ECJ Judgment – Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Definition of inadequate or polluted waters may be – inadequate designation of vulnerable zones – Programmes of Action – incomplete measures
Mme K. Jurimae (Rapporteur), P
C-356/13, [2014] EUECJ C-356/13
Bailii
Directive 91/676/EEC
European, Environment
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538953
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 – European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims – Article 3(1)(b) – Conditions for certification – Judgment in default – Concept of ‘uncontested claim’- Procedural conduct of a party capable of constituting an ‘absence of contestation of the claim’
ECLI:EU:C:2016:448, [2016] WLR(D) 309, [2016] EUECJ C-511/14, [2016] 4 WLR 138
WLRD, Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 805/2004
European
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.565627
The parties disputed whether the court had jurisdiction. The defendant insurer argued that parallel issues had been referred to arbitration in France.
Held: the claim was outside the range of the arbitration agreement, and a stay, which would have been the appropriate remedy was not granted.
Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
[2009] EWCA Civ 175
Bailii, Times
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the Brussels I Convention
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Youell and others v La Reunion Aerienne and others ComC 22-Oct-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Jurisdiction, European
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.317958
Wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon by an individual against the state where that state fails to implement the directive in national law by the end of the period prescribed or where it fails to implement the directive correctly.
However, according to article 189 of the EEC Treaty the binding nature of a directive, which constitutes the basis for the possibility of relying on the directive before a national court, exists only in relation to ‘each member state to which it is addressed.’
It follows that a directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and that a provision of a directive may not be relied upon as such against such a person before a national court.
In applying national law and in particular the provisions of a national law specifically introduced in order to implement the directive, national courts are required to interpret their national law in the light of the wording and the purposes of the directive in order to achieve the result referred to in the third paragraph of article 189 of the treaty.
However, that obligation is limited by the general principles of law which form part of community law and in particular the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity. Therefore a directive cannot, of itself and independently of a national law adoped by a member state for its implementation, have the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal law of persons who act in contravention of the provisions of that directive.
Due P
[1989] 1 CEC 118, [1989] 2 CMLR 18, C-80/86, R-80/86, [1987] EUECJ R-80/86, [1987] ECR 3969
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – It’s A Wrap (UK) Ltd v Gula and Another CA 11-May-2006
The company was said to have paid dividends unlawfully, in that the directors who were the shareholders had paid themselves dividends knowing that the company had not earned enough to pay them.
Held: Where shareholders had knowledge of the . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 17-Oct-2012
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.215526
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – European Union trade mark – Unitary character – Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union – Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation
ECLI:EU:C:2016:719, [2016] EUECJ C-223/15, [2016] WLR(D) 495
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European
European, Intellectual Property
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.569497
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 7 – National rules governing insolvency proceedings – Debts arising from a consumer credit agreement – Effective judicial remedy – Point 1(e) of the annex – Disproportionate amount of compensation – Directive 2008/48/EC – Article 3(l) – Total amount of credit – Point I of Annex I – Amount of drawdown – Calculation of the annual percentage rate – Article 10(2) – Obligation to provide information – Ex officio examination – Penalty
M Ilesic P
C-377/14, [2016] EUECJ C-377/14, [2016] WLR(D) 203, ECLI:EU:C:2016:283, [2016] Bus LR 886
Bailii, WLRD
Directive 93/13/EEC 7, Directive 2008/48/EC
England and Wales
European, Insolvency
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.562824
Corporation tax – joint referral – FA 1998, Sch 18, para 31A – group relief – consortium – surrendering company indirectly partly owned by Luxembourg company – condition that ‘link company’ must be UK resident or carry on a trade in the UK through a permanent establishment – s 402(3), (3A) and (3B) ICTA 1988 – whether requirement an infringement of EU law that can be relied upon by claimant companies – questions referred to CJEU – whether that requirement cannot be applied against claimant companies by virtue of the non-discrimination article of the UK-Luxembourg double tax convention – whether group relief precluded by s 410 ICTA
Roger Berner, Sir Stephen Oliver QC TJJ
[2011] UKFTT 838 (TC), 14 ITL Rep 394, [2012] STI 285, [2012] SFTD 366
Bailii
Finance Act 1998, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 402(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Reference – Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 24-Oct-2013
ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Consortium claim for group relief (consortium relief) – National legislation . .
Reference – Felixstowe Dock And Railway Company Ltd v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue And Customs ECJ 1-Apr-2014
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom of establishment – Corporation tax – Tax relief – Groups of companies and consortia – National legislation permitting losses to be transferred between a company belonging to a consortium and a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Corporation Tax, European
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.450901
ECJ Community trade mark – Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark – Genuine use – Place of use
A ‘genuine use’ of a mark, namely ‘to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in order to create or preserve an outlet for those goods or services’ means ‘real commercial exploitation of the mark in the course of trade, particularly the usages regarded as warranted in the economic sector concerned as a means of maintaining or creating market share for the goods or services protected by the mark’
Sharpston AG
C-149/11, [2012] EUECJ C-149/11, [2013] ETMR 16, [2013] BUS LR 928, [2012] WLR(D) 388, ECLI:EU:C:2012:816
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation No 207/2009
Cited by:
Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Intellectual Property
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.463841
ECJ 1. Article 18 of the convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of article 17 of that convention.
2. Article 18 of the Convention of 27 september 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdiction which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court’s jurisdiction but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
3. Since the aim of article 17 of the Convention is to lay down the formal requirements which agreements conferring jurisdiction must meet, contracting states are not free to lay down formal requirements other than those contained in the Convention. When those rules are applied to provisions concerning the language to be used in an agreement conferring jurisdiction they imply that the legislation of a contracting state may not allow the validity of such an agreement to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation.
