impliedly repealed. That the 1972 Act was a constitutional statute was derived from common law which recognised such a category. The fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU rested with the domestic, not the European legal powers.
European Communities Act 1972 2(2) - Weights and Measures Act 1985 1 - Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrification) (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994 No 2866) - Unit of Measurement Regulations 1994 (1994 No 2867) - Price Marking Order 1999 (1999 No 3042)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg C-366/00; [2002] EUECJ C-366/00
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg (Rec.2002,p.I-1749) (Judgment) C-366/00
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Arduino (Rec.2002,p.I-1529) (Judgment) C-35/99
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-1737) (Judgment) C-295/00
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Besix (Rec.2002,p.I-1699) (Judgment) C-256/00
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Arduino C-35/99; [2002] EUECJ C-35/99
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
J C J Wouters, J W Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap C-309/99; [2002] EUECJ C-309/99; [2002] ECR I-1577)
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Professional body - National Bar - Regulation by the Bar of the exercise of the profession - Prohibition of multi-disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and accountants - Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Association of undertakings - Restriction of competition - Justification - Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC) - Undertaking or group of undertakings - Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 and 49 EC) - Applicability - Restrictions - Justification.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-295/00 [2002] EUECJ C-295/00
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Besix C-256/00; [2002] EUECJ C-256/00
19 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Forde-Reederei v Council and Commission T-170/00; [2002] EUECJ T-170/00
20 Feb 2002
ECFI

European
ECJ Non-contractual liability of the Community - Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Damage caused by transitional tax exemption arrangements for products bought by travellers during sea-crossings between two Member States.
[ Bailii ]
 
Roman Parra v Commission T-117/01; [2002] EUECJ T-117/01
20 Feb 2002
ECFI

European
staff cases 2002
[ Bailii ]
 
Braymist Limited and Others v Wise Finance Company Limited Gazette, 28 March 2002; Times, 05 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 127
20 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Latham, Lady Justice Arden
Company, Land, Legal Professions, European, Contract
The claimant set out to sell land whilst in the process of incorporation. Its solicitors had signed as agents, and now sought an order for the purchaser to complete the contract. The respondent did not know of the non-incorporation of the company. The claimant later rescinded the contract, and forfeited the deposit. Held: The section in the 1985 Act implemented a clause in the 1972 Act and the 1968 directive. Was the agent both liable under the contract and able to enforce it, and was the agreement unenforceable for failure to comply with the 1989 requirement for an appropriate memorandum? The European directive was to be interpreted directly. It was a compromise of different laws through member states, but was silent as to the ability of an agent to enforce such a contract. Section 36C should not be read down to limit its meaning. In this case, the solicitor agent could enforce the contract. As a party to the contract, he could also sign, and the 1989 Act should not be read too strictly. Appeal dismissed.
Companies Act 1985 36C(1) - European Communities Act 1972 9(2) - First EC Company Law Directive (68/151/CEE OJ No. 1968 L6) Art 7 - Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1) 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Nea Energeiaki Technologia (Rec.2002,p.I-1759) (Judgment) C-416/98
21 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
National Front v Parliament C-486/01; [2004] EUECJ C-486/01
21 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-1795) (Judgment) C-65/00
21 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rydergard (Rec.2002,p.I-1817) (Judgment) C-215/00
21 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Nea Energeiaki Technologia C-416/98; [2002] EUECJ C-416/98
21 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra Rydergard C-215/00; [2002] EUECJ C-215/00
21 Feb 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Social security - Unemployment benefit - Conditions governing the retention of entitlement to benefits for an unemployed person travelling to another Member State.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth Gmbh and others; CA 22-Feb-2002 - Times, 26 February 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 158; [2002] 3 WLR 344; [2003] QB 728
 
INMA and Itainvest v Commission T-323/99; [2002] EUECJ T-323/99; T-323/99
26 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Boehringer (Rec.2002,p.I-1917) (Judgment) C-32/00
26 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rothley and others v Parliament T-17/00; [2002] EUECJ T-17/00; T-17/00
26 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Boehringer C-32/00; [2002] EUECJ C-32/00P
26 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Council v Boehringer C-23/00; [2002] EUECJ C-23/00P
26 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Michelle Alabaster v Woolwich Plc, Secretary of State for Social Security [2002] EWCA Civ 21
26 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mummery, And, Lord Justice Kay
Employment, Benefits, Discrimination, European
The applicant had left on maternity leave. Before leaving, her salary had been increased, but the increase was not back-dated to any part of the period over which the regulations required her average earnings to be calculated for statutory maternity pay. She asserted discrimination, and unlawful deductions from her wages. Should her case be referred to the European Court? The regulations had sought to incorporate the effect of the Gillespie case into UK law. Held: The effect of the regulations was unclear, and the question was to be referred to the European Court.
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 - Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (SI No. 1960) - Equal Pay Act 1970 - Employment Rights Act 1996 13 - EU Treaty Art 141 - Equal Treatment Directive 75/117/EEC
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Esedra v Commission T-169/00; [2002] EUECJ T-169/00
26 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rothley and others v Parliament (Rec.2002,p.II-579) (Judgment) T-17/00
26 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Esedra v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-609) (Judgment) T-169/00
26 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
INMA and Itainvest v Commission T-323/99
26 Feb 2002
ECFI

European
(Judgment) (Rec.2002,p.II-545)

 
ASA (Rec.2002,p.I-1961) (Judgment) C-6/00
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium C-140/01; [2002] EUECJ C-140/01; C-140/01
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ellos v OHMI T-219/00; [2002] EUECJ T-219/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Eurocool Logistik v OHMI T-34/00; [2002] EUECJ T-34/00; T-34/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-46/01 [2002] EUECJ C-46/01
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France C-302/00; [2002] EUECJ C-302/00; C-302/00
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-2105) (Judgment) C-140/01
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Streamserve v OHMI T-106/00; [2002] EUECJ T-106/00; T-106/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission T-139/01
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Ellos v OHMI (Rec.2002,p.II-753) (Judgment) T-219/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Weber (Rec.2002,p.I-2013) (Judgment) C-37/00
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Streamserve v OHMI (Rec.2002,p.II-723) (Judgment) T-106/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
REWE-Zentral v OHMI (Rec.2002,p.II-705) (Judgment) T-79/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Reisebank v Commission C-477/01; C-477/01
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
ASA C-6/00; [2002] EUECJ C-6/00; C-6/00
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rewe-Zentral v OHMI T-79/00; [2002] EUECJ T-79/00
27 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-2093) (Judgment) C-46/01
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European


 
Weber and Weber v Freistaat Bayern C-37/00; [2002] EUECJ C-328/00; [2002] EUECJ C-37/00; C-328/00
27 Feb 2002
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg - Germany. Common agricultural policy - Support system for oil-seeds - Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Kvaerner Warnow Werft v Commission (State Aid) T-134/00; [2002] EUECJ T-134/00
28 Feb 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
BSC Footwear Supplies and others v Council T-598/97; [2002] EUECJ T-598/97; T-598/97
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European, Commercial
ECFI Although participation by an undertaking in an anti-dumping proceeding may be taken into account, amongst other factors, in order to establish whether that undertaking is individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 EC (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), by the regulation introducing anti-dumping duties adopted at the conclusion of that proceeding, if there are no other factors giving rise to a particular situation which distinguishes that undertaking from all other traders, with respect to the measure in question, such participation does not, of itself, give rise to a right enabling the undertaking to bring a direct action against that regulation. For that purpose, the mere fact that a number of the applicant undertakings were specifically named in the contested regulation cannot lead to a different conclusion.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cascades v Commission T-308/94
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission T-354/94; T-354/94
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Atlantic Container Line and others v Commission T-395/94; [2002] EUECJ T-395/94
28 Feb 2002
ECFI
K. Lenaerts, P
European, Transport
ECFI 1. In the case of an agreement between shipping lines on the scheduled transport of containers across the Atlantic between Northern Europe and the United States and on the inland carriage of the containers, the relevant markets directly affected are those in transport services and not that in the export of goods to the United States. The restrictions of competition occur within the common market because it is there that the members of the agreement, including several shipping companies established in the Community, are in competition to sell their services to clients, namely shippers, established in the Community. The fact that certain members of the agreement are not established in the Community does not cast doubt on that conclusion.
2. For an agreement between undertakings to be capable of affecting trade between Member States, it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability and on the basis of objective factors of law or fact that it may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States, such as might prejudice the realisation of the aim of a single market between States. In particular, it is not necessary that the conduct in question should in fact have substantially affected trade between Member States. It is sufficient to establish that the conduct is capable of having such an effect.
3. An agreement between shipping companies, including a number established in the Community, which related to the conditions for the sale of maritime and inland transport services to shippers established in various Member States of the Community is capable of affecting trade between Member States for the purposes of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC).
Furthermore, such an agreement is capable of modifying the pattern of trade in goods transiting through the ports served by the shipping companies which are members of an agreement. As a result, that agreement must be regarded as having affected trade between Member States, over and above the trade consisting of only maritime transport services, since port and auxiliary services linked to the carriage of goods were also affected.
Finally, although more indirectly, the relevant agreement has, or at the very least is capable of having, an effect on the trade in goods between Member States, in so far as the transport prices fixed by the agreement represent a proportion of the end selling price of the goods transported.
4. An agreement can qualify for the exemption provided for in Article 3 of Regulation No 4056/86 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport only if it is a liner conference agreement.
The existence of a liner conference within the meaning of Regulation No 4056/86 depends on the charging of uniform or common freight rates by its members.
5. Having regard to the general principle of the prohibition of agreements restricting competition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC), provisions derogating therefrom in an exempting regulation must, by their nature, be strictly interpreted. This conclusion applies, a fortiori, to the provisions of Regulation No 4056/86 relating to maritime transport by virtue of its unlimited duration and the exceptional nature of the restrictions on competition authorised (horizontal agreement having as its object the fixing of prices). It follows that the block exemption provided for by Article 3 of Regulation No 4056/86 cannot be interpreted broadly and progressively so as to cover all the agreements which shipping companies deem it useful, or even necessary, to adopt in order to adapt to market conditions. The exemption can relate only to the types of agreement which the Council, when Regulation No 4056/86 was adopted, regarded, in the light of experience, as satisfying the conditions of Article 85(3) of the Treaty. Apart from the power enjoyed by the Council, if the need arose, to amend Regulation No 4056/86, the undertakings concerned also always have the option to apply for an individual exemption to offset any disadvantages of the limitations inherent in the block exemption.
6. The definition of liner conference in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation No 4056/86 was taken word for word from the United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences. That code thus constitutes an important point of reference for the interpretation of the concept of liner conference referred to in Regulation No 4056/86.
7. By its very nature and in the light of its objectives, a liner conference, as defined by the Council for the purposes of qualification for block exemption under Regulation No 4056/86, can be characterised as a collective entity which presents itself as such on the market vis-à-vis both users and competitors.
The conference puts itself forward as an entity on the market since it fixes uniform freight rates for all its members, in the sense that the same price will be charged for the carriage of the same cargo from point A to point B, regardless of which shipowning member of the conference is responsible for carriage.
By contrast, an agreement between carriers providing for a scheme of tariffs which vary according to the members cannot be regarded as a liner conference under Regulation No 4056/86.
8. Liner conferences qualify for a block exemption because of their stabilising effect. That stability is best ensured if all the members of the conference adopt uniform freight rates rather than if there are several rates according to the members concerned. A uniform level of freight rates within the conference also allows users, account of whose interests is also a requirement for the exemption, to be assured of being able to obtain the transport service at the same price, whichever conference member it approaches. That interest of the shippers in having access to a reference rate in respect of a particular commodity is appreciably reduced if the members of the conference do not charge one rate, but two or more, in respect of the same product.
That interpretation of the concept of liner conference is not inconsistent with the possibility for a conference member to take independent action. That action is fundamentally different from the system of differentiated prices. The taking of independent action, which enables a conference member, subject to notice, to offer, for a specific product, a lower freight rate than that in the conference tariff, does not create another level of prices which may be generally charged, since that action concerns only a single ad hoc transaction. The stabilising effect of the existence of uniform or common freight rates for all conference members therefore continues in the event of independent action, whereas it is undermined where the conference tariff, which lists all the freight rates applicable, is replaced by a system of rates which vary according to the members.
Furthermore, the possibility of fixing different levels of prices makes it possible to attract into the group shipping lines which, without that flexibility, would remain independent and this situation is likely to lead to the elimination of external competition; by contrast, the obligation to fix uniform freight rates for all conference members is not such as to encourage all operators to join the conference, which guarantees the existence of external competition.
9. In the context of an action for annulment pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), the review undertaken by the Court of the complex economic appraisals made by the Commission when it exercises the discretion conferred on it by Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), with regard to each of the four conditions laid down in that provision, is necessarily limited to verifying whether the rules on procedure and on the giving of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.
10. Although stability in the maritime transport sector, to the extent that it contributes to assuring shippers of reliable services, may be an advantage for the purposes of the first condition of Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), the Commission cannot be obliged to grant individual exemption to every agreement between shipping lines which, in the opinion of the parties, may contribute to such stability. Within the limits imposed by Regulation No 4056/86, the Commission retains its discretion in applying Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
11. The four conditions for granting an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC) are cumulative and therefore non-fulfilment of only one of those conditions will render it necessary to refuse the exemption.
12. In assessing an agreement with a view to granting an exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), the market to be taken into consideration comprises the totality of the products which, with respect to their characteristics, are particularly suitable for satisfying constant needs and are only to a limited extent interchangeable with other products.
In the case of an agreement between shipping lines for the scheduled transport of containers across the Atlantic between Northern Europe and the United States the relevant market is that for containerised liner shipping. The fact that other modes of transport, whether maritime or air, may engage in marginal competition on the market in containerised liner shipping services in respect of a limited number of products, does not mean that, for that reason, they can be regarded as forming part of the same market.
13. The possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the services in question within the meaning of Article 85(3) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC), must be assessed as a whole, taking into account in particular the specific characteristics of the relevant market, the restrictions of competition brought about by the agreement, the market shares of the parties to that agreement and the extent and intensity of external competition, both actual and potential. In the context of this comprehensive approach, those different elements are closely interlinked or may balance each other out. Thus, the greater the restrictions of internal competition between the parties, the more necessary it is for external competition to be keen and substantial if the agreement is to qualify for exemption. Similarly, the larger the market shares of the parties to the agreement, the stronger the potential competition must be.
14. In order to determine whether an agreement affords its signatory parties the possibility, in respect of a substantial part of the products in question, of eliminating competition within the meaning of Article 85(3)(b) of the Treaty (now Article 81(3)(b) EC), the Commission cannot, in principle, rely merely on the fact that the agreement in question eliminates competition between those parties and that they account for a substantial part of the relevant market. First, the prohibition on eliminating competition is a narrower concept than that of the existence or acquisition of a dominant position, so that an agreement could be regarded as not eliminating competition within the meaning of Article 85(3)(b) of the Treaty, and therefore qualify for exemption, even if it established a dominant position for the benefit of its members. Second, potential competition must be taken into consideration before concluding that an agreement eliminates competition for the purposes of Article 85(3) of the Treaty. Taking into account and analysing external competition, both actual and potential, is all the more necessary where it is a question of examining whether an agreement between shipping companies fixing maritime transport rates qualifies for individual exemption under Article 12 of Regulation No 4056/86.
15. 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 their submissions in an application to intervene are, under the fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the 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.
16. In a decision finding that the provisions of an agreement between shipping lines fixing the rates and conditions of maritime transport infringe the Treaty's competition rules, an order compelling the undertakings concerned to inform customers with whom they have concluded service contracts and other contractual relations in the context of that agreement that such customers are entitled, if they so wish, to renegotiate the terms of those contracts or to terminate them forthwith, which was not obviously necessary and does not correspond to an established line of Commission decisions, requires that institution expressly to set out its reasoning.
Even if that order may be regarded as necessary for re-establishing compliance with the law and as coming within the limits of the Commission's power to order the undertakings concerned, in accordance with Article 11 of Regulations No 1017/68 and No 4056/86, to bring such infringement to an end, the statement of objections should in any event have set out, even briefly, but in sufficiently clear terms, the measures which the Commission intended to take in order to bring an end to the infringements and should have given the applicants all the information necessary in order to enable them properly to defend themselves before the Commission adopted a final decision on that point. That conclusion is all the more necessary where the individual service contracts account for a substantial part of the turnover of the undertakings concerned and the obligation to renegotiate with customers could thus have significant consequences for those undertakings, and could even amount to a penalty more serious than a fine.
[ Bailii ]
 
