Tag: European

Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Luebeck-Ost: ECJ 22 Oct 1987

Europa Lack of jurisdiction of national courts to declare acts of Community institutions invalid – Validity of a decision on the post-clearance recovery of import duties. Case 314/85.

Citations:

R-314/85, [1987] EUECJ R-314/85, [1987] ECR 4199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215528

The Queen, Ex Parte E. D. and F. Man (Sugar) Ltd v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce: ECJ 24 Sep 1985

ECJ 1. In order to establish whether a provision of community law is in conformity with the principle of proportionality it is necessary to ascertain whether the means which it employs are appropriate and necessary to attain the objective sought. Where community legislation makes a distinction between a primary obligation, compliance with which is necessary in order to attain the objective sought, and a secondary obligation, essentially of an administrative nature, it cannot, without breaching the principle of proportionality, penalize failure to comply with the secondary obligation as severely as failure to comply with the primary obligation.
2. Although, within the context of the standing invitation to tender organized by regulation no 1880/83, in order to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar, the obligation imposed on successful tenderers to apply within a short period for an export licence in accordance with article 12(b) of that regulation performs a useful administrative function from the commission’s point of view, it cannot be accepted that that obligation is as important as the obligation to export, which remains the essential aim of the community legislation in question.
Article 6(3) of regulation no. 1880/83 is invalid inasmuch as it prescribes forfeiture of the entire security as the penalty for failure to comply with the time-limit imposed for the submission of applications for export licences. That penalty, imposed in respect of an infringement significantly less serious than the failure to fulfil the primary obligation, which the security itself is intended to guarantee, is too drastic in relation to the export licence’s function of ensuring the sound management of the market in question.

Citations:

R-181/84, [1985] EUECJ R-181/84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215362

Hans Moser v Land Baden-Wuerttemberg: ECJ 28 Jun 1984

ECJ Free movement of workers – Concept of worker. 1. As regards the division of jurisdiction between national courts and the court of justice under article 177 of the treaty, it is for the national court, which is alone in having direct knowledge of the facts of the case and of the arguments put forward by the parties and which must assume the responsibility of giving judgment in the case, to assess, with full knowledge of the matter before it, the relevance of the questions of law raised by the dispute before it and the need for a preliminary ruling so as to enable it to give judgment.
2. Article 48 of the eec treaty does not apply to situations which are wholly internal to a member state, such as that of a national of a member state who has never resided or worked in another member state. Such a person may not rely on article 48 to prevent the application to him of legislation of his own country, denying him access to a particular kind of vocational training.

Citations:

R-180/83, [1984] EUECJ R-180/83

Links:

Bailii

European, Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215240

Eberhard Haug-Adrion v Frankfurter Versicherungs-Ag.: ECJ 13 Dec 1984

ECJ 1. Although it is essential that national courts explain the reasons why they consider that a reply to their questions is necessary for their decision in the main proceedings, and define the legal context of the request for interpretation, where questions are couched in imprecise terms it is for the court to extract from all the information provided by the national court and from the documents concerning the main proceedings the elements of community law that need to be interpreted, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute.
2.The general prohibition of discrimination laid down in article 7 and the implementing rules in articles 48, 59 and 65 are intended to eliminate all measures which, in the fields of free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, treat a national of another member state more severely or place him in a situation less advantageous, from a legal or factual point of view, than that of one of the member state ‘ s own nationals in the same circumstances.
They do not, however, preclude the application in motor-vehicle insurance contracts of tariff conditions based on objective actuarial factors under which no-claims bonuses are not granted in respect of vehicles registered under customs plates.
3.Article 34 of the treaty applies only to national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a member state and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a special advantage for national products or for the domestic market of the state concerned.
National rules do not fall within that category if they merely authorize insurance companies to take into account in their tariff conditions particular circumstances in which vehicles are used which increase or diminish the insurance risk, such as, for example, the use of vehicles registered under customs plates, in respect of which article 34 does not prohibit the refusal of no-claims bonuses.