[1982] 3 CMLR 1, R-150/80, [1981] EUECJ R-150/80, [1981] ECR 1671
Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Winkler and Another v Shamoon and Others ChD 15-Feb-2016
The claimants sought a declaration as against the residuary beneficiaries (wife and daughter) under the will, saying that the claimants had a beneficial interest in company shares within the estate. The defendants fild acknowledgments of service but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Jurisdiction
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.214991
ECJ Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 66(a) to (c) – Transport and shipping services – Chargeability – Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied – Invoice issued earlier
M. Berger, P
C-169/12, [2013] EUECJ C-169/12
Bailii
Updated: 30 October 2021; Ref: scu.509302
ECJ Member of the European Parliament – Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities – Scope of the concept of’opinion expressed in the exercise of parliamentary duties’ – Criminal proceedings for the crime of false accusation – Immunity material – a behavior MEP outside the precincts of Parliament – link organic.
While Article 8 is intended to apply to statements made by MEPs within the very precincts of the European Parliament, it is not impossible that a statement made by an MEP outside the precincts may amount to an opinion expressed in the performance of their duties within Art 8 because this depends on the character and content of the opinion rather than the place where it was made. However there must be a ‘direct and obvious connection between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties and a statement made outside the precincts of the Parliament: ‘does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties . .’
[2012] 1 CMLR 11, C-163/10, [2011] EUECJ C-163/10
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Barron and Others v Collins QBD 16-May-2016
The defendant MEP sought an order staying the defamation action brought against her by four MPs from the Rotherham area. She said that as an MEP she had a procedural immunity. She had informed the European Commission that she sought the protection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.440760
(Order)
T-253/03
European
Citing:
See Also – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission (Order) ECFI 30-Oct-2003
Europa Interim measures – Competition – Commission’s powers of investigation – Protection of confidentiality – Communications between lawyers and clients – Limits. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission ECFI 17-Sep-2007
Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Documents seized in the course of an investigation – Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients – Admissibility. . .
See Also – Commission v Akzo and Akcros ECJ 27-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission and Others (Competition) ECJ 29-Apr-2010
ECJ (Opinion) Appeal Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s powers of investigation – Documents copied in the course of an investigation and later placed on the file – Protection of confidentiality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.198758
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Road transport – Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 – Driver’s liability for infringements of the obligation to use a tachograph
ECLI:EU:C:2016:420, [2016] EUECJ C-287/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006
European
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.565606
Application by the claimant for an order that the stay of proceedings be lifted and that a reference be made to the European Court of Justice
Newman J
[2006] EWHC 1759 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.243329
The claimant had sought repayment of overpaid VAT, and the respondent resisted arguing that this would be an unjust enrichment. A reference to the European Court was sought.
Held: It was not possible to say that the House’s opinion was acte claire, and a reference was made.
Nichoolls of Birkenhead, Steyn, Hoffmann, Walker of Guestingthorpe LL
[2005] UKHL 53, [2005] STC 1254
Bailii, House of Lords
Value Added Tax Act 1994 80
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – BP Supergas Anonimos Etairia Geniki Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprossopeion v Greece ECJ 6-Jul-1995
Europa Under the procedure for a preliminary ruling provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for . .
Cited – Ideal tourisme SA v Belgian State ECJ 13-Jul-2000
Europa In the present state of harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the common system of value added tax, the Community principle of equal treatment does not preclude legislation of a Member . .
Cited – Argos Distributors v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 24-Oct-1996
VAT was payable on the value of a discount voucher only, and not on the full price of the goods. ‘According to the court’s settled case law, the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received . .
Cited – Just I/S v Danish Ministry For Fiscal Affairs ECJ 27-Feb-1980
ECJ Whilst the treaty does not exclude, in principle, a difference in the taxation of various alcoholic products, such a distinction may not be used for the purposes of tax discrimination or in such a manner as . .
Appeal from – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No 5); Commissioners of Customs and Excise v University of Sussex CA 21-Oct-2003
The company sought to reclaim overpaid VAT.
Held: If the UK government had failed properly to implement the directive, then a person affected had the right to claim the benefit of direct enforceability. However, the directive itself was . .
Cited – Weber’s Wine World Handels-GmbH and Others v Abgabenberufungskommission Wien ECJ 2-Oct-2003
Europa Indirect taxation – Duty on sales of alcoholic beverages – Incompatibility with Community law – Recovery of duty. . .
Cited – Becker v Finanzamt Muenster-Innenstadt ECJ 19-Jan-1982
ECJ It would be incompatible with the binding effect which article 189 of the EEC treaty ascribes to directives to exclude in principle the possibility of the obligation imposed by it being relied upon by persons . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Kampelmann and others v Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe and others ECJ 4-Dec-1997
LMA The case concerned Directive 91/533 on employers’ obligations to inform employees of the conditions applicable to their contract or employment relationship. An ’emanation of state’ was understood to be . .
Cited – Cotter and others v Minister for Social Welfare ECJ 13-Mar-1991
Europa Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC, on the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security, must be interpreted as meaning that if, after the expiry of the period . .
Cited – Italy v Council ECJ 14-Mar-2002
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 . .
Cited – Commission v France C-481/98 ECJ 3-May-2001
Europa By introducing and maintaining in force legislation on Value Added Tax under which medicinal products reimbursable under the social security system are taxed at the reduced rate of 2.1% whereas other . .
Cited – Goldsmiths (Jewellers) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 3-Jul-1997
ECJ The derogation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 11C(1) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not authorize a Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of VAT in the case of total or . .
Cited by:
Decision to refer to ECJ – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
Decision to refer – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 12-Jul-2006
Question referred to ECJ. Five questions were referred. . .
Decision to refer – Marks and Spencer v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 13-Dec-2007
ECJ Value added tax – Derogation under Article 28 of Directive 77/388 – Principle of neutrality Principle of equal treatment Right to obtain a refund of the tax in the event of incorrect interpretation of . .