SIDE v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1179) (Judgment) T-155/98
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
SIDE v Commission T-155/98; [2002] EUECJ T-155/98
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European
ECFI In order to establish whether, in the course of assessing whether an export aid in the book sector may be regarded as compatible with the common market, competition is affected to an extent that is contrary to the common interest for the purposes of Article 92(3)(d)of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3)(d)EC), it is necessary to define the market on which the aid takes effect. So far as concerns the material definition of the market, in order to be considered the subject of a sufficiently distinct market, it must be possible to distinguish the service or the good in question by virtue of particular characteristics that so differentiate it from other services or other goods that it is only to a small degree interchangeable with those alternatives and affected by competition from them. In that context, the degree of interchangeability between products or services must be assessed in terms of their objective characteristics, as well as the structure of supply and demand on the market, and competitive conditions.
The Commission must examine the effects of a State aid on competition and trade between the other operators carrying on the same activity as that for which the aid was granted, so as to carry out an assessment of the true impact of such an aid on competition. Unless it carries out such an assessment, the Commission commits a manifest error of assessment as regards the definition of the market.
[ Bailii ]
 
Atlantic Container Line and others v Commission T-18/97; [2002] EUECJ T-18/97; T-18/97
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European
ECFI 1. Only measures the legal effects of which are binding on and capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC).
A Commission decision the aim of which is to withdraw from undertakings which have notified an agreement immunity from fines is capable of producing binding legal effects only if notification of the agreement did in fact confer upon the undertakings concerned the benefit of such immunity. That is not the case where the decision is concerned with an agreement between shipping companies containing provisions fixing inland transport rates in the context of intermodal transport services that fall within the scope of Regulation No 1017/68, which does not provide for immunity from fines in the event of notification of an agreement.
2. Since Regulation No 1017/68 contains no provision granting immunity from fines in the event of notification, notification of agreements falling within the scope of that regulation does not confer immunity on undertakings notifying such agreements.
Any immunity from fines that may be provided for in secondary legislation and that arises, subject to certain limits, from notification is a form of derogation or exception. It would be wrong to conclude that such immunity might find application in the absence of express provision as a general principle of Community law. The mere fact that Regulations Nos 17, 4056/86 and 3975/87 all contain provision for immunity from fines in the event of notification does not imply the existence of any such general principle.
The fact that Regulation No 1017/68, unlike those three regulations, contains no express provision for immunity from fines indicates, on the contrary, that notification of an agreement that falls within the scope of Regulation No 1017/68 does not give rise to immunity. Indeed, having regard to the general principle prohibiting anticompetitive agreements laid down in Article 85(1)of the Treaty (now Article 81(1)EC)and the right, laid down in Article 87(2)of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 83(2)EC), to impose fines in order to ensure the effectiveness of that prohibition, provisions which derogate from that principle, such as those providing for immunity from fines in the event of notification, cannot be interpreted broadly and cannot be construed in such a way as to extend their effects beyond cases expressly provided for.
3. The various regulations laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC)apply only to those agreements which fall within their specific scope. Given that the provisions of an agreement fixing inland transport rates in the context of intermodal transport services falls within the scope of the regulation on inland transport, namely Regulation No 1017/68, the undertakings concerned cannot rely on the provisions of Regulation No 4056/86 on maritime transport on the basis that the agreement was notified under that regulation. The consequences attaching to notification of an agreement flow from the regulation by which the agreement is governed, rather than the regulation under which the parties to the agreement may have mistakenly notified it. It would be quite wrong to allow parties to an agreement to cause provisions relating to immunity from fines to be applied for their benefit simply by selecting the regulation under which they notify the agreement.
Regulation No 1017/68
[ Bailii ]
 
Compagnie Generale maritime and others v Commission T-86/95; [2002] EUECJ T-86/95
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European, Transport
ECJ Competition - Liner conferences - Intermodal transport - Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 - Scope - Block exemption - Regulation No 1017/68 - Individual exemption - Fine.
Regulation No 1017/68
[ Bailii ]
 
Kvaerner Warnow Werft v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1205) (Judgment) T-227/99
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European


 
Kvaerner Warnow Werft v Commission T-227/99; [2002] EUECJ T-227/99; T-227/99
28 Feb 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Verwayen-Boelen C-175/00
4 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Verwayen-Boelen (Rec.2002,p.I-2141) (Order) C-175/00
4 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-526/99; [2002] EUECJ C-526/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Axa Royale Belge (Rec.2002,p.I-2209) (Judgment) C-386/00
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-529/99; [2002] EUECJ C-529/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Le Canne v Commission T-241/00; [2002] EUECJ T-241/00
5 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch and others C-515/99; [2002] EUECJ C-515/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Le Canne v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1251) (Judgment) T-241/00
5 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-519/99; [2002] EUECJ C-519/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-520/99; [2002] EUECJ C-520/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-521/99; [2002] EUECJ C-521/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-522/99; [2002] EUECJ C-522/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-523/99; [2002] EUECJ C-523/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-528/99; [2002] EUECJ C-528/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-527/99; [2002] EUECJ C-527/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch and others (Rec.2002,p.I-2157) (Judgment) C-515/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-530/99; [2002] EUECJ C-530/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-538/99; [2002] EUECJ C-538/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Axa Royale Belge C-386/00; [2002] EUECJ C-386/00
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-540/99; [2002] EUECJ C-540/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-524/99; [2002] EUECJ C-524/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-539/99; [2002] EUECJ C-539/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-531/99; [2002] EUECJ C-531/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-537/99; [2002] EUECJ C-537/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-536/99; [2002] EUECJ C-536/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-535/99; [2002] EUECJ C-535/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-534/99; [2002] EUECJ C-534/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-533/99; [2002] EUECJ C-533/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Reisch (Free Movement Of Capital) C-532/99; [2002] EUECJ C-532/99
5 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral De Alava v Commission (State Aid) T-129/99; [2002] EUECJ T-129/99
6 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral De Alava v Commission (State Aid) T-103/00; [2002] EUECJ T-103/00
6 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral de Alava v Commission T-92/00; [2002] EUECJ T-92/00
6 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral de Alava v Commission T-168/99; [2002] EUECJ T-168/99
6 Mar 2002
ECFI
J. Azizi, P
European
ECJ Actions for annulment - Action brought against a decision of the Commission initiating the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC - Adoption in the course of the proceedings of a decision finding national measures incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment brought against the second decision - Same applicants and same arguments - Judgment given on the second action - First action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate
[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral De Alava v Commission (State Aid) T-148/99; [2002] EUECJ T-148/99
6 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral de Alava v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1371) (Judgment) T-168/99
6 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Diputacion Foral de Alava v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1385) (Judgment) T-92/00
6 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Diputacion Foral de Alava and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1275) (Judgment) T-127/99
6 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Italy C-365/00 [2002] EUECJ C-365/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Intervet International (A D Hoechst Roussel Vet) v Commission T-212/99; [2002] EUECJ T-212/99; T-212/99
7 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-2357) (Judgment) C-10/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Finlande C-169/00; [2002] EUECJ C-169/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-10/00 [2002] EUECJ C-10/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Biochem (Rec.2002,p.I-2461) (Judgment) C-259/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Biochem C-259/00; [2002] EUECJ C-259/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Satellimages TV5 v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1425) (Judgment) T-95/99
7 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Finlande (Rec.2002,p.I-2433) (Judgment) C-169/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-2235) (Judgment) C-145/99
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Intervet International v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1445) (Judgment) T-212/99
7 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Italy v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-2289) (Judgment) C-310/99
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v United Kingdom (Rec.2002,p.I-2513) (Judgment) C-39/01
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Greece C-64/01; [2002] EUECJ C-64/01
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Commission C-310/99; [2002] EUECJ C-310/99
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Insalaca (Rec.2002,p.I-2403) (Judgment) C-107/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-2503) (Judgment) C-29/01
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Insalaca C-107/00; [2002] EUECJ C-107/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European, Benefits
ECJ Social security - Articles 46 to 46c of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - National rules against overlapping - Benefits of the same kind.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain C-29/01; [2002] EUECJ C-29/01
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-2491) (Judgment) C-365/00
7 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Mercantile International Group Plc v Chuan Soon Huat Industrial Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 288; [2003] ECC 28; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 788; [2002] CLC 913; [2002] Eu LR 314
8 Mar 2002
CA
Rix LJ, Waller LJ, Wilson LJ
Agency, European
The court was asked whether the claimants were a commercial agent of the defendants under the 1993 regulations.
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Schlusselverlag J S Moser and others v Commission T-3/02; [2002] EUECJ T-3/02
11 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Eridania (Rec.2002,p.I-2533) (Judgment) C-160/98
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Omega Air and others (Rec.2002,p.I-2569) (Judgment) C-27/00
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Leitner C-168/00; [2002] EUECJ C-168/00
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Omega Air (Transport) C-122/00; [2002] EUECJ C-122/00
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Eridania C-160/98; [2002] EUECJ C-160/98
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Omega Air and others C-27/00; [2002] EUECJ C-27/00
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Leitner (Rec.2002,p.I-2631) (Judgment) C-168/00
12 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Martinez Alarcon v Commission T-357/00; [2002] EUECJ T-357/00
13 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Martinez Alarcon v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-37,II-161) (Judgment) T-357/00
13 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Bal v Commission T-139/00; [2002] EUECJ T-139/00
13 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bal v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-33,II-139) (Judgment) T-139/00
13 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Germany C-161/00; [2002] EUECJ C-161/00
14 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-2753) (Judgment) C-161/00
14 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Netherlands v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-2709) (Judgment) C-132/99
14 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Italy v Council C-340/98; [2002] EUECJ C-340/98; [2002] ECR I-2663
14 Mar 2002
ECJ

European
Europa The limit-date of 1 August for fixing the intervention price and derived intervention prices in Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector is not strict. Therefore, failure to observe that date cannot have the effect of rendering invalid Regulations No 1580/96 and 1361/98 fixing, for the 1998/99 marketing year, intervention prices after 1 August.
Whilst the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the Community, economic operators cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained; this is particularly true in an area such as the common organisation of the markets, which involves constant adjustments to meet changes in the economic situation.
Since Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector obliges the Council and the Commission each year to determine the intervention prices, minimum prices and increased prices afresh, on the basis, in particular, of the pattern of production and the pattern of consumption, economic operators can have no legitimate expectation that the prices fixed for previous marketing years will be repeated.
The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty (now Article 253 EC) must be appropriate to the nature of the measure in question and must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution which adopted the contested measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review. The requirements in respect of the statement of reasons must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question. It is not required to specify the often very numerous and complex matters of fact or of law dealt with in those regulations, provided that the latter fall within the general scheme of the body of measures of which they form part.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Italy v Council (Rec.2002,p.I-2663) (Judgment) C-340/98
14 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Netherlands v Commission C-132/99; [2002] EUECJ C-132/99
14 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-2943) (Judgment) C-13/00
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij C-476/99; [2002] EUECJ C-476/99
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European, Discrimination
Europa Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women - Derogations - Measures to promote equality of opportunity between men and women - Subsidised nursery places made available by a Ministry to its staff - Places reserved only for children of female officials, save in cases of emergency, to be determined by the employer.
"according to settled case law in determining the scope of any derogation from an individual right such as the equal treatment of men and women laid down by the directive, due regard must be had to the principle of proportionality which required that derogations must remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the aim in view and that the principle of equal treatment be reconciled as far as possible with the requirements of the aim thus pursued."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-2965) (Judgment) C-224/00
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy C-224/00 [2002] EUECJ C-224/00
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hervein and others C-393/99; [2002] EUECJ C-393/99
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hervein And Hervillier (Social Security For Migrant Workers) C-394/99; [2002] EUECJ C-394/99
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Netherlands (Rec.2002,p.I-2995) (Judgment) C-268/00
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Netherlands C-268/00; [2002] EUECJ C-268/00
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

Environment, European
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Quality of bathing water - Inadequate implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC
Directive 76/160/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland C-13/00; [2002] EUECJ C-13/00
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece C-426/98; [2002] EUECJ C-426/98
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Rec.2002,p.I-2793) (Judgment) C-426/98
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hervein and others (Rec.2002,p.I-2829) (Judgment) C-393/99
19 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
UPS Europe v Commission T-175/99; [2002] EUECJ T-175/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
ABB Asea Brown Boveri v Commission T-31/99; [2002] EUECJ T-31/99; T-31/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
LR AF 1998 v AS v Commission T-23/99; [2002] EUECJ T-23/99; T-23/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dansk Rrindustri v Commission T-21/99; [2002] EUECJ T-21/99; T-21/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ke Kelit v Commission T-17/99; [2002] EUECJ T-17/99; T-17/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Logstor Ror v Commission T-16/99; [2002] EUECJ T-16/99; T-16/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Brugg Rohrsysteme v Commission T-15/99; [2002] EUECJ T-15/99; T-15/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 HFB and others v Commission; ECFI 20-Mar-2002 - T-9/99; [2002] EUECJ T-9/99
 
Sigma Tecnologie v Commission T-28/99; [2002] EUECJ T-28/99; T-28/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
ABB Asea Brown Boveri v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1881) (Judgment) T-31/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Gough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 351; [2002] QB 1213; [2002] 3 WLR 289; [2002] 2 All ER 985
20 Mar 2002
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Carnwath
European, Crime
The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence. Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were civil, the standard of proof required was virtually that of a criminal court. Public policy could be used to justify an infringement of the citizens' rights under European Law. A football banning order should only be imposed where there were strong grounds for concluding that the individual subject to the order had a propensity for taking part in football hooliganism. Noting the serious consequences: "This should lead the Justices to apply an exacting standard of proof that will, in practice, be hard to distinguish from the criminal standard."
Lord Phillips MR referred to the kind of intelligence information which was being collected, stating: "The tactics of the police have had to respond to this developing phenomenon. There is a football intelligence system co-ordinated by NCIS. Each club has a Football Intelligence Officer, who is known to the prominents as they are known to him. In relation to each match ... information is collected by the police 'spotters' who watch the prominents. The information is collated in an information/intelligence report. The profiles are prepared in reliance on the contents of such reports, and consist in short notes, each giving an outline description of the particular prominent's involvement in actual or threatened trouble in relation to any given match."
Football Spectators Act 1989 14B - Football (Disorder) Act 2000
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Brugg Rohrsysteme v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1613) (Judgment) T-15/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Logstor Ror v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1633) (Judgment) T-16/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
KE KELIT v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1647) (Judgment) T-17/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Dansk Rrindustri v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1681) (Judgment) T-21/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
LR AF 1998 v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1705) (Judgment) T-23/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
DaimlerChrysler v OHMI (CARCARD) (Rec.2002,p.II-1963) (Judgment) T-356/00
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Sigma Tecnologie v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1845) (Judgment) T-28/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
DaimlerChrysler v OHMI (TRUCKCARD) (Rec.2002,p.II-1993) (Judgment) T-358/00
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
DaimlerChrysler v OHMI T-358/00; [2002] EUECJ T-358/00
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
DaimlerChrysler v OHMI T-356/00; [2002] EUECJ T-356/00
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
DaimlerChrysler v OHMI T-355/00; [2002] EUECJ T-355/00
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
DaimlerChrysler v OHMI (TELE AID) (Rec.2002,p.II-1939) (Judgment) T-355/00
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
UPS Europe v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-1915) (Judgment) T-175/99
20 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Zoological Society (Rec.2002,p.I-3353) (Judgment) C-267/00
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Spain v Commission C-36/00; [2002] EUECJ C-36/00
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Laboratoire Monique Remy v Commission T-218/01; [2002] EUECJ T-218/01
21 Mar 2002
ECFI