Citations:

R-251/83, [1984] EUECJ R-251/83

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215278

Board of The Sociale Verzekeringsbank v Heirs or Assigns of GT Kuijpers: ECJ 23 Sep 1982

It follows from the provisions of title II of regulations no 3/58 and no 1408/71 that the application of national legislation is determined by reference to criteria drawn from the rules of community law. Although it is for the legislature of each member state to lay down the conditions creating the right or the obligation to become affiliated to a social security scheme or to a particular branch under that scheme the member states are not entitled to determine the extent to which their own legislation or that of another member state is applicable.
Article 13(c) of regulation no 3 and article 14 (1)(c)(i) of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision of a member state is incompatible with those provisions if its effect is such that a worker residing in that member state is not insured for the purposes of an old-age pension because he is insured for such purposes under the legislation of another member state , even if he resided in the territory of the first-mentioned member state and is there engaged in gainful employment concurrently with his activities in the territory of the other member state. That answer is not affected by the fact that the employment in the state of residence is secondary to the main activity of the person concerned which is pursued in the other member state.

Citations:

R-276/81, [1982] EUECJ R-276/81

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215094

Criminal Proceedings Against Frans-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor Biologische Producten Bv: ECJ 17 Dec 1981

ECJ It follows from article 30 in conjunction with article 36 of the EEC Treaty that a member state is not prohibited from requiring plant protection products to be subject to prior approval , even if those products have already been approved in another member state. The authorities of the importing state are however not entitled unnecessarily to require technical or chemical analyses or laboratory tests when the same analyses or tests have already been carried out in another member state and their results are available to those authorities or may at their request be placed at their disposal.
A member state operating an approvals procedure must ensure that no unnecessary control expenses are incurred if the practical effects of the control carried out in the member state of origin satisfy the requirements of the protection of public health in the importing member state. On the other hand , the mere fact that those expenses weigh more heavily on a trader marketing small quantities of an approved product than on his competitor who markets much greater quantities does not justify the conclusion that such expenses constitute arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction within the meaning of article 36.

Citations:

R-272/80, [1981] EUECJ R-272/80

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 30

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215024

Amministrazione Delle Finanze v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi, Fratelli Vasanelli And Fratelli Ultrocchi: ECJ 27 Mar 1980

Proceedings were taken to require Mr Salumi and others to pay additional sums as levies on imports of agricultural products, on the basis that the earlier lower levy had been applied in error. Subsequently an EU regulation was enacted and the European Court interpreted the Italian court’s question as asking in substance whether that regulation applied to payments of duties made before the date the regulation came into force. HELD: ‘Although procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, this is not the case with substantive rules. On the contrary, the latter are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before the entry into force only insofar as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such an effect must be given to them.
This interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectation, by virtue of which the effect of Community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of those principles . . that in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from the point in time before its publication and that it may be otherwise only exceptionally, where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.’
The regulation in question contained both procedural and substantive rules which formed an indivisible whole. The individual provisions should not be considered in isolation with regard to the time at which they take effect. The regulation could not therefore be accorded retroactive effect unless sufficiently clear indications led to such a conclusion. Both the wording and the general scheme of the regulation led to the conclusion that the regulation provided only for the future.

Citations:

R-128/79, [1980] EUECJ R-128/79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Agriculture, European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214891

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 to afford protection, even indirect, to domestic production. A system which consists in conferring a tax advantage on a single product which represents the major proportion of domestic production to the exclusion of all other similar or competing imported products is incompatible with community law.
Where a national system of taxation at different rates is found to be incompatible with community law, the member state in question must apply to imported products a rate of tax which eliminates the margin of discrimination or protection pro- hibited by the treaty. Article 95 accords such treatment only to products which are imported from other member states.
In application of the principle of co-operation laid down in article 5 of the treaty, it is the courts of the member states which are entrusted with ensuring the legal protection which subjects derive from the direct effect of the provisions of community law.
In the absence of community rules concerning the refunding of national charges which have been levied in breach of article 95 of the eec treaty, it is for the member states to arrange for the reimbursement of such charges in accordance with the requirements of their domestic legal system ; it is for them to designate to this intent the courts having jurisdiction and to determine the procedural conditions governing actions at law. Such conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature and must not make it impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred on individuals by the community legal system. Community law does not require an order for the recovery of charges improperly made to be granted in conditions which would involve the unjust enrichment of those entitled. Thus it does not prevent account being taken of the fact that it has been possible for the burden of such charges to be passed on to other traders or to consumers. It is equally compatible with the principles of community law for account to be taken in accordance with the national law of the state concerned of the damage which an importer may have suffered because the effect of the discriminatory or protective tax provisions was to restrict the volume of imports from other member states.