Decision to refer – Marks and Spencer v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 10-Apr-2008
(Third Chamber of the Court of Justice) Taxation Sixth VAT Directive Exemption with refund of tax paid at the preceding stage Erroneous taxation at the standard rate Right to zero rate Entitlement to refund Direct effect General principles of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.229069
Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a door handle – Earlier design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the prescribed period – Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002
T-306/16, [2017] EUECJ T-306/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:466
Bailii
European
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.590495
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – Article 18 – Taking back an asylum seeker whose application is being examined – Article 19 – Cessation of responsibility – Absence from the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months – New procedure for determining the Member State responsible – Article 27 – Remedy – Extent of judicial review
C-155/15, [2016] EUECJ C-155/15
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013
European
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.565143
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2008/115/EC – Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – Police custody – National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry – Situation of ‘transit’ – Multilateral readmission arrangement
C-47/15, [2016] EUECJ C-47/15
Bailii
Directive 2008/115/EC
European
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.565134
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 – Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national – Article 12 – Issue of residence documents or visas – Article 27 – Remedies – Extent of judicial scrutiny
C-63/15, [2016] EUECJ C-63/15
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013
European
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.565141
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court) Request for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Transfer of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Directive 2001/23/EC – Transfer of employment relationships in the event of a legal transfer of part of a business that cannot be identified as a pre-existing autonomous economic entity
M. Safjan, P
C-458/12, [2014] EUECJ C-458/12, received at the Court on 11 October 2012, in the proceedings
Lorenzo Amatori and Others
v
Bailii
Directive 2001/23/EC
European
Updated: 26 September 2021; Ref: scu.522267
The claimants manufactured a dental bleaching product. It contained hydrogen peroxide at levels in excess of the limit. It sought to distribute it under licence as a medical product on prescription. The defendant sought to control its distribution under the cosmetics directive. It was held that the two regimes were distinct, and the medicines directive was specifically disapplied to cosmetics. The central purpose of the product was to improve the appearance of teeth, and that fell squarely within the cosmetics directive, and the product had been properly regulated.
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Times 02-Jul-2001, [2001] UKHL 32, (2001) 61 BMLR 10, [2001] 3 CMLR 1
Bailii, House of Lords
Council Directive 93/42/EEC the Medical Devices Directive
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.84471
ECJ The function of the Court, as envisaged by the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is that of a court whose judgments are binding on the national court. That function would be altered if the replies given by the Court to the courts of the Contracting States were permitted to be purely advisory and without binding effect.
However, that would be the case if the Court were to declare that it had jurisdiction to provide interpretation of the Convention requested of it by a national court before which proceedings are pending and to which not the Convention but national legislation is applicable, where that legislation takes the Convention as a model, by reproducing certain of its provisions but without incorporating them as such into the domestic legal order, and expressly providing for the possibility of adopting modifications in order to produce divergence in relation to Convention provisions as interpreted by the Courts, and where that legislation merely requires national courts in applying the Convention provisions to have regard to the Court’s interpretation of the corresponding provisions of the Convention without giving binding effect to that interpretation.
For that reason the Court does not have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a question arising in such a context.
Times 17-Apr-1995, C-346/93, [1995] EUECJ C-346/93, [1995] ECR I-615
Bailii
European
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.161171
A collateral contract was entered into with a company which had not then been incorporated under which an advance by Phonogram to support an intended new pop group was repayable by the company if a recording contract was not entered into within one month. The collateral contract was signed ‘for and on behalf of’ the company by Mr. Lane. Both parties knew, at the time of the collateral contract, that the company had not yet been incorporated.
Held: Lane’s appeal failed. The Court expressly rejected the argument that section 9(2) should be construed solely by reference to the Directive.
Lord Denning MR said:
‘Section 9(2) is in accordance with the spirit and intent of the directive. We should go by our own statute and not by the directive . .’ #and ‘This is the first time the section has come before us. It will have much impact on the common law. I am afraid that before 1972 the common law had adopted some fine distinctions. As I understand Kelner v. Baxter (1866) L.R. 2 C.P. 174 it decided that, if a person contracted on behalf of a company which was nonexistent, he himself would be liable on the contract. Just as, if a man signs a contract for and on behalf ‘of his horses,’ he is personally liable. But, since that case was decided, a number of distinctions have been introduced by Hollman v. Pullin (1884) Cab. and Ell. 254; Newborne v. Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd. [1954] 1 Q.B. 45 and Black v. Smallwood (1965) 117 C.L.R. 52 in the High Court of Australia. Those three cases seem to suggest that there is a distinction to be drawn according to the way in which an agent signs a contract. If he signs it as ‘agent for ‘X’ company’ – or ‘for and on behalf of ‘X’ company’ – and there is no such body as ‘X’ company, then he himself can be sued upon it. On the other hand, if he signs it as ‘X’ company per pro himself the managing director, then the position may be different: because he is not contracting personally as an agent. It is the company which is contracting.
That distinction was disliked by Windeyer J. in Black v. Smallwood. It has been criticised by Professor Treitel in The Law of Contract, 5th ed. (1979), p.559. In my opinion, the distinction has been obliterated by section 9(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. We now have the clear words, ‘Where a contract purports to be made by a company, or by a person as agent for a company, at a time when the company has not been formed…’ That applies whatever formula is adopted. The person who purports to contract for the company is personally liable.’
Oliver LJ said:
‘any such subtle distinctions which might have been raised are rendered now irrelevant by section 9(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in a case where a contract is either with a company or with the agent of a company. It has been suggested that an agreement to the contrary may still be inferred by the fact that the contract was signed by a person acting as agent so as to exclude the section. That I am bound to say seems to me to be wholly unarguable when the section itself in terms provides ‘Where a contract purports to be made … by a person as agent for a company,’ and to interpret it in the way suggested would defeat the whole purpose of the section.’
Oliver LJ, Lord Denning MR, Shaw LJ
[1982] 1 QB 938, [1982] QB 938
European Communities Act 1972 9(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd 1954
A written contract purported to sell goods by a company described as Leopold Newborne (London) Ltd. The document was subscribed by the name of the company with Mr Leopold Newborne’s signature under it. At that time it had not yet been incorporated. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Braymist Limited and Others v Wise Finance Company Limited CA 20-Feb-2002
The claimant company set out to sell land whilst it was still only 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 had not known of the . .