European, Administrative
1. The concepts of force majeure and unforeseeable circumstances contain, besides an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the party in question, a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the party in question must pay close attention to the course of the procedure and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits. Thus, the concepts of force majeure and unforeseeable circumstances do not apply to a situation in which, objectively, a diligent and prudent person would have been able to take the necessary steps before the expiry of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings. (see para. 17)
2. The fact that the Commission does not refer, in a measure, to the possibility of starting judicial proceedings and/or of lodging a complaint with the European Ombudsman, in accordance with Article 230 EC or Article 195 EC, is a breach of the obligations which that institution has taken upon itself by its adoption of the Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public which is set out in the Annex to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. (see para. 25)
3. The concept of excusable error, the direct source of which is a concern for observance of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, can concern only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned was, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally prudent person. Although such may be the case where the commencement of an action out of time is caused by the provision, by the institution concerned, of wrong information creating pardonable confusion in the mind of such a person, or where the breach by the institution concerned of certain of its rules of procedure, such as, for example, a code of behaviour, has created such confusion, it cannot be the case, where the person concerned cannot harbour any doubt that the measure notified to him is in the nature of a decision. Indeed, in the latter case, the absence of information relating to the possibility of an appeal cannot in any way mislead that person.(see para. 30)
[ Bailii ]
 
Cura Anlagen C-451/99; [2002] EUECJ C-451/99
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-3005) (Judgment) C-130/99
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Haugsted Hansen (Rec.2002,p.I-3107) (Order) C-233/99
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Cura Anlagen (Rec.2002,p.I-3193) (Judgment) C-451/99
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Spain v Commission C-130/99; [2002] EUECJ C-130/99
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Grunderzentrum (Rec.2002,p.I-3333) (Order) C-264/00
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Kennemer Golf (Rec.2002,p.I-3293) (Judgment) C-174/00
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Joynson v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2085) (Judgment) T-231/99
21 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Spain v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-3243) (Judgment) C-36/00
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Laboratoire Monique Remy v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2139) (Order) T-218/01
21 Mar 2002
ECFI

European


 
Joynson v Commission T-231/99; [2002] ECR II - 2085; [2002] EUECJ T-231/99
21 Mar 2002
ECFI

European, Commercial
A pub lessee applied to annul the Commission's decision to grant individual exemption to Bass. Held: The Bass leases did not fall within the Block Exemption because the exclusive purchasing obligation was by type, not by brand. However such a clause constituted a more effective way of implementing the exclusive purchasing arrangements for beer in the United Kingdom and made it possible to preserve access to the market better than the tie by brand. The principal ground for excluding beer supply agreements containing a specification of the purchasing obligation by type of beer from benefiting from the Block Exemption thus required, in the present case, recourse to that clause. "It follows that the Bass standard leases fail to comply with the conditions of [the Block Exemption] solely because of a purely technical matter which does not, however, prevent those agreements from complying with the spirit of that regulation. In those circumstances the Commission was right to refer, in the context of the examination of the possibility of granting an individual exemption, to the framework of analysis provided by the regulation."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kennemer Golf and Country Club v Staatssecretaris van Financien, Zoological Society of London v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Case Times, 11 April 2002; C-267/00; [2002] EUECJ C-174/00; [2002] EUECJ C-267/00; C-174/00; [2002] QB 1252; [2002] QB 1272; [2002] STC 521; [2002] ECR I-3353; [2002] ECR I-3293; [2001] EUECJ C-267/00
21 Mar 2002
ECJ
P. Jann, President of Chamber and Judges S. von Bahr and C. W. A. Timmermans Advocate General F. G. Jacobs
European, VAT
The bodies sought exemption from certain elements of VAT as 'non-profit' making or 'voluntary' bodies. Their activities included trading activities, but they did not set out to make a profit overall. Held: For certain exemptions, the term "non-profit-making" refers to financial advantages for the members of an organisation, and not to end of year surpluses. The term "managed and administered on an essentially voluntary basis" regarded directorship functions, such as the taking of central decisions and higher supervision, and not to the mere executing of decisions.
Europa Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(2)(a), second indent - Exempt transactions - Bodies managed and administered on a voluntary basis.
Council Directive 77/388/EEC 13(A)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-3129) (Judgment) C-298/99
21 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Marseille Fret (Rec.2002,p.I-3383) (Order) C-24/02
22 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Marseille Fret C-24/02
22 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Reichling C-69/02
22 Mar 2002
ECJ

European


 
Technische Glaswerke Illmenau v Commission T-198/01; [2004] EUECJ T-198/01; [2002] EUECJ T-198/01
4 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Lamberts v Mediateur (Rec.2002,p.II-2203) (Judgment) T-209/00
10 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Lamberts v Mediateur T-209/00
10 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
NDC Health v IMS Health and Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-3401) (Order) C-481/01
11 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
NDC Health v IMS Health and Commission C-481/01
11 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Fronia v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-43,II-187) (Judgment) T-51/01
16 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Fronia v Commission T-51/01; [2002] EUECJ T-51/01
16 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sada v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-47,II-209) (Judgment) T-325/00
17 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Sada v Commission T-325/00; [2002] EUECJ T-325/00
17 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
IPSO and USE v BCE T-238/00; [2002] EUECJ T-238/00
18 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Council (Fisheries Policy) C-81/00; [2002] EUECJ C-81/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten C-290/00; [2002] EUECJ C-290/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass
European, Benefits
Europa Social security for migrant workers - Article 48 and Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 and Article 42 EC) - Article 9a and 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Accident at work occurring in another Member State before the entry into force of the regulation in the worker's home State - Incapacity for work
[ Bailii ]
 
Palin Granit and Vehmassalon kansaterveystyon kuntayhtyman hallitus (Rec.2002,p.I-3533) (Judgment) C-9/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Belgium v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-3609) (Judgment) C-332/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Palin Granit Oy v Vehmassalon kansaterveystyon kuntayhtyman hallitus C-9/00; [2002] EUECJ C-9/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ
Macken P
European, Environment
Harmonisation of laws - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Concept of waste - Production residue - Quarry - Storage - Use of waste - No risk to health or the environment - Possibility of recovery of waste
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC - Proposed agreement between the European Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area C-1/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European, Transport
International agreements - Agreement between the Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area - Rules in the agreement identical to the corresponding Community rules - Court to ascertain whether there are adequate measures for the purpose of preserving the autonomy of the Community legal order - Scope - International agreements - Agreement between the Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area - Agreement not affecting the essential character of the powers of the Community and its institutions - Compatibility of the provisions of the agreement with the EC Treaty. International agreements - Agreement between the Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area - Mechanisms relating to the uniform interpretation of the rules of the agreement and to the resolution of disputes - Mechanisms not having the effect of binding the Community and its institutions, in the exercise of their internal powers, to a particular interpretation of the rules of Community law replicated by the agreement - Compatibility with the EC Treaty

 
IPSO and USE v BCE (Rec.2002,p.II-2237) (Order) T-238/00
18 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Spain v Council (Fisheries Policy) C-45/98; [2002] EUECJ C-45/98
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgium v Commission C-332/00; [2002] EUECJ C-332/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, Registrar: L. Hewlett
European, Agriculture
APPLICATION for, first, annulment of Commission Decision 2000/448/EC of 5 July 2000 amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 46) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure in the amount of BEF 50 763 827 incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at a reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for butter and concentrated butter intended for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs and, second, partial annulment of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 1 602 256.45 and EUR 31 883.22 respectively incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at a reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for concentrated butter intended for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs
[ Bailii ]
 
Duchon (Rec.2002,p.I-3567) (Judgment) C-290/00
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Spain v Council (Fisheries Policy) C-27/99; [2002] EUECJ C-27/99
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Council C-61/96; [2002] EUECJ C-61/96
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Council (Fisheries Policy) C-22/01; [2002] EUECJ C-22/01
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Council (Fisheries Policy) C-132/97; [2002] EUECJ C-132/97
18 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Merck, Sharp and Dohme (Rec.2002,p.I-3703) (Judgment) C-443/99
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Campolargo v Commission T-372/00; [2002] EUECJ T-372/00
23 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Campolargo v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-49,II-223) (Judgment) T-372/00
23 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Merck, Sharp and Dohme C-443/99; [2002] EUECJ C-443/99
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v Swingward Ltd and Another Times, 23 May 2002; C-143/00; [2002] EUECJ C-143/00; [2002] ECR I-3759
23 Apr 2002
ECJ
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and C. W. A. Timmermans Advocate-General F. G. Jacobs
European, Intellectual Property
The applicant sought to restrict the right of parallel importers of its goods to repackage the goods, and re-supply them in packaging on which their trade mark had been re-applied. Held: The prohibition of quantitative restrictions on imports does not preclude restrictions justified on the grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such restrictions must not allow arbitrary discrimination or be a disguised restriction on trade between member states. The mark owners were allowed to prevent the repackaging so long as it did not operate to prevent trade.
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of December 21, 1988 to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L40, p1) 7(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Campogrande v Commission C-62/01; [2002] EUECJ C-62/01P
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Boehringer Ingelheim and others (Rec.2002,p.I-3759) (Judgment) C-143/00
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Nygard C-234/99; [2002] EUECJ C-234/99
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Nygard (Rec.2002,p.I-3657) (Judgment) C-234/99
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Campogrande v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-3793) (Judgment) C-62/01
23 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
EVO v Council and Commission T-220/96; [2002] EUECJ T-220/96; T-220/96
24 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-3949) (Judgment) C-396/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France (Fisheries Policy) C-419/00; [2002] EUECJ C-419/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Rec.2002,p.I-3879) (Judgment) C-154/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Galileo and Galileo International v Council C-96/01
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European
(Rec.2002,p.I-4025) (Order)

 
Gonzalez Sanchez C-183/00; [2002] EUECJ C-183/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Gonzalez Sanchez (Rec.2002,p.I-3901) (Judgment) C-183/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy C-396/00 [2002] EUECJ C-396/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-3827) (Judgment) C-52/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Greece C-154/00; [2002] EUECJ C-154/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
DSG v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-3919) (Order) C-323/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-3969) (Judgment) C-418/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
DSG v Commission C-323/00; C-323/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France C-52/00; [2002] EUECJ C-52/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Galileo and Galileo International v Council C-96/01; C-96/01
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France C-418/00; [2002] EUECJ C-418/00
25 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hilden v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-57,II-265) (Order) T-70/98
29 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Bactria v Commission T-339/00; [2001] EUECJ T-339/00
29 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Jung v Commission T-68/98; [2002] EUECJ T-68/98
29 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Jung v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-55,II-251) (Order) T-68/98
29 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
Hilden v Commission T-70/98; [2002] EUECJ T-70/98
29 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Club-Tour (Rec.2002,p.I-4051) (Judgment) C-400/00
30 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Government Of Gibraltar v Commission (State Aid) T-207/01; [2002] EUECJ T-207/01
30 Apr 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
N v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-4075) (Order) C-181/01
30 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Goncalves Garrido, and Club Med Viagens Ldª. C-400/00; [2002] EUECJ C-400/00
30 Apr 2002
ECJ

European, Consumer
The term package used in Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours, must be interpreted so as to include holidays organised by travel agents, at the request of and in accordance with the specifications of a consumer or limited group of consumers. According to the definition of package given in Article 2(1) of the directive, which is designed amongst other things to protect consumers who buy package holidays, it is enough if, first, the combination of tourist services sold by a travel agency at an inclusive price includes two of the three services referred to in that paragraph and, second, that service covers a period of more than 24 hours or includes overnight accommodation. There is nothing in that definition to suggest that holidays organised at the request of and in accordance with the specifications of a consumer or a defined group of consumers cannot be regarded as package holidays within the meaning of the Directive. That interpretation is reinforced by the directive, which provides that among the elements to be included in a contract covered by the directive are special requirements which the consumer has communicated to the organiser or retailer when making the booking, and which both have accepted. As the definition of package referred to in Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours includes holidays organised in accordance with the consumer's specifications, the term pre-arranged combination used in that provision necessarily covers cases where the combination of tourist services is the result of the wishes expressed by the consumer up to the moment when the parties reach an agreement and conclude the contract. The term pre-arranged combination used in Article 2(1) of Directive 90/314 must be interpreted so as include combinations of tourist services put together at the time when the contract is concluded between the travel agency and the consumer.
Directive 90/314 on package travel
[ Bailii ]
 
Government of Gibraltar v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2309) (Judgment) T-195/01
30 Apr 2002
ECFI

European


 
N v Commission C-181/01; C-181/01
30 Apr 2002
ECJ

European


 
Government of Gibraltar v Commission T-195/01; [2002] EUECJ T-195/01
30 Apr 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-4097) (Judgment) C-292/99
2 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France [2002] ECR I-04097; [2002] EUECJ C-292/99; C-292/99
2 May 2002
ECJ

European
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Waste - Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/156/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC - Waste management plans: "… considering the objectives pursued by the obligation laid down in Article 7(1) of …[the Waste Framework Directive], it is clear from the very wording of that provision that the obligation is necessary in order for the objectives set out in Articles 3,4 and 5 of that directive to be fully attained (see, by analogy, Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR O-5057, paragraph 95). Chief among those objectives is the protection of public health and the environment, which is the essence of Community legislation relating to waste. That is the reason why, according to the case-law, a failure to fulfil the obligation to draw up waste management plans must be regarded as serious, even if the failure relates to only a very small part of a Member State's territory, such as a single department … or a single area within a valley …"
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Suede C-478/99; [2002] EUECJ C-478/99
7 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Aden and others v Council and Commission T-306/01; [2002] EUECJ T-306/01; [2005] EUECJ T-306/01
7 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Netherlands C-364/00 C-364/00; [2002] EUECJ C-364/00
7 May 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 97/70/EC - Failure to implement within the prescribed period
Directive 97/70/EC
[ Bailii ]
 
Antas de Campos v Parliament (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-59,II-279) (Judgment) T-194/00
14 May 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-4219) (Judgment) C-383/00
14 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Associacao Comercial de Aveiro v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2509) (Judgment) T-81/00
14 May 2002
ECFI

European


 
Graphischer Maschinenbau v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2427) (Judgment) T-126/99
14 May 2002
ECFI

European


 
Associacao Comercial de Aveiro v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2465) (Judgment) T-80/00
14 May 2002
ECFI