Citations:

R-68/79, [1980] EUECJ R-68/79, C-68/79, [1980] ECR 501

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 28-Jul-2005
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 . .
Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Sa (France) and others CA 14-Oct-2008
The defendant had been involved in price fixing arrangements, and the claimant sought damages for breach of its proprietary rights. The claimant appealed refusal of an award an account of profits for what was akin to a breach of statutory duty.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214884

British Beef Company Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce: ECJ 13 Jun 1978

ECJ 1. The actual right to receive a monetary compensatory amount and the charge resulting from the levying of such an amount are only created by the performance of the import or export transaction as the case may be and only from the moment when that transaction takes place. It follows that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary the amounts to be paid or levied are those fixed by the rules in force at the moment of the import or export whatever may be the date on which the contract relating to the transaction in question was concluded.
2. Having regard to the recitals to and the provisions of regulation no 2405/76 and to the special circumstances existing at the time of its adoption it could not arouse in the minds of persons concerned a legitimate expectation, which the commission was required to protect, of its maintenance for the whole of the week in question.

Citations:

R-146/77, [1978] EUECJ R-146/77

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214744

Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce ; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board For Agricultural Produce.: ECJ 25 Oct 1978

ECJ 1. Even though the statement of the reasons on which a regulation is based may be laconic, it must nevertheless be examined and assessed in the context of the whole of the rules of which the regulation in question forms an integral part.
2. The prohibition of discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of article 40(3) of the treaty is merely a specific enunciation of the general principle of equality which is one of the fundamental principles of community law. That principle requires that similar situations shall not be treated differently unless the differentiation is objectively justified.
3. Coucil regulation no 1111/77 offends against the general principle of equality and is invalid to the extent to which articles 8 and 9 thereof impose a production levy on isoglucose of 5 units of account per 100 kg of dry matter for the period corresponding to the sugar marketing year 1977/78.

Citations:

R-145/77, [1978] EUECJ R-145/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214763

Gert Laumann And Anja Laumann v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz: ECJ 16 Mar 1978

ECJ The application of regulation no 1408/71 is not limited to workers or their survivors who have been employed in several member states or who are, or have been, employed in one state whilst residing in another. The regulation also applies even when the residence in another member state was not that of the worker himself but of a survivor of his.
In the system established by regulation no 1408/71 family allowances are generated by an actual occupation ( even if the worker is no longer engaged in such occupation ) and the direct and sole recipient is the worker himself.
The direct and sole recipient of the orphans ‘ pension is the orphan himself and the pension, like other survivors ‘ benefits, constitutes the projection in time of a prior occupation, pursuit of which ceased on the death of the worker.
The right to the benefits referred to in article 79(3) of regulation no 1408/71 is to be suspended, pursuant to the provisions of that paragraph, in order to prevent duplication of benefits only in so far as that right overlaps rights to benefits of the same kind acquired by virtue of the pursuit of a professional or trade activity.

Citations:

R-115/77, [1978] EUECJ R-115/77

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214729

Steinike and Weinlig v Federal Republic Of Germany: ECJ 22 Mar 1977

A customs charge may be regarded as levied solely or exclusively by reason of its crossing a frontier, although it is applied at a later stage, such as marketing or processing of the product: ‘the prohibition [of a CEE] is aimed at any tax demanded at the time of or by reason of importation and which, being imposed specifically on an imported product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product, results in the same restrictive consequences on the free movement of goods as a customs duty by altering the cost price of that product. The essential characteristic of a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty, which distinguishes it from internal taxation, is that the first is imposed exclusively on the imported product whilst the second is imposed on both imported and domestic products. A charge affecting both imported products and similar products could however constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty if such a duty, which is limited to particular products, had the sole purpose of financing activities for the specific advantage of the taxed domestic products, so as to make good, wholly or in part, the fiscal charge imposed upon them’.’