Cited – Royal Mail Estates Limited v Maple Teesdale Borzou Chaharsough Shirazi ChD 2-Jul-2015
A contract had been made but one of the parties was not yet incorporated. The court was asked whether it was deemed to have been made with the signatory.
Held: For section 36C(1), a ‘contrary agreement’ would be established if the parties, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.619035
C-131/97
European
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.162091
ECJ (Judgment) Recovery of sums paid but not due – Procedural time-limits under national law
Orse EDIS v Ministero delle Finanze
[1998] ECR I-4951
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.161906
The limitation period for the recovery of overpaid VAT was alleged to offend the principle of equivalence.
Held: Moses J said: ‘In my judgment no comparison can be made with other types of tax such as income tax payable in respect of an individual’s profits or the tax on a document imposed by stamp duty. Other forms of indirect taxation, such as excise duty, are wholly different types of tax.
It seems to me that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, exemplified in EDILIZIA, requires a comparison between the approach of a member state to the recovery of tax charged in breach of Community rules and the recovery of the same tax in breach of domestic rules. Any wider enquiry would invite unnecessary argument as to whether there is a true comparison.’
Moses J
[1998] EWHC 1143 (Admin), [1999] STC 205, [1999] Eu LR 450, [1999] 1 CMLR 1152, [1999] BTC 5073, [1999] BVC 107
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise CA 14-Dec-1999
The taxpayer discovered that it had over several years made overpayments of VAT on chocolate covered biscuits because of a mistake as to the tax mutual with the defendants.
Held: MandS’s challenge to section 80(4) (as infringing EU law) . .
First instance – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.280499
The case involved a comparison between different limitation periods applicable to claims to recover overpaid VAT, and claims to deduct input tax from VAT otherwise due, for the purposes of the equal treatment principle. The Fourth Chamber of the CJEU concluded that, even within the confines of the VAT regime, the two claims were not truly comparable.
C-38/16, [2017] EUECJ C-38/16, [2017] STC 1358, ECLI:EU:C:2017:454, [2017] 4 WLR 168, [2017] BVC 30, [2017] STI 1393, [2017] WLR(D) 396
Bailii, WLRD
European
Cited by:
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.588260
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true comparator among domestic claims sufficient to engage the principle of equivalence in relation to the imposition of a pay-first requirement upon traders seeking to appeal assessments to VAT.
Lady Hale, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 44, [2018] STI 1496, [2018] WLR(D) 531, [2018] STC 1642, [2018] 1 WLR 4053, [2018] BVC 38, UKSC 2017/0023
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Apr 25 am Video, SC 2018 Apr 25 pm Video, SC 2018 Apr 26 am Video
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 20-Dec-2016
Claim that the UK’s VAT prepayments rule infringes European law. . .
Cited – Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica v Ministero delle Finanze ECJ 15-Sep-1998
ECJ (Judgment) Recovery of sums paid but not due – Procedural time-limits under national law
Orse EDIS v Ministero delle Finanze . .
Cited – Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd ECJ 1-Dec-1998
Regulations debarred a claim after a certain time even where the delay had been because of a deliberate concealment of information by an employer.
Held: Availability of other means of redress was not sufficient to displace this rule.
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Admn 21-Dec-1998
The limitation period for the recovery of overpaid VAT was alleged to offend the principle of equivalence.
Held: Moses J said: ‘In my judgment no comparison can be made with other types of tax such as income tax payable in respect of an . .
Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
Cited – Compass Contract Services (Taxation – Value Added Tax Taxation : Judgment) ECJ 14-Jun-2017
The case involved a comparison between different limitation periods applicable to claims to recover overpaid VAT, and claims to deduct input tax from VAT otherwise due, for the purposes of the equal treatment principle. The Fourth Chamber of the . .
Cited – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
(Grand Chamber) Second and Sixth VAT Directives – Input tax – Refund of excess – Payment of interest – Procedures
The court considered whether on repayment to a taxpayer of wrongly imposed VAT, the interest returned with the repayment should be . .
Cited – Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken v Ministero delle Finanze ECJ 8-Jun-2006
It was alleged that a provision limiting the identity of those who could claim a VAT repayment offended against the principle of equivalence because there was no comparable restriction in relation to the recovery of overpaid direct tax.
Held: . .
Cited – Transportes Urbanos Y Servicios Generales (Principles Of Community Law) ECJ 26-Jan-2010
(Grand chamber) Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Principle of equivalence – Action for damages against the State – Breach of European Union law – Breach of the Constitution . .
Cited – Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux SA (Social Policy) ECJ 31-Mar-2009
ECJ Social policy – Protection of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding Directive 92/85/EEC Articles 10 and 12 Prohibition of dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Changtel Solutions UK Ltd CA 28-Jan-2015
The Court was asked whether, when there is both (i) an appeal against a VAT assessment pending in the tax tribunal, and (ii) a winding-up petition pending in the Companies court, the tax tribunal or the Companies court is the appropriate forum to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.620140
ECJ (Opinion of Geelhoed AG) Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC and Articles 4(1) and 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States – Tax exemption granted in a Member State to a company established in its territory which received dividends paid by companies also established in its territory – Exemption not granted for dividends paid to that company by companies established in the territory of another Member State
‘ . . where a member state has a system for preventing or mitigating the imposition of a series of charges to tax or economic double taxation as regards dividends paid to residents by resident companies, it must treat dividends paid to residents by non-resident companies in the same way.
[The Treaty provisions] do not preclude legislation of a member state which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, when that state imposes corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which the resident company holds at least 10% of the voting rights, while at the same time granting a tax credit in the latter case for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the member state in which it is resident, provided that the rate of tax applied to foreign-sourced dividends is no higher than the rate of tax applied to nationally-sourced dividends and that the tax credit is at least equal to the amount paid in the member state of the company making the distribution, up to the limit of the amount of the tax charged in the member state of the company receiving the distribution.