European


 
Antas de Campos v Parliament T-194/00; [2002] EUECJ T-194/00
14 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
ACA v Commission T-80/00; [2002] EUECJ T-80/00
14 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany C-383/00; [2002] EUECJ C-383/00
14 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael Holterhoff v Ulrich Freiesleben C-2/00; [2002] EUECJ C-2/00; [2002] All ER (EC) 665; [2002] ETMR 79; [2002] FSR 52; [2002] ECR I-4187
14 May 2002
ECJ

European, Intellectual Property
A trade mark was found to have been used to describe a method of cutting precious stones, rather than to identify their producer.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
ACA v Commission T-81/00; [2002] EUECJ T-81/00
14 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schilling and Nehring C-63/00; [2002] EUECJ C-63/00
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-4541) (Judgment) C-142/01
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetrieb C-508/99; [2002] EUECJ C-508/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
France v Commission C-482/99; [2002] EUECJ C-482/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain C-232/99; [2002] EUECJ C-232/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Schilling and Nehring (Rec.2002,p.I-4483) (Judgment) C-63/00
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rounis v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-63,II-301) (Judgment) T-17/01
16 May 2002
ECFI

European


 
ARAP and others v Commission C-321/99; [2002] EUECJ C-321/99P
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bredemeier C-384/00; [2002] EUECJ C-384/00
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy C-142/01 [2002] EUECJ C-142/01
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg C-372/01; [2002] EUECJ C-372/01
16 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bredemeier (Rec.2002,p.I-4517) (Judgment) C-384/00
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
ARAP and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-4287) (Judgment) C-321/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rounis v Commission T-17/01; [2002] EUECJ T-17/01
16 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
France v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-4397) (Judgment) C-482/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft (Rec.2002,p.I-4455) (Judgment) C-508/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Luxembourg (Rec.2002,p.I-4553) (Judgment) C-372/01
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-4235) (Judgment) C-232/99
16 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd Times, 20 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] UKHL 21; [2002] 2 WLR 1299; [2003] 1 AC 563; 74 TC 511; [2002] STC 786; [2002] BTC 223; [2002] 3 All ER 1; [2002] HRLR 42; [2002] NPC 70; [2002] STI 806; 4 ITL Rep 809
16 May 2002
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote
Legal Professions, Taxes Management, Human Rights, European
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege. Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of ensuring human rights as a right of privacy, and is recognised in European law (A M & S Europe Ltd). A statute which sought to overrule such rights had to be much clearer to achieve that effect. Reference to the protection of privilege in one subsection was not sufficient to exclude the protection of privilege in other subsections by implication. A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication: "A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation."
Lord Hoffmann set out the reason underlying legal professional privilege, and its importance: "LPP is a fundamental human right long established in the common law. It is a necessary corollary of the right of any person to obtain skilled advice about the law. Such advice cannot be effectively obtained unless the client is able to put all the facts before the adviser without fear that they may afterwards be disclosed and used to his prejudice."
. . And the courts will: "construe general words in a statute, although literally capable of having some startling or unreasonable consequence, such as overriding fundamental human rights, as not having been intended to do so. An intention to override such rights must be expressly stated or appear by necessary implication".
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough explained: "A necessary implication is not the same as a reasonable implication . . A necessary implication is one which necessarily follows from the express provisions of the statute construed in their context. It distinguishes between what it would have been sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably have included and what it is clear that the express language of the statute shows that the statute must have included. A necessary implication is a matter of express language and logic not interpretation."
Taxes Management Act 1970 20(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Parry v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 864
23 May 2002
CA
Kennedy, May LJJ, Jackson J
Agriculture, European
The market in milk quotas
[ Bailii ]
 
Onidi v Commission T-197/00; [2002] EUECJ T-197/00
30 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland C-376/01; [2002] EUECJ C-376/01
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Carbone C-296/00; [2002] EUECJ C-296/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Stratmann (Agriculture) C-288/00; [2002] EUECJ C-288/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schmid C-516/99; [2002] EUECJ C-516/99
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Buchhandler-Vereinigung C-358/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy C-323/01 [2002] EUECJ C-323/01
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Coe Clerici Logistics v Commission T-52/00; [2003] EUECJ T-52/00; T-52/00
30 May 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Onidi v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-69,II-325) (Judgment) T-197/00
30 May 2002
ECFI

European


 
Stratmann C-284/00; [2002] EUECJ C-284/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v United Kingdom C-441/00; [2002] EUECJ C-441/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Expo Casa Manta (Rec.2002,p.I-4657) (Judgment) C-296/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-4721) (Judgment) C-376/01
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Schmid (Rec.2002,p.I-4573) (Judgment) C-516/99
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Buchhandler-Vereinigung (Rec.2002,p.I-4685) (Order) C-358/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-4711) (Judgment) C-323/01
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v United Kingdom (Rec.2002,p.I-4699) (Judgment) C-441/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Stratmann and Fleischversorgung Neuss (Rec.2002,p.I-4611) (Judgment) C-284/00
30 May 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-4809) (Judgment) C-503/99
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Criminal proceedings against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog C-99/00; [2002] EUECJ C-99/00
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hovrätten för Västra Sverige - Sweden. Questions for a preliminary ruling - Obligation to refer - Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law -Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Community system of reliefs from customs duty
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83
[ Bailii ]
 
Lyckeskog (Rec.2002,p.I-4839) (Judgment) C-99/00
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium C-503/99; [2002] EUECJ C-503/99
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-4781) (Judgment) C-483/99
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Katia Beckmann v Dynamco Whichloe Macfarlane Ltd C-164/00; [2002] EUECJ C-164/00
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Employment
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. Directive 77/187/EEC - Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses - Conditions for applying exceptions to maintenance of rights - Benefits provided for in the event of dismissal.
Directive 77/187/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Portugal (Rec.2002,p.I-4731) (Judgment) C-367/98
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Portugal C-367/98; [2003] QB 233; [2002] EUECJ C-367/98
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Company

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Beckmann (Rec.2002,p.I-4893) (Judgment) C-164/00
4 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hershey Foods v OHMI (Kiss Devic with plume) T-198/00; [2002] EUECJ T-198/00
5 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hershey Foods v OHMI (Kiss Device with plume) (Rec.2002,p.II-2567) (Judgment) T-198/00
5 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v France C-177/01; [2002] EUECJ C-177/01
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-5151) (Judgment) C-274/01
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium C-274/01; [2002] EUECJ C-274/01
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 98/76/EC -Failure to transpose within the prescribed period.
Directive 98/76/EC
[ Bailii ]
 
Airtours v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2585) (Judgment) T-342/99
6 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Airtours v Commission T-342/99; [2002] EUECJ T-342/99
6 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ricordi (Rec.2002,p.I-5089) (Judgment) C-360/00
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Italian Leather C-80/00; [2002] EUECJ C-80/00
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Land Hessen v G Ricordi and Co Buhnen- und Musikverlag GmbH C-360/00; [2002] EUECJ C-360/00
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Intellectual Property
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof - Germany. Term of copyright protection - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Applicability to copyright which arose prior to the entry into force of the EEC Treaty.
EEC Treaty
[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-4943) (Judgment) C-133/99
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Sapod Audic v Eco-Emballages SA C-159/00; [2002] EUECJ C-159/00; [2002] ECR I-5031
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Directive 83/189/EEC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Waste - Obligation to make notification of planned measures - National regulations on disposal of packaging waste - Obligation on producers or importers to identify packaging to be disposed of by an approved undertaking - Obligation on the approved undertaking to ensure that packaging for which it is responsible meets technical requirements.
Directive 83/189/EEC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium C-146/01; [2002] EUECJ C-146/01
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-5137) (Judgment) C-177/01
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Slim Sicilia v Commission T-105/01; [2002] EUECJ T-105/01
6 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities C-133/99; [2002] EUECJ C-133/99
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Administrative
Europa EAGGF - Clearance of accounts.
EAGGF
[ Bailii ]
 
Italian Leather (Rec.2002,p.I-4995) (Judgment) C-80/00
6 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Alsace International Car Service v Parliament [2002] EUECJ T-365/00
11 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
B v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-75,II-361) (Judgment) T-66/00
12 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Becker v Court of Auditors (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-79,II-379) (Judgment) T-9/01
12 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
B v Commission T-66/00; [2002] EUECJ T-66/00
12 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mellone v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-81,II-389) (Judgment) T-187/01
12 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Becker v Court of Auditors T-9/01; [2002] EUECJ T-9/01
12 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mellone v Commission T-187/01; [2002] EUECJ T-187/01; T-187/01
12 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-5335) (Judgment) C-117/00
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic C-33/01; [2002] EUECJ C-33/01
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Environment
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Waste - Management of hazardous waste - Failure to provide information required under Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689 - Establishments and undertakings which carry out disposal and/or recovery of hazardous waste.
[ Bailii ]
 
Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Commission of the European Communities C-158/00; [2002] EUECJ C-158/00; C-158/00
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Clearance of accounts - EAGGF.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland C-117/00; [2002] EUECJ C-117/00; C-117/00
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain C-474/99; [2002] EUECJ C-474/99; C-474/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, Environment
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Incomplete transposition.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-5293) (Judgment) C-474/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Sea-Land Service (Transport) C-431/99; [2002] EUECJ C-431/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sea-Land Service C-430/99; [2002] EUECJ C-430/99; C-430/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic C-286/01; [2002] EUECJ C-286/01; C-286/01
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Telecommunications - Open network - Universal service.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Rec.2002,p.I-5447) (Judgment) C-33/01
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Keeping Newcastle Warm Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise C-353/00; [2002] EUECJ C-353/00
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European, VAT
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester - United Kingdom. Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Consideration for goods or services - Subsidy.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ferrer de Moncada v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-87,II-411) (Judgment) T-74/01
13 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Netherlands v Commission C-382/99; [2002] EUECJ C-382/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
H J Banks and Co Ltd v Coal Authority and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 841
13 Jun 2002
CA

European, Commercial

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Keeping Newcastle Warm (Rec.2002,p.I-5419) (Judgment) C-353/00
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Youssouroum v Council (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-93,II-435) (Judgment) T-106/01
13 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Luxembourg v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-5373) (Judgment) C-158/00
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-5463) (Judgment) C-286/01
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Youssouroum v Council T-106/01; [2002] EUECJ T-106/01; T-106/01
13 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-5163) (Judgment) C-382/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Sea-Land Service and Nedlloyd Lijnen (Rec.2002,p.I-5235) (Judgment) C-430/99
13 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
Maritime transport - Freedom to provide services - Vessel traffic services system.

 
Ferrer de Moncada v Commission T-74/01; [2002] EUECJ T-74/01
13 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Chef Revival USA v OHMI - Massague Marin (Chef) (Rec.2002,p.II-2749) (Judgment) T-232/00
13 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Chef Revival USA Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market T-232/00; [2002] EUECJ T-232/00; T-232/00
13 Jun 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property
Europa Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Rule 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.
Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 18(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc and others [2002] EWHC 1159 (Ch)
14 Jun 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Intellectual Property, Commercial, European
The claimant sought damages for patent infringement. The respondent asserted that the refusal to licence the patent amounted to an abuse of its dominant position. Complaint had also been brought in the US. Held: the licence offered by Intel would distort the market. The refusal to licence on other terms prevented other companies even getting a foothold in the market. However the refusal to licence an intellectual property is a right in the owner save when it is an abuse, and even then the defence is only available exceptionally. The defendant had not made out the conditions precedent. Summary judgement for the claimant.
EC Treaty 81(1) 82
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission C-398/00; [2002] EUECJ C-398/00
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-5643) (Judgment) C-398/00
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd Times, 20 June 2002; C-299/99; [2002] ETMR 955; [2002] EUECJ C-299/99; [2003] Ch 159; [2003] RPC 2
18 Jun 2002
ECJ
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues etc
European, Intellectual Property
The claimant developed a three headed rotary razor for men. They obtained registration of the arrangement as a trade mark. They sued the defendant for infringement, and the defendant countered challenging the validity of the registration, saying the design was functional. Held: A sign consisting exclusively of a product's shape was unregistrable, if it was established that the essential functional features of that shape were attributable only to the technical result. Additional embellishments did not make it registerable, and the existence of alternate ways of achieving the same technical result did not allow registration. The court accepted that art.3(1)(a) imports both limbs of art.2. Distinctiveness is, therefore, an issue under both art.3(1)(a) and art.3(1)(b). Only a single question is posed in relation to distinctiveness of origin, which is whether the sign is capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another in the mind of the consumer, and a positive conclusion (albeit at that level of identification) is required.
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of December 21, 1988 to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks 2 3(1)(a) 3(1)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Netherlands v Commission C-314/99; [2002] EUECJ C-314/99
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Philips (Rec.2002,p.I-5475) (Judgment) C-299/99
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France C-60/01; [2002] EUECJ C-60/01
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
HI (Rec.2002,p.I-5553) (Judgment) C-92/00
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Netherlands v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-5521) (Judgment) C-314/99
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Germany v Commission C-242/00; [2002] EUECJ C-242/00
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Germany v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-5603) (Judgment) C-242/00
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
HI Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH C-92/00; [2002] EUECJ C-92/00
18 Jun 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Public service contracts - Directive 92/50/EEC - Procedure for the award of public service contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Scope - Decision to withdraw an invitation to tender - Judicial review - Scope.
Directive 92/50/EEC - Directive 89/665/EEC
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Owusu v Jackson, Mammee Bay Resorts Limited etc [2002] EWCA Civ 877; [2003] PIQR 186
19 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke
European, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
Defendants appealed against an order refusing an order to restrain service of the proceedings on certain defendants outwith the jurisdiction. The claimant was seriously injured holidaying at a resort managed by the several defendants in Jamaica in various ways. The defendants argued that the proper forum was Jamaica. Held: The decision as to forum conveniens was well within the judge's discretion. As to the issues of European Law, these were to be referred to the European Court. Here, the two competing jurisdictions were not separate European ones, but one European and one Jamaican. The issue had not been previously dealt with by the European Court.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20(3) - Brussels Convention Art 2 - EC Treaty 220
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mulligan and others C-313/99; [2002] EUECJ C-313/99
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-5811) (Judgment) C-287/00
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Luxembourg C-299/01; [2002] EUECJ C-299/01
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg (Rec.2002,p.I-5899) (Judgment) C-299/01
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Radiosistemi (Industrial Policy) C-429/00; [2002] EUECJ C-429/00
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mulligan and others (Rec.2002,p.I-5719) (Judgment) C-313/99
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Thomsen C-401/99; [2002] EUECJ C-401/99
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany C-287/00; [2002] EUECJ C-287/00
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Radiosistemi C-388/00; [2002] EUECJ C-388/00
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomsen (Rec.2002,p.I-5775) (Judgment) C-401/99
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Radiosistemi (Rec.2002,p.I-5845) (Judgment) C-388/00
20 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v ASDA Stores Ltd and Another Times, 27 June 2002; Gazette, 08 August 2002
24 Jun 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Consumer, European
The defendant store had been accused of failing to comply with standards for grading of agricultural produce. They had been acquitted, following Mayne, on the basis that the prosecution was under European regulations introduced after the Act creating the offence had been enacted. Held: Mayne's case dealt with Directives, and they were not directly comparable with regulations having direct effect. Nevertheless, it remained for Parliament to state what was criminal behaviour and what was not. The offence under the emended regulations was indeed unknown to English law.
Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 14 - Grading of Horticulture Produce (Amendment) Regulations 1973 (SI 1973 No 22)
1 Cites


 
Bigi (Rec.2002,p.I-5917) (Judgment) C-66/00
25 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
B v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2803) (Order) T-34/02
25 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
B v Commission T-34/02; [2002] EUECJ T-34/02; [2005] EUECJ T-34/02; [2006] EUECJ T-34/02
25 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
British American Tobacco (Investments) v Commission T-311/00; [2002] EUECJ T-311/00
25 Jun 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bigi C-66/00; [2002] EUECJ C-66/00; C-66/00
25 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-5959) (Judgment) C-258/00
27 Jun 2002
ECJ

European


 
Tralli v BCE (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-97,II-453) (Judgment) T-373/00
27 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v France C-258/00; [2002] EUECJ C-258/00; C-258/00
27 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Tralli v BCE T-373/00; T-373/00
27 Jun 2002
ECFI

European


 
Simon v Commission C-274/00; [2002] EUECJ C-274/00P; C-274/00
27 Jun 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service C-115/00; [2002] EUECJ C-115/00; C-115/00
2 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-6031) (Judgment) C-499/99
2 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service (Rec.2002,p.I-6077) (Judgment) C-115/00
2 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
SAT 1 SatellitenFernsehen v OHMI T-323/00; [2002] EUECJ T-323/00
2 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain C-499/99; [2002] EUECJ C-499/99; C-499/99
2 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
SAT.1 v OHMI (SAT.2) (Rec.2002,p.II-2839) (Judgment) T-323/00
2 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
A Menarini - Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite v Commission T-179/00; [2002] EUECJ T-179/00
3 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
A. Menarini v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2879) (Judgment) T-179/00
3 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Greece C-173/01; [2002] EUECJ C-173/01; C-173/01
4 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Arne Mathisen v Council T-340/99; [2002] EUECJ T-340/99
4 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
SCI UK v Commission T-239/00; [2002] EUECJ T-239/00
4 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Broomco (1984) Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00169
4 Jul 2002
Cust

Customs and Excise, European
Post-Clearance Demands - New Zealand butter - Cleared on basis of certificates by New Zealand authorities - Later dispute as to validity - Quota under Protocol 18 of Accession Treaty - Whether post-clearance recovery impliedly excluded - No - Current access under WTO agreements - No exclusion in principle of post - clearance recovery under WTO law.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Rec.2002,p.I-6129) (Judgment) C-173/01
4 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
SCI UK v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2957) (Judgment) T-239/00
4 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Zavvos v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-101,II-483) (Judgment) T-21/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Jungbunzlauer v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3023) (Order) T-312/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Rougemarine v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-2983) (Judgment) T-333/00
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Aimone v Court of Justice (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-107,II-575) (Judgment) T-70/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Flightline v Secretario de Estado dos Transportes e Communicacoes C-181/00; [2002] EUECJ C-181/00
9 Jul 2002
ECJ
F. Macken R P
European, Transport
ECJ Articles 3(2) and 4(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Imposition of public service obligations on scheduled air services serving a peripheral region - Compatibility with Member States' power to restrict cabotage until 1 April 1997 - Interpretation of Article 1(e) of Decision 94/698/EC
Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Callebaut v Commission T-233/01; [2002] EUECJ T-233/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Tilgenkamp v Commission T-158/01; [2002] EUECJ T-158/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Aimone v Court of Justice T-70/01; [2002] EUECJ T-70/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Flightline (Rec.2002,p.I-6139) (Judgment) C-181/00
9 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Ripa di Meana v Parliament (Rec.2002,p.II-3005) (Order) T-127/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Zavvos v Commission T-21/01; [2002] EUECJ T-21/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ripa di Meana v Parliament T-127/01; [2002] EUECJ T-127/01; T-127/01
9 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Tilgenkamp v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-111,II-595) (Judgment) T-158/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Rougemarine v Commission T-333/00; [2002] EUECJ T-333/00
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Callebaut v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-115,II-625) (Judgment) T-233/01
9 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Jungbunzlauer v Commission T-312/01; [2002] EUECJ T-312/01
9 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale v Commission T-387/00; [2002] EUECJ T-387/00; T-387/00
10 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
H Lundbeck A/S (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o27502; O/275/02; SPC/GB/98/010
10 Jul 2002
IPO
Mr R Walker
Intellectual Property, European
IPO The applicants did not offer observations to meet the examiners objection that the product had already been the subject of a certificate. Subsequent warnings that failure to reply would result in rejection and an invitation to be heard also failed to illicit a response. Therefore the application for an SPC was rejected.
[ PO ] - [ PO ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3031) (Order) T-387/00
10 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Grabner C-294/00; [2002] EUECJ C-294/00; C-294/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hyper v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3141) (Judgment) T-205/99
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister (Rec.2002,p.I-6453) (Judgment) C-210/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
HAMSA v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3049) (Judgment) T-152/99
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Marks and Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise C-62/00; [2003] QB 866; [2002] STC 1036
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European, VAT
ECJ Sixth VAT directive - National legislation retroactively curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly paid - Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
1 Citers


 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-6407) (Judgment) C-139/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Perez Escanilla v Commission T-163/01; [2002] EUECJ T-163/01
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Martinez Paramo and others and Angioli and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-119,II-639) (Judgment) T-137/99
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Gabriel (Rec.2002,p.I-6367) (Judgment) C-96/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister C-210/00; [2002] EUECJ C-210/00; C-210/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain C-139/00; [2002] EUECJ C-139/00; C-139/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rudolf Gabriel C-96/00; [2002] EUECJ C-96/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Brussels Convention - Request for interpretation of Articles 5(1) and (3) and 13, first paragraph, point 3 - Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has apparently won - Classification - Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3 - Conditions.
[ Bailii ]
 
Liberexim (Rec.2002,p.I-6227) (Judgment) C-371/99
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 2 WLR 267; [2002] EUECJ C-60/00; C-60/00; [2003] QB 416
11 Jul 2002
ECJ
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
European, Immigration, Human Rights
The applicant had come to England on a six month visitor's visa. She then married an English national, but her visa was not extended. Held: The husband had business interests and activities throughout the community. The deportation of the applicant would have the effect of removing her support for him and restrict his ability to trade within the EU. The right to trade could be relied upon by an individual as against the state where necessary. A member state could only derogate from the duty where the proposed action complied also with the convention. Here the proposed action would also infringe the right to family life. The deportation would be against EU law. 'Finally, the question of the risk of abuse should be considered, in particular the possible risk that the national rules of residence concerning the legal position of spouses of nationals who are nationals of non-member countries could be evaded by the spouse who is a national being tempted to "create" a Community connection. Thus it may be argued that the nationals of a member state might, for example, take up employment – even only for a short term – in another member state precisely in order thereby to "bring" themselves and the non-member country spouse within the scope of Community law. It might further be argued that the spouses who are nationals of non-member countries would thus be removed from the exclusive application of national law and would retain a legal position which might be more favourable than under national law, by thereby being given the possibility of residence based on Community law.'
EC Treaty Art 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mavromichalis v Commission T-263/01; [2002] EUECJ T-263/01
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Grabner (Rec.2002,p.I-6515) (Judgment) C-294/00
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hijos de Andres Molina v Commission T-152/99; [2002] EUECJ T-152/99
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Perez Escanilla v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-131,II-717) (Judgment) T-163/01
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Martinez Paramo and others v Commission T-137/99; [2002] EUECJ T-137/99
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sacilor Lormines v Commission T-107/01; [2004] EUECJ T-107/01; [2002] EUECJ T-107/01
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Liberexim C-371/99; [2002] EUECJ C-371/99; C-371/99
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hyper Srl v Commission T-205/99; [2002] EUECJ T-205/99; [2002] ECR II-3141
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European, Customs and Excise
Europa Customs duties - Importation of television sets from India - Invalid certificates of origin - Application for remission of import duties - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Rights of the defence - Special situation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mavromichalis v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-135,II-731) (Judgment) T-263/01
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Wasmeier v Commission T-381/00; [2002] EUECJ T-381/00
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
D'Hoop v Office National de l'Emploi [2003] All ER (EC) 527; [2002] EUECJ C-224/98; C-224/98; [2002] ECR I-6191
11 Jul 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Citizenship of the Union - Principle of non-discrimination - National legislation granting the right to tideover allowances to its nationals only on condition that they have completed their secondary education in an educational establishment in their own Member State - National seeking first employment having completed her secondary education in an educational establishment in another Member State.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wasmeier v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-125,II-677) (Judgment) T-381/00
11 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Montan Gesellschaft Voss and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3219) (Order) T-163/02
12 Jul 2002
ECFI

European


 
Montan Gesellschaft Voss and others v Commission T-163/02; [2002] EUECJ T-163/02
12 Jul 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-6565) (Order) C-136/01
18 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi v Commission C-136/01; C-136/01
18 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
J Astley and others v Celtec Ltd Times, 09 August 2002; Gazette, 26 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1035; [2002] ICR 1289; [2002] IRLR 629; [2002] Emp LR 1064; [2002] 3 CMLR 15,
19 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Jackson
Employment, European
Civil servants had been transferred to Training and Enterprise Councils in 1990, and resigned from the Civil Service in 1993. They appealed a decision that there had not been a transfer of an undertaking, and that they had continuity of employment. Held: The tribunal had focused on the date of transfer. Looking at the Directive rather than the Regulations, the skills of the claimants became available to the new organisation irrespective of the date of their resignation from the Civil Service, and the wording of the Directive was wide enough to allow application to a transfer which took place over an extended period of time. The appeal succeeded.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No 1794) - Acquired Rights Directive 77/187/EEC (OJ 1977 L61)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Union de Pequenos Agricultores v Council of the European Union (supported by Commission of the European Communities, intervener) Times, 16 August 2002; C-50/00; [2002] EUECJ C-50/00P; C-50/00
25 Jul 2002
ECJ
Iglesias, Jann, Macken, Colneric, von Bahr, Gulmann, Edward, La Pergola, Puissochet, Wathelet, Schintgen, Skouris and Rodrigues Advocate-General F. G. Jacobs
European, Agriculture
The claimant represented smaller agricultural units in Spain. They sought to challenge a European Directive. Although it did not affect them directly, they felt that their national law left no remedy. The regulation related to markets in olive oil. Held: A measure of general regulation did affect individuals. It was for member states to provide remedies, and to seek to reform such measures. It was not open to people not directly affected to challenge a European regulation of general application by way of pleading its invalidity.
EC Treaty 173(4)
[ Bailii ]
 
Union de Pequenos Agricultores v Council (Rec.2002,p.I-6677) (Judgment) C-50/00
25 Jul 2002
ECJ

European


 
Mouvement contre le racisme, l'antisemitisme et la xenophobie ASBL (MRAX) v Etat Belge [2002] EUECJ C-459/99; C-459/99
25 Jul 2002
ECJ

European, Immigration
Europa Third country nationals who are the spouse of a Member State national - Requirement for a visa - Right of entry for spouses not in possession of identity documents or a visa - Right of residence for spouses who have entered unlawfully - Right of residence for spouses who have entered lawfully but whose visa has expired when they apply for a residence permit - Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC and 73/148/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2317/95.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hoverspeed Limited, Alan Charles Andrews, Pauline Andrews, Lynne Andrews, George Wilkinson v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; QBD 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 05 August 2002; [2002] EWHC 1630 (Admin)

 
 Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and others; ChD 31-Jul-2002 - [2000] EWHC 1556 (Ch); [2002] ETMR 95

 
 Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Others; ChD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] 3 CMLR 11; [2002] ETMR 95; [2002] Eu LR 610; [2003] RPC 18; [2002] EWHC 1625 (Ch)
 
Lebedef v Commission T-191/02; [2002] EUECJ T-191/02; [2005] EUECJ T-191/02
31 Jul 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
VVG International and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3239) (Order) T-155/02
8 Aug 2002
ECFI

European


 
VVG International and others v Commission T-155/02; [2002] EUECJ T-155/02
8 Aug 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
N v Commission T-198/02; [2004] EUECJ T-198/02
14 Aug 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-6739) (Order) C-120/01
9 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Ireland C-120/01
9 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Ferring C-172/00; [2002] EUECJ C-172/00
10 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kugler C-141/00; [2002] EUECJ C-141/00
10 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bioelettrica v Commission T-287/01; [2002] EUECJ T-287/01
10 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Japan Tobacco and JT International v Council T-223/01; [2002] EUECJ T-223/01
10 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Willeme v Commission T-89/01; [2002] EUECJ T-89/01
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Alpharma v Council T-70/99
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Nevin v Commission T-127/00; [2002] EUECJ T-127/00
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pfizer Animal Health v Council T-13/99
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Pfizer Animal Health v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-3305) (Judgment) T-13/99
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Denmark (Rec.2002,p.I-6943) (Order) C-246/99
11 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Nevin v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-149,II-781) (Judgment) T-127/00
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Alpharma v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-3495) (Judgment) T-70/99
11 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Denmark C-246/99
11 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Greece C-312/01; [2002] EUECJ C-312/01
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain C-386/01; [2002] EUECJ C-386/01
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dupont Teijin Films Luxembourg and others v Commission T-113/00; [2002] EUECJ T-113/00
12 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France C-152/00; [2002] EUECJ C-152/00
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) v Council T-89/00; [2002] EUECJ T-89/00
12 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Niemi C-351/00; [2002] EUECJ C-351/00
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Mertens C-431/01
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Mertens (Rec.2002,p.I-7073) (Order) C-431/01
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-7063) (Judgment) C-386/01
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-3651) (Judgment) T-89/00
12 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-6973) (Judgment) C-152/00
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Greece (Rec.2002,p.I-7053) (Judgment) C-312/01
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Niemi (Rec.2002,p.I-7007) (Judgment) C-351/00
12 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Munoz and Superior Fruiticola (Rec.2002,p.I-7289) (Judgment) C-253/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchfuhrung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken C-392/00; [2002] EUECJ C-392/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Tacconi C-334/00; [2002] EUECJ C-334/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and Others C-320/00; [2002] EUECJ C-320/00; [2003] ICR 1092
17 Sep 2002
ECJ
Case C-320/00
European, Employment, Discrimination
The employees claimed sex discrimination, and sought to have as comparators, male employees of an employer who had previously employed some of them, before a TUPE transfer of the services supplied. The Court of Appeal referred to the court the question of whether they could rely upon Article 141(1) to base such a comparison. Held: There was nothing explicit in the wording to restrict the comparison. However, here there was no one body answerable for the inequality and the comparison was invalid.
There is, in this connection, nothing in the wording of article 141(1) EC to suggest that the applicability of that provision is limited to situations in which men and women work for the same employer. The court has held that the principle established by that article may be invoked before national courts in particular in cases of discrimination arising directly from legislative provisions or collective labour agreements, as well as in cases in which work is carried out in the same establishment or service, whether private or public: see, inter alia, Defrenne [1976] ICR 547, 568, para 40; Macarthys Ltd v Smith (Case 129/79 [1980] ICR 672, 690, para 10, and Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd (Case 96/80) [1981] ICR 592, 613-614, para 17.
However, where, as in the main proceedings here, the differences identified in the pay conditions of workers performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to a single source, there is no body which is responsible for the inequality and which could restore equal treatment. Such a situation does not come within the scope of article 141(1) EC. The work and the pay of those workers cannot therefore be compared on the basis of that provision.
In view of all the of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to a single source, does not come within the scope of article 141(1) EC."
EC Treaty 119 141(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Munoz and Superior Fruiticola C-253/00; [2002] EUECJ C-253/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Antonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior and Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited and Another Times, 20 November 2002; C/253/00; [2003] Ch 328
17 Sep 2002
ECJ
Advocate General Geelhoed
European, Intellectual Property, Agriculture
The claimant grew and sold grapes, and complained that the defendant who also traded in grapes was acting in breach of community legislation in failing to meet quality control standards. The national court had held that the claimant had no right itself directly to enforce the European Regulation. Held: The claimant did have a right itself to enforce the Regulation. As a regulation, it had direct effect, and the national court had a duty to make sure that its effect was ensured, and that in turn implied that it was open to a competitor to request a court to enforce the regulations by civil action.
Advocate General Geelhoed said: 'Infringements of Community law are to be penalised under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to comparable infringements of like seriousness of national law.'
Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 3(1) - EC Treaty 189
1 Citers