Article [63FEU] precludes legislation of a member state which exempts from corporation tax dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company, where that state levies corporation tax on dividends which a resident company receives from a non-resident company in which it holds less than 10% of the voting rights, without granting the company receiving the dividends a tax credit for the tax actually paid by the company making the distribution in the state in which the latter is resident.
[The Treaty provisions] preclude legislation of a member state which allows a resident company receiving dividends from another resident company to deduct from the amount which the former company is liable to pay by way of advance corporation tax the amount of that tax paid by the latter company, whereas no such deduction is permitted in the case of a resident company receiving dividends from a non-resident company as regards the corresponding tax on distributed profits paid by the latter company in the state in which it is resident.’
C-446/04, [2006] EUECJ C-446/04, [2007] STC 326, [2006] ECR I-11753, [2008] BTC 222, [2006] STI 2750, [2012] 2 AC 436, [2012] 2 WLR 1240, [2006] ECR I-11753, 9 ITL Rep 426, ECLI:EU:C:2006:774, [2007] 1 CMLR 35
Bailii
Council Directive 90/435/EEC 6
European
Cited by:
At ECJ – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
At ECJ – Test Claimants In the FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Nov-2008
The claimants were companies with parent companies in the UK and other subsidiaries not so resident, both in the EU and outside. They complained of the differences in treatment under corporation tax of the payment of dividends between the . .
See Also – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners For Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
ECJ Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU – Payment of dividends – Corporation tax – Case C-446/04 – Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation – Interpretation of the judgment – Prevention of economic double taxation – . .
See Also – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ECJ 5-Sep-2013
ECJ Opinion – Recovery of national taxes which are contrary to European Union law – Limitation period for instituting proceedings – National legislation curtailing the limitation period with retroactive effect . .
See Also – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ECJ 12-Dec-2013
ECJ Judicial protection – Principle of effectiveness – Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Restitution of sums paid but not due – Remedies – National legislation – . .
See Also – The Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 18-Dec-2014
The company claimants had paid large sums in excess tax under a mistake of European law. . .
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.374511
ECJ Structural funds – Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 – Geographical eligibility – Implementation of an investment co-financed by the European Union from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place
M. Ilesic (Rapporteur), P
C-579/11, [2012] EUECJ C-579/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006
European
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.468775
ECJ (Opinion) Appeal – Specific restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities regarding the situation in Cote d’Ivoire – Fund freezing – Access to the territory of the European Union – No individual notification of such measures – Recourse to justice – Time-limit – Article 111 and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Article 47 CFREU
Cruz Villalon A-G
C-478/11, [2012] EUECJ C-478/11
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Laurent Gbagbo v Council ECJ 23-Apr-2013
ECJ Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities – Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Force majeure – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.468777
Clearance of accounts – EAGGF – Non-recognition of expenditure – 1992-1993 financial years
C-44/97, [1999] EUECJ C-44/97
Bailii
European
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.162041
T-95/16, [2017] EUECJ T-95/16
Bailii
European
Updated: 03 August 2021; Ref: scu.588249
ECJ (Judgment) Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing decorative graphic symbols – Drawing earlier design – Ground for invalidity – drawing Disclosure prior design – Absence of novelty – Articles 5, 7 and Article 25, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
ECLI:EU:T:2016:410, [2016] EUECJ T-420/15
Bailii
European
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.566909
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice departing from the legislative provisions – ‘Due diligence’ defence
C-259/10, [2011] EUECJ C-259/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:719, [2011] ECR I-10947, [2012] CEC 884, [2011] STI 3045, [2011] BVC 389, [2012] STC 23
Bailii
European
Citing:
At VDT (1) – The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs VDT 27-May-2008
VDT EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Gaming – Mechanised cash bingo under Gaming Act 1968 s.14 excluded from exemption – Similar supplies under s.21 exempt – Whether principle of fiscal neutrality infringed – Same company . .
At VDT (2) – Rank Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 19-Aug-2008
VDT COMMUNITY LAW – Fiscal neutrality – Exemption – Gaming – Provision of gaming machines excluded from exemption – Similar supplies under Part III of Gaming Act 1968 exempt – Whether principle of fiscal . .
At ChD – Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group ChD 8-Jun-2009
The court was asked whether the VAT treatment of mechanised cash bingo breaches the principle of fiscal neutrality: and the core issue on the appeal is whether the burden lay on Rank to adduce evidence to prove not only that there was a difference . .
At FTTTx – The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 11-Dec-2009
FTTTx Community Law – Fiscal neutrality – Exemption – Exclusion of provision of ‘gaming machines’ from exemption – Whether taxed machines similar to exempt machines – Relevance of regulatory regime – TNT [2009] . .
See Also – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Rank Group plc C-260/10 ECJ 10-Nov-2011
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice . .
Cited by:
At ECJ (2) – HMRC v The Rank Group Plc UTTC 4-Oct-2012
Taxation – whether gaming or betting and the different VAT Treatment of newer gaming machines. . .
At ECJ (2) – HM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc CA 30-Oct-2013
The tax payer had sought repayment of sums of VAT charged to a particular form of gaming, saying that the rules infringed the principles of fiscal neutrality under European law. HMRC now appealed against a finding that the machines were exempt from . .