 
Concordia Bus Finland C-513/99; [2002] EUECJ C-513/99
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Town and County Factors Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners C-498/99; [2002] EUECJ C-498/99; [2002] STC 1263
17 Sep 2002
ECJ
Advocate General Stix-Hackl
European, VAT
The necessary link between a supply and any consideration for it need not derive from a relationship enforceable in legal proceedings before VAT is chargeable: "All that need be examined is whether the components of reciprocal performance are exchanged in the framework of agreements – even ones that are binding in honour only – from which it is apparent that there is a direct link between them."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lawrence and others (Rec.2002,p.I-7325) (Judgment) C-320/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Tacconi (Rec.2002,p.I-7357) (Judgment) C-334/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchfuhrung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken (Rec.2002,p.I-7397) (Judgment) C-392/00
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Concordia Bus Finland (Rec.2002,p.I-7213) (Judgment) C-513/99
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Town and County Factors (Rec.2002,p.I-7173) (Judgment) C-498/99
17 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Town and Country Factors Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 07 October 2002
17 Sep 2002
ECJ
N Colneric, President, Gulmann, Puissochet, Schintgen, Skouris
VAT, European
The company organised 'Spot the Ball' competitions. The company did not accept a legal obligation to pay out, being bound in honour only, but in fact always did so. They claimed that there was no supply of services. Held: The Directive required there to be a legal relationship before consideration was taxable (Tolsma). Here there was such a degree of reciprocal performance, that a service was being supplied within the Directive. To hold otherwise would compromise the effectiveness of the Directive. The taxable amount was the actual amount paid.
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 2
1 Cites


 
Puente Martin v Commission T-29/01; [2002] EUECJ T-29/01; T-29/01
18 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Puente Martin v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-157,II-833) (Judgment) T-29/01
18 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Tulliasiamies and Siilin (Rec.2002,p.I-7487) (Judgment) C-101/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Aventis (Rec.2002,p.I-7761) (Judgment) C-433/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Spain v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-7657) (Judgment) C-114/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Germany v Commission C-377/99; [2002] EUECJ C-377/99
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-7601) (Judgment) C-113/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Tulliasiamies and Siilin C-101/00; [2002] EUECJ C-101/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
DKV v OHMI C-104/00; [2002] EUECJ C-104/00P; [2002] EUECJ C-104/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission C-113/00; [2002] EUECJ C-113/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission C-114/00; [2002] EUECJ C-114/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
DKV v OHMI (Rec.2002,p.I-7561) (Judgment) C-104/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Huber (Rec.2002,p.I-7699) (Judgment) C-336/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-7835) (Judgment) C-221/01
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rrepublik Osterreich v Huber C-336/00; [2002] EUECJ C-336/00; [2002] ECR I-7699
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Agriculture - Part-financed aid - Repayment - Legal basis - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Procedural autonomy of Member States
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH, MTK Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH C-433/00; [2002] EUECJ C-433/00
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European
Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1) and of the rules of Community law on the free movement of medicinal products.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium C-221/01; [2002] EUECJ C-221/01
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Germany v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-7421) (Judgment) C-377/99
19 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Regina (Van Hoogstraten) v Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh Gazette, 31 October 2002; Times, 05 November 2002
23 Sep 2002
QBD
Jackson J
Prisons, Legal Professions, European, Human Rights
The prisoner was awaiting sentence. He had dismissed his legal team, and wanted to appoint Italian lawyers, and avvocato to advise him, in the expectation that the Italian lawyer would later engage English lawyers to present his case in court. He wanted his lawyer to see him in prison, and appealed the prison's refusal to allow access for the lawyer. Held: The rule required a 'legal adviser', and an avvocato was included within the 1978 order, which in turn implemented European Law. As a prisoner awaiting sentence, he was undergoing a trial process, and had his rights governed by the Convention, which meant that he must have adequate opportunity to prepare his mitigation and his defence. The Italian lawyer must be allowed entry to the prison.
Prison Rules 1999 2 - European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978 - European Convention on Human Rights

 
Girardot v Commission T-92/01; [2002] EUECJ T-92/01
24 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Falck v Commission (Ecsc) C-75/00; [2002] EUECJ C-75/00P
24 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Grundig Italiana SpA v Minstero delle Finanze C-255/00; [2002] EUECJ C-255/00; [2002] ECR I-8003
24 Sep 2002
ECJ

European, VAT
Europa Internal taxes contrary to Community law - Recovery of sums paid but not due - National legislation retroactively reducing time-limits for bringing proceedings - Compatibility with the principle of effectiveness.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Martinez Dominguez and others (Rec.2002,p.I-7835) (Judgment) C-471/99
24 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Perez-Diaz v Commission T-102/01; [2002] EUECJ T-102/01
24 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission C-74/00; [2002] EUECJ C-74/00P
24 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Martinez Dominguez and others C-471/99; [2002] EUECJ C-471/99
24 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-7869) (Judgment) C-74/00
24 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation of Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Times, 14 October 2002; T-316/00; [2002] EUECJ T-316/00
25 Sep 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property
The applicant sought a trade mark in the form of two colours in two rectangles, which it claimed supported its reputation in garden equipment. Held: In principle, a juxtaposition of colours could found a trade mark, but that in this case there was insufficient distinctiveness to justify the grant of a mark.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ajour and others v Commission T-201/00; [2002] EUECJ T-201/00; T-201/00
25 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ajour and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-167,II-885) (Judgment) T-201/00
25 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Viking-Umwelttechnik v OHMI ( Juxtaposition de vert and de gris) (Rec.2002,p.II-3715) (Judgment) T-316/00
25 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Borremans and others v Commission T-319/00; [2002] EUECJ T-319/00; T-319/00
26 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spain v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-8031) (Judgment) C-351/98
26 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Spain v Commission C-351/98; [2002] EUECJ C-351/98
26 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sgaravatti Mediterranea v Commission T-199/99; [2002] EUECJ T-199/99; T-199/99
26 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France C-351/01; [2002] EUECJ C-351/01
26 Sep 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Borremans and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-171,II-905) (Judgment) T-319/00
26 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-8101) (Judgment) C-351/01
26 Sep 2002
ECJ

European


 
Sgaravatti Mediterranea v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3731) (Judgment) T-199/99
26 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Marcuccio v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-181,II-941) (Order) T-236/02
27 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Di Pietro v Court of Auditors (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-177,II-929) (Order) T-254/01
27 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Tideland Signal v Commission T-211/02; [2002] EUECJ T-211/02
27 Sep 2002
ECFI

European
Europa Public procurement - Rejection of tender - Failure to exercise power to seek clarification of tender - Action for annulment - Expedited procedure.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tideland Signal v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3781) (Judgment) T-211/02
27 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Marcuccio v Commission T-236/02; [2002] EUECJ T-236/02; T-236/02; [2005] EUECJ T-236/02; [2011] EUECJ T-236/02
27 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Di Pietro v Court of Auditors T-254/01; [2002] EUECJ T-254/01; T-254/01
27 Sep 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Viana Franca v Commission [2002] EUECJ T-25/01; T-25/01
30 Sep 2002
ECFI

European
No copy of the judgment/order is available.
[ Bailii ]
 
Viana Franca v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-185,II-951) (Order) T-25/01
30 Sep 2002
ECFI

European


 
Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz Henkel C-167/00; [2002] EUECJ C-167/00; [2002] ECR I-8111
1 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Consumer
Europa Brussels Convention - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Preventive action by associations - Consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair terms in consumer contracts
VKI sought an injunction in Austria to prevent Herr Henkel relying upon a contract term alleged to be unfair under the Austrian transposition of Directive 93/13. Held: Though Herr Henkel was domiciled in Germany the action could proceed in Austria under the terms of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention. VKI was not a contracting party (it was a consumer protection group) and the action did not (Article 5(1)) relate to a contract. But the action did concern "matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict" and could therefore be pursued by VKI in Austria, "the place where the harmful event occurred". The Court explained the effect of its case law as: "the concept of matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of the defendant and are not matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that convention"
The phrase "tort, delict and quasi-delict" covered Herr Henkel's "non-contractual obligation to refrain in his dealings with consumers from certain behaviour deemed unacceptable by the legislature". The national law of Austria permitted VKI to seek an injunction against anyone who sought to rely on general contract terms and conditions which were "contrary to a statutory prohibition or are unconscionable".
A third party seeking to enforce a 'statutory prohibition' against a non-domicile is bringing an action in tort, delict or quasi-delict for the purposes of Article 5(3).
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
France v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-8245) (Judgment) C-394/01
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Platte v Commission T-6/02; [2002] EUECJ T-6/02
3 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Barreira Perez (Rec.2002,p.I-8191) (Judgment) C-347/00
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rolf Dieter Danner (Judgment) C-136/00; [2002] EUECJ C-136/00; C-136/00
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Financial Services
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Kuopion hallinto-oikeus - Finland. Voluntary pension insurance - Policy taken out with a company in another Member State - Non-deductibility of contributions - Compatibility with Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 49 EC), 60, 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC), and 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC).
[ Bailii ]
 
Barreira Perez (Judgment) C-347/00; [2002] EUECJ C-347/00; C-347/00
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Platte v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-189,II-973) (Judgment) T-6/02
3 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Danner (Rec.2002,p.I-8147) (Judgment) C-136/00
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) C-394/01; [2002] EUECJ C-394/01; C-394/01
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European
Europa State aid - Development assistance - Cruise vessel Le Levant operating in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon - Action for annulment of the Commission decision on State aid implemented by the French Republic.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-8231) (Judgment) C-47/01
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Judgment) C-47/01; [2002] EUECJ C-47/01; C-47/01
3 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Environment
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT).
[ Bailii ]
 
M6 v Commission T-185/00; T-185/00; [2002] EUECJ T-185/00
8 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL (Order) C-190/02
8 Oct 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Giudice di pace di Genova-Voltri - Italy. Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility.

 
Glaverbel v OHMI (Surface d'une plaque de verre) (Rec.2002,p.II-3887) (Judgment) T-36/01
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
KWS Saat v OHMI T-173/00; [2002] EUECJ T-173/00; T-173/00
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hans Fuchs v Commission T-134/01; [2002] EUECJ T-134/01; T-134/01
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
KWS Saat v OHMI (Nuance d'orange) (Rec.2002,p.II-3843) (Judgment) T-173/00
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Dart Industries v OHMI T-360/00; [2002] EUECJ T-360/00; T-360/00
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Glaverbel v OHMI T-36/01; [2002] EUECJ T-36/01; T-36/01
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dart Industries v OHMI (UltraPlus) T-360/00
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European
(Judgment)

 
Hans Fuchs v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3909) (Judgment) T-134/01
9 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-252/99; [2002] EUECJ C-252/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-254/99; [2002] EUECJ C-254/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-250/99; [2002] EUECJ C-250/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-8315) (Judgment) C-427/98
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-247/99; [2002] EUECJ C-247/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-245/99; [2002] EUECJ C-245/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-251/99; [2002] EUECJ C-251/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (Lvm) v Commission and Ors (Competition) C-244/99; [2002] EUECJ C-244/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-8375) (Judgment) C-238/99
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Ireland (Judgment) C-328/01; [2002] EUECJ C-328/01
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement Directive 1999/28/EC.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Judgment) C-327/01; [2002] EUECJ C-327/01
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Transport
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement Directive 98/20/EC.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-8827) (Judgment) C-328/01
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-8817) (Judgment) C-327/01
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Scanbox Entertainment v Commission T-233/00; [2002] EUECJ T-233/00
15 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Scanbox Entertainment v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3937) (Judgment) T-233/00
15 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (LVM) and others vCommission (Judgment) C-238/99; [2002] EUECJ C-238/99P
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Commercial, Limitation
Europa Appeal - Competition - Polyvinylchloride (PVC) - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Annulment of a Commission decision - New decision - Documents predating the first decision - Res judicata - Principle of non bis in idem - Limitation - Reasonable period - Statement of reasons - Access to the file - Fair hearing - Professional secrecy - Self-incrimination - Private life - Fines.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Judgment) C-427/98; [2002] EUECJ C-427/98
15 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, VAT
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Sixth Directive VAT.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gomez-Reino v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-199,II-1019) (Order) T-215/02
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Linde v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3961) (Judgment) T-98/00
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Cocchi and Hainz v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-193,II-987) (Judgment) T-330/00
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Linde v Commission T-98/00; [2002] EUECJ T-98/00; T-98/00
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Astipesca v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-3985) (Judgment) T-180/00
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Parras Medina (Rec.2002,p.I-8955) (Judgment) C-208/01
17 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Cocchi and Hainz v Commission T-330/00; [2002] EUECJ T-330/00; T-330/00
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Energie Steiermark Holding AG v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Steiermark; ECJ 17-Oct-2002 - C-339/99; [2002] EUECJ C-339/99
 
Gomez-Reino v Commission T-215/02; [2002] EUECJ T-215/02; T-215/02
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Astipesca v Commission T-180/00; [2002] EUECJ T-180/00; T-180/00
17 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Solida and Tech (Rec.2002,p.I-8905) (Judgment) C-138/00
17 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
DEVELOP (Rec.2002,p.I-8877) (Judgment) C-71/00
17 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
ESTAG (Rec.2002,p.I-8837) (Judgment) C-339/99
17 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Parras Medina v Consejeria de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (Judgment) C-208/01; [2002] EUECJ C-208/01
17 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha - Spain. Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Wine sector - Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 - Harvest, production and stock declarations - Failure of a holding to comply with the time-limits for making declarations - Death of the director of the holding - Force majeure.
[ Bailii ]
 
Payroll Data Services and others (Judgment) C-79/01; [2002] EUECJ C-79/01
17 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien Leasing GmbH and Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts- und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Wien, Niederosterreich und Burgenland; ECJ 17-Oct-2002 - C-138/00; [2002] EUECJ C-138/00

 
 Develop Baudurchfuhrungs- und Stadtentwicklungs GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Wien, Niederosterreich und Burgenland; ECJ 17-Oct-2002 - C-71/00; [2002] EUECJ C-71/00
 
Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Order) C-232/02
18 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau (Rec.2002,p.I-8977) (Order) C-232/02
18 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Schneider Electric v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4201) (Judgment) T-77/02
22 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Pflugradt v BCE T-341/00; [2002] EUECJ T-341/00
22 Oct 2002
ECJ

European
(Staff Regulations) Staff of the European Central Bank - Amendment of employment contract - Performance appraisal
[ Bailii ]
 
Schneider Electric v Commission T-77/02; [2002] EUECJ T-77/02
22 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Schneider Electric v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4071) (Judgment) T-310/01
22 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Pflugradt v BCE (Rec.2002,p.II-4035,IA-205,II-1039) (Judgment) T-178/00
22 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Roquette Freres (Rec.2002,p.I-9011) (Judgment) C-94/00
22 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
National Farmers' Union (Rec.2002,p.I-9079) (Judgment) C-241/01
22 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Roquette Freres SA v Directeur General de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Repression des Fraude (Third Party, Commission of the European Communities) Times, 24 October 2002; C-94/00; [2002] EUECJ C-94/00
22 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Commercial
The Commission suspected the applicant of anti-competitive practices, and sought permission and support in an enforced entry and seizure of the applicant's premises. The French court sought guidance as to the considerations involved. Held: The national court had a duty under European law to investigate the request to the extent of asking whether the proposed steps were arbitrary or disproportionate to the investigation proposed, but it could not investigate the justification of the measures sought beyond those issues.
[ Bailii ]
 
National Farmer's Union v Secretariat general du Gouvernment Times, 24 October 2002; [2002] EUECJ C-241/01; C-241/01
22 Oct 2002
ECJ
Iglesias, Puissochet, Wathelet, Schintgen, Gulmann, Edward, Skouris, Macken, Colneric, Rodrigues, Rosas JJ
European, Agriculture
The applicant sought to challenge the respondent's decision to refuse entry for British Beef to France, even though the lifting of the ban had been ordered by the Commission. Held: The respondent was not entitled to seek to rely in justification upon matters which had come to its attention after the ban had been lifted.
[ Bailii ]
 
Schneider Electric v Commission T-310/01; [2002] EUECJ T-310/01; T-310/01
22 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pflugradt v BCE T-178/00; [2002] EUECJ T-178/00; T-178/00
22 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Institut fur Lernsysteme v OHMI - Educational Services (ELS) (Rec.2002,p.II-4301) (Judgment) T-388/00
23 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Diputacion Foral De Alava v Commission (State Aid) T-347/99; [2002] EUECJ T-347/99
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Order) C-374/00
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Diputacion Foral De Alava v Commission (State Aid) T-348/99; [2002] EUECJ T-348/99
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral De Gipuzkoa v Commission (State Aid) T-271/99; [2002] EUECJ T-271/99
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Autriche v Commission (Order) C-296/02
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa v Commission T-269/99; T-269/99; [2002] EUECJ T-269/99
23 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Greece (Rec.2002,p.I-9133) (Order) C-374/00
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Diputacion Foral De Gipuzkoa v Commission (State Aid) T-272/99; [2002] EUECJ T-272/99
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Diputacion Foral de Alava v Commission T-346/99; T-346/99; [2002] EUECJ T-346/99
23 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Autriche v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-9159) (Order) C-296/02
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Oberhauser v OHMI T-104/01; [2002] EUECJ T-104/01; T-104/01
23 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Institut fur Lernsysteme v OHMI T-388/00; [2002] EUECJ T-388/00; T-388/00
23 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Matratzen Concord v OHMI T-6/01; [2002] EUECJ T-6/01
23 Oct 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property
ECJ Community trade mark - Opposition - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity between two trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word 'Matratzen' - Earlier word trade mark MATRATZEN. Case T-6/01.
"In this context, the Court of Justice has held that the assessment of the similarity between the two marks must be based on the overall impression created by them, in light, in particular, of their distinctive and dominant components . . Consequently, it must be held that a complex trade mark cannot be regarded as being similar to another trade mark which is identical or similar to one of the components of the complex mark, unless that component forms the dominant element within the overall impression created by the complex mark. That is the case where that component is likely to dominate, by itself, the image of that mark which the relevant public keeps in mind, with the result that all other components of the mark are negligible with the overall impression created by it . . Wiith regard to the assessment of the dominant character of one or more components of a complex trade mark, account must be taken, in particular, of the intrinsic qualities of each of those components by comparing them with those of the other components. In addition and accessorily, account may be taken of the relative position of the various marks within the arrangement of the complex mark."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Autriche v Council (Order) C-445/00; C-445/00; [2001] EUECJ C-445/00_Order
23 Oct 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Linhart and Biffl (Rec.2002,p.I-9375) (Judgment) C-99/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy (Rec.2002,p.I-9231) (Judgment) C-455/00
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-455/00; [2002] EUECJ C-455/00
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Health and Safety
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC - Protection of workers' eyes and eyesight - Special corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned - Incomplete transposition.
[ Bailii ]
 
Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur de l'Institut national de la propriete industrielle C-81/01; [2002] EUECJ C-81/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Agriculture
ECJ Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Wine - Description and presentation of wines - Quality wines produced in specific regions - Brand name printed on label - Restrictions - Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation No 2392/89
Regulation No 2392/89
[ Bailii ]
 
Linhart v Hans Biffl C-99/01; [2002] EUECJ C-99/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ
J-P. Puissochet, P
European, Media
ECJ Approximation of laws - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) - Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products - Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising - National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hahn (Rec.2002,p.I-9193) (Judgment) C-121/00
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Aeroports de Paris v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-9297) (Judgment) C-82/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Aeroports de Paris v Commission and Alpha Flight Services C-82/01; [2002] EUECJ C-82/01P
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Commercial
Europa Appeal - Competition - Air transport - Airport management - Abuse of dominant position - Discriminatory fees.
[ Bailii ]
 
Borie Manoux (Rec.2002,p.I-9259) (Judgment) C-81/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
RAS (Rec.2002,p.I-9411) (Order) C-233/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
RAS (Order) C-233/01
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European


 
Tetra Laval v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4381) (Judgment) T-5/02
25 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Tetra Laval v Commission T-80/02; [2002] EUECJ T-80/02
25 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Tetra Laval v Commission T-5/02; [2002] EUECJ T-5/02
25 Oct 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Tetra Laval v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4519) (Judgment) T-80/02
25 Oct 2002
ECFI

European


 
Manson v Ministry of Defence [2002] UKEAT 0289_02_3010
30 Oct 2002
EAT

Employment, Discrimination, European

Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bell Electric Ltd v Aweco Appliance Systems Gmbh and Co Kg [2002] EWCA Civ 1589
31 Oct 2002
CA

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Salzgitter v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4535) (Order) T-90/99
4 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Salzgitter v Commission T-90/99; [2002] EUECJ T-90/99
4 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ronsse v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-211,II-1065) (Judgment) T-205/01
5 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Ronsse v Commission T-205/01; [2002] EUECJ T-205/01; T-205/01
5 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Uberseering (Judgment) C-208/00; [2002] EUECJ C-208/00; C-208/00
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Klett (Rec.2002,p.I-10007) (Order) C-204/01
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Agrana Zucker und Starke v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-10027) (Order) C-321/01
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland, supported by the Kingdom of The Netherlands, Intervener Times, 08 November 2002; C-466/98; [2002] EUECJ C-466/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

Transport, European, Commercial
The defendant state had entered into agreements with the USA before entering the EU, which agreements regulated the rights of airplanes flying between the UK and America to land at British airports. The agreements were challenged by the Commission. Held: The EC Treaty provided that any such arrangement had to be abolished, insofar as it discriminated in favour of national airlines, and against those based in other member states. Such an arrangement could not be justified on public policy grounds.
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral agreement with the United States of America - Agreement authorising the United States of America to revoke, suspend or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the United Kingdom which are not owned by the latter or its nationals - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC).
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-9977) (Judgment) C-325/00
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Denmark (Judgment) C-467/98; [2002] EUECJ C-467/98; C-467/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Suede (Judgment) C-468/98; [2002] EUECJ C-468/98; C-468/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Finlande (Judgment) C-469/98; [2002] EUECJ C-469/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium (Judgment) C-471/98; [2002] EUECJ C-471/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Uberseering (Rec.2002,p.I-9919) (Judgment) C-208/00
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Autriche (Judgment) C-475/98; [2002] EUECJ C-475/98; C-475/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v United Kingdom (Rec.2002,p.I-9427) (Judgment) C-466/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-9681) (Judgment) C-471/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Germany (Judgment) C-476/98; [2002] EUECJ C-476/98; C-476/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Judgment) C-325/00; [2002] EUECJ C-325/00; C-325/00
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany (Rec.2002,p.I-9855) (Judgment) C-476/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Luxembourg (Judgment) C-472/98; [2002] EUECJ C-472/98; C-472/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg (Rec.2002,p.I-9741) (Judgment) C-472/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Denmark (Rec.2002,p.I-9519) (Judgment) C-467/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Klett (Order) C-204/01
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Finlande (Rec.2002,p.I-9627) (Judgment) C-469/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Agrana Zucker und Starke v Commission (Order) C-321/01
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Suede (Rec.2002,p.I-9575) (Judgment) C-468/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another Times, 14 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1584; [2003] ICR 161
5 Nov 2002
CA
Kennedy, Buxton, Keene LJJ
Discrimination, Police, Employment, European, Human Rights
The appellant had undergone a male to female sex change, but was refused employment by the respondent before the Human Rights Act came into effect. Held: Although the Human Rights Act could not apply, the act was in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive and discrimination. The 1999 regulations were incompatible with the provisions of the Directive. The respondent said that it was a requirement of the job that an officer be ready to search a person of the same sex, under the 1984 Act. Following Goodwin, it was no longer permissible to treat the applicant other than as a female. It is now necessary to apply the law as developed by the European convention jurisprudence. It was necessary to decide first what is "the appellant's legal gender". There had been gender reassignment surgery and the Court concluded that the appellant had become female.
Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) (OJ 1976 L39/40) - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Part II - Sex Discrimination (Gender Re-Assignment) Regulations 1999 (1999 No 1102) - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 54
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Autriche (Rec.2002,p.I-9797) (Judgment) C-475/98
5 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hirschfeldt v AEE (Rec.2002,p.I-10173) (Judgment) C-184/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Bourrasse and Perchicot (Rec.2002,p.I-10213) (Judgment) C-228/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Lohmann and medi Bayreuth (Rec.2002,p.I-10045) (Judgment) C-260/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Glencore Grain (Anciennement Richco Commodities) (External Relations) C-25/01; [2002] EUECJ C-25/01P
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
G v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-207; FP-II-1085) (Judgment) T-199/01
7 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v France (Judgment) C-348/01; [2002] EUECJ C-348/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Glencore and Compagnie Continentale v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-10119) (Judgment) C-24/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Vela and Tecnagrind v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4547) (Judgment) T-141/99
7 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Maaheimo (Rec.2002,p.I-10087) (Judgment) C-333/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Bourrasse (Transport) C-289/01; [2002] EUECJ C-289/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lohmann (Common Customs Tariff) C-261/00; [2002] EUECJ C-261/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lohmann (Common Customs Tariff) C-262/00; [2002] EUECJ C-262/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lohmann (Common Customs Tariff) C-263/00; [2002] EUECJ C-263/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Vela v Commission (Agriculture) T-142/99; [2002] EUECJ T-142/99
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Vela v Commission (Agriculture) T-150/99; [2002] EUECJ T-150/99
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Vela v Commission (Agriculture) T-151/99; [2002] EUECJ T-151/99
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-10263) (Judgment) C-352/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-10249) (Judgment) C-348/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
VELA v Commission T-141/99; [2002] EUECJ T-141/99; T-141/99
7 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lohmann (Judgment) C-260/00; [2002] EUECJ C-260/00; C-260/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Maaheimo (Judgment) C-333/00; [2002] EUECJ C-333/00; C-333/00
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Glencore v Commission C-24/01; [2002] EUECJ C-24/01P
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hirschfeldt v Agence europeenne de l'environnement (Judgment) C-184/01; [2002] EUECJ C-184/01P
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bourrasse (Judgment) C-228/01; [2002] EUECJ C-228/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Judgment) C-352/01; [2002] EUECJ C-352/01
7 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
G v Commission T-199/01; [2002] EUECJ T-199/01; T-199/01
7 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lopez Cejudo v Commission [2002] EUECJ T-271/01; T-271/01
12 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed C-206/01; [2003] RPC 144; [2002] EUECJ C-206/01; [2002] ECR I-10273; [2003] ETMR 19
12 Nov 2002
ECJ
Iglesias, Puissochet, Wathelet, Timmermans, Gulmann, Edward, Jann, Skouris, Macken, Colneric, von Bahr JJ
Intellectual Property, European
The trade mark owner sought orders against a street vendor who sold articles using their marks. He asserted that the marks were not attached to show any quality, but were used by the fans as badges of allegiance. Held: The function of a trade mark was to guarantee the identity or origin of the goods, and distinguish them from goods of other origins. The purpose of the Directive was to ensure that the owner was able to protect his specific interests. Whatever the trader did to proclaim that the goods he sold did not originate from the claimants, he could not, for example, prevent confusion on a resale. The purpose of the attachment of the mark was not for purely descriptive purposes. The use of the mark in this way also diluted the guarantee of origin offered by the owner when using it itself. The articles were infringing.
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC Dec 21 1988 Art 5(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rica Foods v Commission T-332/00; [2002] EUECJ T-332/00
14 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rica Foods v Commission T-94/00; [2002] EUECJ T-94/00
14 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Ilumitronica (Judgment) C-251/00; [2002] EUECJ C-251/00; C-251/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Geha Naftiliaki and others (Rec.2002,p.I-10615) (Judgment) C-435/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Baten (Judgment) C-271/00; [2002] EUECJ C-271/00; C-271/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rica Foods v Commission (Association Of The Overseas Countries And Territories) T-159/00; [2002] EUECJ T-159/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
SPKR 4 nr 3482 (Judgment) C-112/01; [2002] EUECJ C-112/01; C-112/01
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Judgment) C-316/00; [2002] EUECJ C-316/00; C-316/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Baten (Rec.2002,p.I-10489) (Judgment) C-271/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v United Kingdom (Rec.2002,p.I-10379) (Judgment) C-140/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rica Foods and Free Trade Foods v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4755) (Judgment) T-332/00
14 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Felix Swoboda (Judgment) C-411/00; [2002] EUECJ C-411/00; C-411/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Geha Naftiliaki and others (Judgment) C-435/00; [2002] EUECJ C-435/00; C-435/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Rica Foods v Commission (Association Of The Overseas Countries And Territories) T-110/00; [2002] EUECJ T-110/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-10527) (Judgment) C-316/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v United Kingdom (Rec.2002,p.I-10323) (Judgment) C-454/99
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Felix Swoboda (Rec.2002,p.I-10567) (Judgment) C-411/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Wren v Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Times, 04 December 2002
14 Nov 2002
QBD
Cooke J
Agriculture, Benefits, European
The applicant farmers sought payment under the set-aside regulations. They had harvested hay and grass in the year before relevant fields were set aside, but had been refused the relevant compensation. Held: The regulation defined 'set-aside' as 'the leaving fallow of an area which has been cultivated in the previous year with a view to harvest' The phrase was to be considered purposively, and as a whole. In that light, there was no significance in the different activities a farmer might undertake. There was no requirement for any specific operation to have been undertaken, only that the land had been brought under cultivation.
Council Regulation (EEC) 1765/92 of June 30 1992 (OJ 1992 L181/12) - Commission Regulation (EC) 762/94 of April 6 1994 2