At ECJ (2) – Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc SC 8-Jul-2015
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.448353
ECJ (Judgment) State aid – Postal sector – Financing of additional costs on labor and social part of the staff of Deutsche Post through grants and revenue from the compensation rate regulated services – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market – Concept of advantage – Off ‘COMBUS – Demonstration of the existence of a selective advantage and economic – Absence
ECLI:EU:T:2016:406, [2016] EUECJ T-143/12
Bailii
European
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.566897
ECJ (Judgment) Public service contracts – Tendering procedure for tenders – Provision of technical assistance to the Chinese authorities for the purposes of the project’ Sustainable Urbanization – Relationship between eco-cities in Europe and China (EC-LINK) ‘- negotiated procedure – Article 266, paragraph 1, of the delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 – Transparency – Equal treatment – non-contractual liability
ECLI:EU:T:2016:413, [2016] EUECJ T-99/14
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012
European
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.566893
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 22(4) – Jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes – Article 71 – Conventions concluded by the Member States on particular matters – Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property – Jurisdiction in disputes concerning Benelux trade marks and designs – Article 350 TFEU
ECLI:EU:C:2016:560, [2016] EUECJ C-230/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
European
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.566896
ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Public service – Officials – Survivor’s pension – Articles 18 and 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Right of the divorced spouse of a deceased official – Maintenance borne by the deceased official
ECLI: EU: T: 2016 392, [2016] EUECJ T-560/15
Bailii
European
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.566588
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Notion of ‘intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right’ – Tenant of market halls subletting sales points – Possibility of an injunction against that tenant – Article 11
C-494/15, [2016] EUECJ C-494/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:528
Bailii
Directive 2004/48/EC
European
Cited by:
Cited – Cartier International Ag and Others v British Telecommunications Plc and Another SC 13-Jun-2018
The respondent ISP companies had been injuncted to stop the transmission of websites which infringed the trade mark rights of the claimants. The ISPs now appealed from the element of the order that they pay the claimants’ costs of implementing the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.566732
ECJ (Judgment of The Court of First Instance) Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to an OLAF investigation concerning the implementation of a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria – Access refused – Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits
T-447/11, [2014] EUECJ T-447/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
European
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.525829
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court Of First Instance) Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark NUEVA – Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed – Ambiguity in a language version – Uniform interpretation – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Excusable error – Obligations of care and diligence
[2014] EUECJ T-61/13
Bailii
European
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.525839
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court Of First Instance) Appeal – Civil Service – Temporary staff – Fixed-term contract – Decision not to renew – Rejection of the complaint – Obligation to state reasons – Pattern presented in the decision rejecting the complaint
T-347/12, [2014] EUECJ T-347/12
Bailii
European
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.525840
Appeal – Action for annulment – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Right to bring an action – Locus standi – Act of individual concern to natural or legal persons by reason of ‘certain attributes which are peculiar to them’ – Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 – Measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Limitation of the effects of Community plant variety rights – Breeders’ exemption
C-408/15, [2016] EUECJ C-408/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:893
Bailii
European
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.571862
(Order) Public service – Officials – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes – Decision recognition rate subsidy annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
[2016] EUECJ F-133/14 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:187
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569018
(Order) Public service – Officials – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes – Decision recognition rate subsidy annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
F-28/15, [2016] EUECJ F-28/15 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:190
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569020
ECJ (Order) Public service – Contract staff – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes – Decision recognition bonus annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
[2016] EUECJ F-117/14 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:193
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569012
(Order) Public service – Officials – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes – Decision recognition rate subsidy annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
F-39/13, [2016] EUECJ F-39/13 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:189
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569019
(Order) Public service – Officials – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes – Decision recognition rate subsidy annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
[2016] EUECJ F-121/13 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:188
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569017
ECJ (Order) Public service – Officials – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under national pension schemes – Decision recognition bonus annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
F-112/12, [2016] EUECJ F-112/12 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:191
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569011
(Order) Public service – Officials – Pensions – Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII thereto – Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes – Decision recognition rate subsidy annuities applying the new CEO on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII thereto – Article 81 of the Rules of procedure – Action manifestly unfounded
F-23/13, [2016] EUECJ F-23/13 – CO, ECLI:EU:F:2016:192
Bailii
European
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.569010
The company challenged as unfair its treatment by the respondent in imposing fines for anti-competive behaviour. The claimant was successor of the company who had misbehaved, but the claimant no longer operated in the area and had no employees from that era. It said that the respondent had resiled on a leniency agreement as to its treatment. The respondent had investigated systems of co-ordinated cover pricing in quotations for public works, and found that the volume of material was too large to process properly. It made a fast track offer intended to result in a reduced penalty.
Held: The OFT had acted unfairly in not acknowledging the difference in the position of the claimant Seeking ‘blind admissions to what are said to be infringements of the law is in breach of the principle of fairness.’ ‘Undertaking’ in competition law is an economic concept which is not equivalent to a traditional corporate entity. An undertaking may include a group of companies so long as that group of companies acts as a single economic unit.
‘the OFT must comply with the principle of equal treatment in all steps leading up to the imposition of a penalty’
Cranston J
[2009] EWHC 1875 (Admin)
Bailii
Competition Act 1998 (Office of Fair Trading’s Rules) Order 2004, Competition Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Competition) ECFI 12-Dec-2007
ECJ Competition Cartels in the vitamin products sector Choline chloride (Vitamin B4) Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area Attributability . .
Cited – Itochu v Commission (Competition) ECFI 30-Apr-2009
ECJ Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for video games consoles and games cartridges compatible with Nintendo games consoles – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – . .
Cited – Office of Communications and Another v Floe Telecom Ltd CA 15-Jun-2006
The Competition Appeal Tribunal had remitted a matter to the Office of Fair Trading and had set a time limit for the Commisioner to complete his investigation. The Office appealed.
Held: It was not within the CAT’s power, under either the . .
Cited – Automec SRL v Commission ECFI 18-Sep-1992
Europa Among the civil-law consequences which an infringement of the prohibition laid down in Article 85(1) of the Treaty may have, only one is expressly provided for in Article 85(2), namely the nullity of the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gallaher Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Competition and Markets Authority SC 16-May-2018
Extent and consequences of duties of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘fairness’, said to have been owed by the Office of Fair Trading to those subject to investigation under the Competition Act 1998. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.361461
A decision of the Commission imposing penalties against several business concerns was challenged successfully by some of those penalised. Others who had not made the challenge applied to have the decision annulled for themselves also. The court said that the benefit of the setting aside of the decision was taken only by those who had challenged it. The scope of the annulment could not extend beyond that applied for.
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, P
Times 19-Oct-1999, [1999] All ER (EC) 737, [1999] EUECJ C-310/97P, [1999] ECR I-5363
Bailii
European
Citing:
See Also – AssiDoman Kraft Products and others v Commission ECFI 10-Jul-1997
ECJ Competition – Consequences of partial annulment by the Court of Justice of a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty – Effects of the judgment on persons to whom the decision was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
Cited – Gallaher Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Competition and Markets Authority SC 16-May-2018
Extent and consequences of duties of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘fairness’, said to have been owed by the Office of Fair Trading to those subject to investigation under the Competition Act 1998. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.79406
ECJ (Judgment (Extracts)) Common agricultural policy – Direct payments – Additional criteria for ecological focus area with short rotation coppice – Article 45(8) of the Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 – Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 – Misuse of power – Legal certainty – Non-discrimination – Legitimate expectations – Right to property – Obligation to state reasons
T-662/14, [2016] EUECJ T-662/14
Bailii
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 46(9)(a)
European
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.564913
ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – trade mark of three-dimensional EU – Shape of a bar with four circles – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation ( EC) No 207/2009 – Rights of the defense – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Obligation to state reasons’
T-240/15, [2016] EUECJ T-240/15
Bailii
European
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.564912
ECJ (Judgment) European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for European Union word mark MAGNEXT – Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
T-292/12, [2016] EUECJ T-292/12
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.564914
ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark bonus and more – Earlier international figurative mark bonus net – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
T-33/13, [2015] EUECJ T-33/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:77
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
European
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.542297
ECJ (Advocate Generals Opinion) Preliminary reference – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Gambling – Restrictions – Conditions of participation in the tender and evaluation of the economic and financial capacity – tenderer Exclusion for failure to submit financial and economic capacity certificates issued by two banks – overriding reasons in the general interest – Proportionality – Applicability of Article 47 of Directive 2004/18 / EC
Mr Wahl Nils AG
[2016] EUECJ C-225/15 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Politano C-225/15 ECJ 8-Sep-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Betting and gambling – Restrictions – Overriding reasons of public interest – Proportionality – Public procurement . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.569039
C-611/15, [2016] EUECJ C-611/15 – CO
Bailii
European
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.566460
ECJ VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 44 and 47 – Place where taxable transactions are deemed to be carried out – Place of supply for tax purposes – Concept of ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ – Complex cross-border service relating to the storage of goods
[2013] EUECJ C-155/12, [2013] BVC 342, [2013] STI 2473, [2014] STC 131, ECLI:EU:C:2013:434
Bailii
European
Citing:
Opinion – Minister Finansow v Rr Donnelley Global Turnkey Solutions Poland Sp. ZOO ECJ 31-Jan-2013
ECJ Tax legislation – Value added tax – Article 47 of Directive 2006/112/EC – Place where a service is supplied – Service connected with immovable property – Storage of goods . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.564505
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Agriculture – Sugar – Production levies – Right to reimbursement – Sugar held in stock and not exported – Undue enrichment – Freedom to conduct a business – Method of calculation
C-96/15, [2016] EUECJ C-96/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:450
Bailii
European
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.565633
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(a) – Article 6(2) – Age discrimination – Determination of pension rights of former civil servants – Periods of apprenticeship and of work – Failure to take into account such periods completed before the age of 18
ECLI:EU:C:2016:451, C-159/15, [2016] EUECJ C-159/15
Bailii
Directive 2000/78/EC
European
Updated: 14 July 2021; Ref: scu.565616
AIT The presumptions in s.72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that in the circumstances specified a person has been convicted by a final judgment of a ‘particularly serious crime’ for the purposes of Art 33(2) of the Refugee Convention if read as irrebuttable are inconsistent with Art 21.2 of the EU Qualification Directive (Council Directive 2004/83/EC) which gives effect to the autonomous international meaning of Art 33(2) as part of EU law. As a consequence, the presumptions in s.72 must be read as being rebuttable.
[2009] UKAIT 00012
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 72, Council Directive 2004/83/EC
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.323717
ECJ Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Sodium gluconate – Article 81 EC – Fine – Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Leniency Notice – Principle of proportionality – Equal treatment – Ne bis in idem principle
T-322/01, [2006] EUECJ T-322/01, [2006] EUECJ T-322/01
Bailii, Bailii
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.245152
complaint that the imposition of tax legislation is, in the circumstances, an improper restriction on the flow of capital for the purposes of EU legislation, ought to be struck out because it had already been the subject of a decision, adverse to the appellants, in a previous Court of Appeal decision given in judicial review proceedings
References: [2015] UKUT 596 (TCC), [2015] BTC 534, [2016] STI 73, [2016] STC 760
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558958
References: C-208/17, [2018] EUECJ C-208/17P_CO
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: European
Last Update: 04-Oct-18
Ref: 622578
References: C-155/99, [2000] EUECJ C-155/99
Links: Bailii
Ratio: (Judgment)
Jurisdiction: European
Last Update: 20 September 2018
Ref: 162648
References: C-338/17, [2018] EUECJ C-338/17
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: European
Last Update: 17-Sep-18
Ref: 621569
References: C-249/15, [2018] EUECJ C-249/15
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: European
Last Update: 04-Mar-18
Ref: 604708
References: T-75/14, [2017] EUECJ T-75/14
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: European
Last Update: 14-Jan-18
Ref: 601062
References: T-207/15, [2016] EUECJ T-207/15
Links: Bailii
Ratio:
Last Update: 26-Sep-16
Ref: 569372
References: T-20/92, [1993] EUECJ T-20/92
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ECJ 1. The implied rejection of an application for promotion made in completely general terms cannot be categorized as an act adversely affecting the person concerned in the absence of direct and immediate effects on his legal situation.
2. An official has no legitimate interest in contesting the appointment of another official to a post to which he could make no valid claim in accordance with the rules applicable in the institution concerned for filling posts of the type in question.
3. An official who failed to bring an action within the time-limit laid down by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the annulment of an act allegedly adversely affecting him cannot repair that omission and procure himself further time for bringing proceedings by means of a claim for compensation for the injury caused by that act.