 
Ilumitronica (Rec.2002,p.I-10433) (Judgment) C-251/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Rica Foods and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4677) (Judgment) T-94/00
14 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-140/00; [2002] EUECJ C-140/00
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European, Agriculture
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Fisheries - Conservation and management of fishery resources - Control measures for fishing activities.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) C-454/99; [2002] EUECJ C-454/99
14 Nov 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Fisheries - Conservation and management of fishery resources - Control measures for fishing activities.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kurz (ne Yuce) v Land Baden-Wurttemberg C-188/00; [2002] EUECJ C-188/00; [2002] ECR I-10691
19 Nov 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Scope - Registration as duly belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Turkish national pursuing gainful activity in the course of vocational training - Effects of an expulsion order.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Strawson and Gagg and Sons (Judgment) C-304/00; [2002] EUECJ C-304/00
19 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Strawson and Gagg and Sons (Rec.2002,p.I-10737) (Judgment) C-304/00
19 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-10779) (Judgment) C-319/01
19 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Judgment) C-319/01; [2002] EUECJ C-319/01
19 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Bosch v OHMI T-79/01; [2002] EUECJ T-79/01
20 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Spruyt v Commission T-171/00; T-171/00
20 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Kundan Industries and Tata International v Council T-88/98; [2002] EUECJ T-88/98
21 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Testa and Lazzeri (Judgment) C-356/00; [2002] EUECJ C-356/00; C-356/00
21 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kundan and Tata v Council (Rec.2002,p.II-4897) (Judgment) T-88/98
21 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Robelco v Robeco Groep NV C-23/01; [2002] EUECJ C-23/01; [2002] ECR I-10913
21 Nov 2002
ECJ

European, Intellectual Property
Europa Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(5) - Provisions on protection against use of a sign other than for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services - Extent of such protection - Signs similar to the mark.
Directive 89/104/EEC 5(5)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
X and Y v Riksskatteverket C-436/00; [2002] EUECJ C-436/00; [2004] STC 1271
21 Nov 2002
ECJ

European, Income Tax
Europa Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding
Swedish legislation provided that a transfer at an undervalue to a foreign company in which the transferor had an interest would be treated as a transfer at market value, and the same would apply in the case of a transfer to a Swedish company in which such foreign person had a holding. Held: Articles 43 and 48 EC precluded such a provision because it restricted the right of establishment of the foreign company in Sweden. It excluded the transferor at undervalue of shares from the benefit of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares where the transfer was to a foreign legal person in which the transferor directly or indirectly had a holding, provided that that holding gave him definite influence over the company's decisions and allowed him to determine its activities, or to a Swedish limited company which was a branch of such a foreign legal person.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cofidis SA v Jean-Louis Fredout [2002] ECR I-10875; C-473/00; [2002] EUECJ C-473/00
21 Nov 2002
ECJ
A. Tizzano
European, Consumer
ECJ Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Action brought by a seller or supplier - National provision prohibiting the national court from finding a term unfair, of its own motion or following a plea raised by the consumer, after the expiry of a limitation period.
The question of whether a domestic procedural provision does render it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to exercise an EU right, must be analysed by assessment of the procedural rules in its factual legal context
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Testa and Lazzeri (Rec.2002,p.I-10797) (Judgment) C-356/00
21 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Cwik v Commission T-103/01; [2002] EUECJ T-103/01; T-103/01
26 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Artegodan and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-4945) (Judgment) T-74/00
26 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
First and Franex (Judgment) C-275/00; [2002] EUECJ C-275/00; C-275/00
26 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Rec.2002,p.I-11019) (Judgment) C-202/01
26 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Oteiza Olazabal (Rec.2002,p.I-10981) (Judgment) C-100/01
26 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
First and Franex (Rec.2002,p.I-10943) (Judgment) C-275/00
26 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Oteiza Olazabal (Judgment) C-100/01; [2002] EUECJ C-100/01; C-100/01
26 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Judgment) C-202/01; [2002] EUECJ C-202/01; C-202/01
26 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft and others v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-5033) (Order) T-291/01
27 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft and others v Commission T-291/01; [2002] EUECJ T-291/01
27 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-11111) (Judgment) C-392/01
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Spain (Rec.2002,p.I-11121) (Judgment) C-414/01
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Scan Office Design v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-5043) (Judgment) T-40/01
28 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch (Judgment) C-417/00; [2002] EUECJ C-417/00; C-417/00
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v France (Judgment) C-259/01; [2002] EUECJ C-259/01; C-259/01
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Spain (Judgment) C-392/01; [2002] EUECJ C-392/01; C-392/01
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Scan Office Design v Commission T-40/01; [2002] EUECJ T-40/01; T-40/01
28 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pujals Gomis v Commission T-332/01; [2002] EUECJ T-332/01; T-332/01
28 Nov 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Pujals Gomis v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-233; FP-II-1155) (Judgment) T-332/01
28 Nov 2002
ECFI

European


 
Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch (Rec.2002,p.I-11053) (Judgment) C-417/00
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Spain (Judgment) C-414/01; [2002] EUECJ C-414/01; C-414/01
28 Nov 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Neue Erba Lautex v Commission T-181/02; [2002] EUECJ T-181/02; T-181/02
3 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Neue Erba Lautex v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-5081) (Order) T-181/02
3 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Commission v Belgium (Rec.2002,p.I-11197) (Judgment) C-324/01
5 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Overland Footwear (Rec.2002,p.I-11133) (Judgment) C-379/00
5 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Hoyer v Commission T-209/99; [2002] EUECJ T-209/99; T-209/99
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Hoyer v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-251; FP-II-1249) (Judgment) T-249/00
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Overland Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise C-379/00; [2002] EUECJ C-379/00
5 Dec 2002
ECJ

European, VAT
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: VAT and Duties Tribunal, London - United Kingdom. Customs Code - Customs value of imported goods - Price of goods and buying commission - Reimbursement of duty payable on full amount
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg (Judgment) C-174/01; [2002] EUECJ C-174/01
5 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Belgium (Judgment) C-324/01; [2002] EUECJ C-324/01
5 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
BioID v OHMI T-91/01; [2002] EUECJ T-91/01
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sykes Enterprises v OHMI T-130/01; [2002] EUECJ T-130/01
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Stevens v Commission T-277/01; [2002] EUECJ T-277/01
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sykes Enterprises v OHMI (REAL PEOPLE, REAL SOLUTIONS) (Rec.2002,p.II-5179) (Judgment) T-130/01
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum v Commission T-114/00; [2002] EUECJ T-114/00
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European
ECJ State aid - Scheme for the acquisition of agricultural and forestry land in the former German Democratic Republic - Failure to initiate the formal review procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC - System of aid - Action for annulment - Association - Admissibility.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hoyer v Commission T-119/99; [2002] EUECJ T-119/99; T-119/99
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Stevens v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-253; FP-II-1273) (Judgment) T-277/01
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Hoyer v Commission T-70/00; [2002] EUECJ T-70/00
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European
Dismissal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hoyer v Commission T-249/00; [2002] EUECJ T-249/00
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Luxembourg (Rec.2002,p.I-11171) (Judgment) C-174/01
5 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-5121) (Judgment) T-114/00
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Hoyer v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-247; FP-II-1231) (Judgment) T-70/00
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Hoyer v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-243; FP-II-1211) (Judgment) T-209/99
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Hoyer v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-239; FP-II-1185) (Judgment) T-119/99
5 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
D v EIB T-275/02; [2002] EUECJ T-275/02; T-275/02; [2005] EUECJ T-275/02
6 Dec 2002
ECFI

European
Application for interim measures. Order only.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland Times, 02 January 2003; Case C-362/01
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European, Legal Professions
The Commission sought a judgement that Ireland had failed to facilitate the practice of lawyers in jurisdictions within the community other than that in which the qualification was obtained. The court made clear that the provision in the treaty requiring the Commission to give a reasoned opinion before coming to the court was for three purposes. It would assist the member state in complying with the legal requirement at issue, to put the member state in a position to defend itself, and to define the issues to be presented to the court.
EC Treaty 226

 
Commission v Camar and Tico (Rec.2002,p.I-11355) (Judgment) C-312/00
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
der Weduwe (Rec.2002,p.I-11319) (Judgment) C-153/00
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Ireland (Rec.2002,p.I-11433) (Judgment) C-362/01
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Council (Rec.2002,p.I-11221) (Judgment) C-29/99
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Commission v Council (Judgment) C-29/99; [2002] EUECJ C-29/99
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Thomae v Commission (Rec.2002,p.II-5193) (Judgment) T-123/00
10 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Thomae v Commission T-123/00; [2002] EUECJ T-123/00; T-123/00
10 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Ireland (Judgment) C-362/01; [2002] EUECJ C-362/01; C-362/01
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
der Weduwe (Judgment) C-153/00; [2002] EUECJ C-153/00; C-153/00
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Camar and Tico (Judgment) C-312/00; [2002] EUECJ C-312/00P; C-312/00
10 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Council (Judgment) C-281/01; [2002] EUECJ C-281/01; C-281/01
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgium v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-11991) (Judgment) C-5/01
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Kabushiki Kaisha Fernandes v OHMI - Harrison (HIWATT) (Rec.2002,p.II-5233) (Judgment) T-39/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Procter and Gamble v OHMI (Forme d'un savon) (Rec.2002,p.II-5255) (Judgment) T-63/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
France v Commission (Judgment) C-456/00; [2002] EUECJ C-456/00; C-456/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Sieckmann (Rec.2002,p.I-11737) (Judgment) C-273/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
de Groot (Rec.2002,p.I-11819) (Judgment) C-385/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Cipriani (Rec.2002,p.I-11877) (Judgment) C-395/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
eCopy v OHMI (ECOPY) Times, 31 December 2002; T-247/01; [2002] EUECJ T-247/01; T-247/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property
The applicant sought to register a trade mark, and appealed a refusal of the OHIM on the basis that it had not established at the time the application was made that the mark had 'become distinctive in consequence of the use which had been made of it' Held: The applicant could not rely upon use made after the application had been filed but before a determination had been reached, and the OHIM could not have regard to use after the application was filed. Appeal dismissed.
[ Bailii ]
 
France v Commission (Rec.2002,p.I-11949) (Judgment) C-456/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Vedial v OHMI T-110/01; [2002] EUECJ T-110/01; T-110/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Council (Rec.2002,p.I-12049) (Judgment) C-281/01
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European


 
Morello v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-265; FP-II-1313) (Judgment) T-135/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Morello v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-275; FP-II-1349) (Judgment) T-136/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Morello v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-285; FP-II-1385) (Judgment) T-164/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Morello v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-293; FP-II-1421) (Judgment) T-181/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Morello v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-301; FP-II-1457) (Judgment) T-338/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Morello v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-311; FP-II-1479) (Judgment) T-378/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Angel Rodriguez Caballero v Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogasa) C-442/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European
Europa Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Scope - Claims - Pay - Salarios de tramitación - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision.

 
Morello v Commission T-135/00; [2002] EUECJ T-135/00; T-135/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt Times, 27 December 2002; C-324/00; [2002] EUECJ C-324/00; [2002] ECR I-11779; [2003] STC 607
12 Dec 2002
ECJ
Wathelet, President, Timmermans, Edward, Jann and Rosas JJ
European, Corporation Tax, Company
German law taxed interest paid on loan repayments made by a company against a loan from a shareholder, but only where the shareholder was not resident in the same country as the company. The tax authority took the view that the payments were a equivalent to a covert distribution of profits. Held: This was discriminatory, and offended the principal of freedom of establishment. It was wrong to compare the position of a company trading for profit with corporations exempt from corporation tax. Reduction in tax revenue is not an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying a measure contravening a fundamental principle.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
eCopy v OHMI (ECOPY) (Rec.2002,p.II-5301) (Judgment) T-247/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt C-273/00; Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EUECJ C-273/00; [2003] RPC 38
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European, Intellectual Property
(Judgment)A graphic representation within article 2 had to enable the sign to be represented visually, and the representation clear and precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective to be registered as a trade mark.
"the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product or service to the consumer or end-user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish that product or service from others which have another origin and that, for the trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the EC Treaty seeks to establish, it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have been manufactured or supplied under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
de Groot (Judgment) [2002] EUECJ C-385/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Cipriani (Judgment) C-395/00; [2002] EUECJ C-395/00; C-395/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed Times, 17 December 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2695 (Ch)
12 Dec 2002
ChD
The Hon Mr Justice Laddie
European, Intellectual Property
The Club had claimed trade mark infringement against the defendant who sold Arsenal memorabilia, but claimed that the use was not a trade mark use. The case was referred to the European Court of Justice who decided in favour of the club, who then came back to the High Court in the instant case to enforce that decision with an injunction. Held: The European Court appeared to have exceeded its jurisdiction, by finding a fact contrary to that found by the referring court, namely that some consumers would be confused as to the origin of the goods. Accordingly, the claimant was not entitled to its injunction to support that finding.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Belgium v Commission (Judgment) C-5/01; [2002] EUECJ C-5/01; C-5/01
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European

[ Bailii ]

 
 Universale-Bau and others v Entsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH; ECJ 12-Dec-2002 - C-470/99; [2002] EUECJ C-470/99; [2002] ECR I-11617
 
Morello v Commission T-136/00; [2002] EUECJ T-136/00; T-136/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Morello v Commission T-181/00; [2002] EUECJ T-181/00; T-181/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Morello v Commission T-338/00; [2002] EUECJ T-338/00; T-338/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Morello v Commission T-378/00; [2002] EUECJ T-378/00; T-378/00
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Kabushiki Kaisha Fernandes v OHMI T-39/01; [2002] EUECJ T-39/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Procter and Gamble v OHMI T-63/01; [2002] EUECJ T-63/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European, Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Vedial v OHMI - France Distribution (HUBERT) (Rec.2002,p.II-5275) (Judgment) T-110/01
12 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Caballero v Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogasa) C-442/00; [2002] EUECJ C-442/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

European
ECJ Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Scope - 'Claims' - 'Pay' - 'Salarios de tramitacion' - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision.
Directive 80/987/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Van Dyck v Commission (Rec.2002,p.FP-IA-317; FP-II-1527) (Order) T-112/02
13 Dec 2002
ECFI

European


 
Van Dyck v Commission T-112/02; [2002] EUECJ T-112/02
13 Dec 2002
ECFI

European
Officials.
[ Bailii ]
 
Verdoodt and Rademakers- Verdoodt v Commission T-81/01; [2002] EUECJ T-81/01
13 Dec 2002
ECFI

European

[ Bailii ]
 
Michael v Commission T-234/02; [2004] EUECJ T-234/02
13 Dec 2002
ECFI

European
Officials
[ Bailii ]
 
In re Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation Times, 17 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2825 (QB)
20 Dec 2002
QBD
Nelson J
Personal Injury, Transport, European, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The claimants claimed to have suffered deep vein thrombosis having been sat in cramped conditions for long periods whilst travelling by air. They sought compensation, saying that the failure by the airlines to warn them and take steps to minimise the dangers was culpable. Under the Convention they had to establish that the injuries constituted accidents. Held: The injuries were not accidents. The test was set out in Morris, namely 'a simple criterion of causation by an accident'. An accident is 'an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger' (Saks). There was nothing in the respective flights which satisfied these tests. Article 17 was not fault based, nor was any theory of risk allocation to be applied, and the Convention was the exclusive remedy. Neither Human Rights law nor European regulations provided alternative remedies.
Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air 1929 17 - Carriage by Air Act 1961 - EC Regulation 2027/97/EC on air carrier liability in the event of accidents - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc, Elitegroup Computer Systems (UK) Ltd Via Technologies Inc , Via Technologies (Europe) Ltd, Realtime Distribution Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1905; [2002] All ER (D) 346; [2003] FSR 33
20 Dec 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Tuckey
Intellectual Property, European, Commercial
Infringement of patents. Held: With regard in particular to competition law claims (or defences), where the area of law is in the course of development the court should be cautious "to assume that it is beyond argument with real prospect of success that the existing case law will not be extended or modified" so as to encompass the basis of argument advanced.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.