4. Under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, an action for damages in which compensation is sought for injury caused, not by a measure adversely affecting the applicant the annulment of which is sought, but by various wrongful acts and omissions allegedly committed by the administration, has to be preceded by a two-stage administrative procedure or it will be found inadmissible. It is imperative that that procedure should begin with the presentation of a request asking the appointing authority to make good the alleged injury and continue, if necessary, with the lodging of a complaint against the decision rejecting the request.
Last Update: 22-Jul-16
Ref: 172550
References: T 0154/04
Ratio:Inherent in the concept of ‘an invention’ in the EPC was ‘any subject matter or activity having technical character’ and that a contribution could be patentable ‘even if it was related to the items listed in [art. 52(2)] since these items were only excluded ‘as such’ – art. 52(3)’. In order to be patentable, a contribution must be ‘technical’, or at least must have ‘technical features’ or ‘features which contribute to the technical character of the invention’.
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13-Jul-16
Ref: 276935
References: [2016] EUECJ C-154/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:445
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 81 EC – Markets for calcium carbide powder, calcium carbide granulates and magnesium granulates in a substantial part of the European Economic Area – Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of information – Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 – Articles 12 and 14 – Right to be heard – In camera hearing
Last Update: 02-Jul-16
Ref: 565634
References: C-233/14, [2016] EUECJ C-233/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:396
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 18 TFEU, 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU – Citizenship of the Union – Right to move and reside freely – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Financial support for travel costs awarded to national students – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 24(2) – Derogation from the principle of equal treatment – Maintenance aid for studies consisting in student grants or student loans – Scope – Formal requirements of the application initiating proceedings – Coherent statement of the pleas in law
Statutes: TFEU 18 20 21, Directive 2004/38/EC 24(2)
Last Update: 08-Jun-16
Ref: 565137
References: T-298/15, [2016] EUECJ T-298/15
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 13-May-16
Ref: 563391
References: T-384/14, [2016] EUECJ T-384/14
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 13-May-16
Ref: 563401
References: [2016] EUECJ T-643/14
Links: Bailii
ECJ Ratio (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – trade mark of verbal EU Abtronic – Brand of the prior oral EU TRONIC – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of the Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – minimum inherent distinctive character of the earlier mark – Likelihood of confusion
Last Update: 13-May-16
Ref: 563407
References: C-120/08, [2010] EUECJ C-120/08
Links: Bailii
ECJ Ratio Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 510/2006 – Temporal application – Article 14 – Registration in accordance with the simplified procedure – Relations between trade marks and protected geographical indications
This case cites:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10-May-16
Ref: 562614
References: [1996] ECR I -5063, C-283/94, [1996] EUECJ C-283/94
Links: Bailii
LMA Ratio The case concerned an incorrect implementation by Germany of a Directive on the taxation of parent companies and subsidiaries in different States, which allegedly caused loss to the plaintiff’s company.
Held: (does decision turn on discretion on implementation) Germany’s breach did not amount to a sufficiently serious breach. Almost all of the other MS had adopted the same interpretation.
Last Update: 10-May-16
Ref: 161447
References: T-320/15, [2016] EUECJ T-320/15_CO
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 08-May-16
Ref: 563095
References: C-479/15, [2016] EUECJ C-479/15_CO
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 08-May-16
Ref: 563099
References: T-144/15, [2016] EUECJ T-144/15
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 07-May-16
Ref: 563098
References: T-777/14, [2016] EUECJ T-777/14
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 07-May-16
Ref: 563089
References: T-221/08, [2016] EUECJ T-221/08
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 07-May-16
Ref: 563105
References: ECLI:EU:T:2014:186, [2014] EUECJ C, [2014] EUECJ C
Links: Bailii, Bailii
ECJ Ratio State aid – Financial sector – Aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State – Article 107(3)(b) TFEU – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market – Conditions for approval of the aid – Acquisition ban – Whether consistent with the Commission communications concerning aid to the financial sector in the financial crisis – Proportionality – Equal treatment – Principle of good administration – Obligation to state reasons – Right to property)
Last Update: 24-Apr-16
Ref: 525421
References: C-58/04, [2005] EUECJ C-58/04
Links: Bailii
ECJ Ratio Sixth VAT Directive – Place of taxable transactions – Supplies of goods effected on board cruise ships – Transport effected within the Community – Exclusion of tax where a stop is made in a third territory – Scope of the exclusion.
Last Update: 30-Mar-16
Ref: 230047
References: C-12/14, [2016] EUECJ C-12/14
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 17-Mar-16 Ref: 560953
References: C-179/15, [2016] EUECJ C-179/15
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 17-Mar-16 Ref: 560957
References: [2016] EUECJ C-431/14, C-431/14
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 17-Mar-16 Ref: 560959
References: C-144/15, [2016] EUECJ C-144/15
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 17-Mar-16 Ref: 560956
References: C-440/14, [2016] EUECJ C-440/14
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 13-Mar-16 Ref: 560501
References: T-402/14, [2016] EUECJ T-402/14
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 12-Mar-16 Ref: 560482
References: T-270/12, [2016] EUECJ T-270/12
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 12-Mar-16 Ref: 560488
References: T-61/14, [2015] EUECJ T-61/14
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative Community trade mark icexpresso + energy coffee – Earlier Community word marks X-PRESSO MONSTER, HAMMER M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY and MIDNIGHT M X-PRESSO MONSTER ESPRESSO + ENERGY – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Last Update: 12-Feb-16 Ref: 553100
References: T-28/11, [2015] EUECJ T-28/11, ECLI:EU:T:2015:995
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European airfreight market – Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) – Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport – Obligation to state reasons
Last Update: 31-Dec-15 Ref: 557014
References: T-629/14, [2015] EUECJ T-629/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:878
Links: Bailii
ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Shape of a car – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Last Update: 02-Dec-15 Ref: 556043
References: T-85/13, [2014] EUECJ T-85/13
Links: Bailii
Last Update: 22-Nov-15 Ref: 526684