Citations:

C-78/76, R-78/76, [1977] EUECJ R-78/76, [1977] ECR 595

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Carmine Capolongo v Azienda Agricole Maya. (Aids Granted By A Member State ) ECJ 19-Jun-1973
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214541

Belgische Radio En Televisie v Sv Sabam And Nv Fonior: ECJ 30 Jan 1974

Preliminary Questions – The Brussels Tribunal de premiere instance referred a questions in proceedings relating to the enforceability of contracts between an authors’ royalties collecting society and its members who had assigned their copyrights to the society. It was said that the contracts imposed unfair trading conditions contrary to Article 86. A preliminary point arose because the Commission began a procedure against SABAM under Regulation 17 arguing that Article 9(3) of Regulation 17 (which provides that ‘the authorities of the Member States’ lose their competence to apply Articles 85(1) and 86 in accordance with Article 88 once the Commission initiates proceedings under Regulation 17) meant that the national court was no longer competent to consider the application of Article 86.
Held: The ECJ rejected the argument.
‘It must thus be examined whether the national courts, before which the prohibitions contained in Articles 85 and 86 are invoked in a dispute governed by private law, must be considered as ‘authorities of the Member States’.
The competence of those courts to apply the provisions of Community law, particularly in the case of such disputes, derives from the direct effect of those provisions.
As the prohibitions of Articles 85(1) and 86 tend by their very nature to produce direct effects in relations between individuals, these Articles create direct rights in respect of the individuals concerned which the national courts must safeguard.
To deny, by virtue of the aforementioned Article 9, the national courts’ jurisdiction to afford this safeguard, would mean depriving individuals of rights which they hold under the Treaty itself.
The fact that Article 9(3) refers to ‘the authorities of the Member States’ competent to apply the provisions of Articles 85(1) and 86 ‘in accordance with Article 88’ indicates that it refers solely to those national authorities whose competence derives from Article 88.
Under that Article the authorities of the Member States – including in certain Member States courts especially entrusted with the task of applying domestic legislation on competition or that of ensuring the legality of that application by the administrative authorities – are also rendered competent to apply the provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
The fact that the expression ‘authorities of the Member States’ appearing in Article 9(3) of Regulation No 17 covers such courts cannot exempt a court before which the direct effect of Article 86 is pleaded from giving judgment.’

Citations:

R-127/73, [1974] EUECJ R-127/73

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214361

Codrico Nv v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten: ECJ 28 Nov 1973

ECJ Article 1 of regulation no 2410/70, read in conjunction with article 11 of regulation no 1052/68, involves that in the absence of community rules on the subject the national court is competent to assess the probative value of tests performed with a view to ascertaining the fat content of the products listed at the annex to regulation no 2410/70 under tariff headings 11.02-a-v-(a ) and 11.02-a-v-(b ).

Citations:

R-138/73, [1973] EUECJ R-138/73

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214338

Commission v Italy C-385/02: ECJ 14 Sep 2004

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 93/37/EEC – Public works contracts – Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice

Citations:

[2005] 1 CMLR 52, [2004] ECR I-8121, [2004] EUECJ C-385/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Edenred (UK Group) Ltd and Another v HM Treasury and Others SC 1-Jul-2015
Challenge to the decision by HM Treasury to use National Savings and Investments to deliver the Government policy of Tax-free Childcare. The claimants said that the 2006 Regulations imposed an obligation to put such contracts out to tender.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214244

Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft Mbh v Metro-Sb-Grossmarkte Gmbh and Co Kg: ECJ 8 Jun 1971

ECJ Under article 177 of the court, when giving a preliminary ruling, is entitled only to pronounce on the interpretation of the treaty and of acts of the institutions of the community or on their validity but may not, on the basis of that article, give judgment on the interpretation of a provision of national law. It may however extract from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court those matters only which pertain to the interpretation of the treaty, taking into account the facts communicated by the said court.
The second paragraph of article 5 of the eec treaty lays down a general duty for the member states, the actual tenor of which depends in each individual case on the provisions of the treaty or on the rules derived from its general scheme.
The exercise of an industrial property right falls under the prohibition set out in article 85 (1) of the treaty each time it manifests itself as the subject, the means or the result of an agreement which, by preventing imports from other member states of products lawfully distributed there, has as its effect the partitioning of the market.
The provisions of article 36 of the treaty may be relevant to a right related to copyright, in the same way as to an industrial or commercial property right.
It is clear from article 36 that, although the treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the legislation of a member state with regard to industrial and commercial property, the exercise of such rights may nevertheless fall within the prohibitions laid down by the treaty.
Article 36 only admits derogations from the free movement of products in order to protect industrial and commercial property to the extent to which such derogations are justified for the purpose of safeguarding rights which constitute the specific matter of such property.
It is in conflict with the rules providing for the free movement of products within the common market for the holder of a legally recognized exclusive right of distribution to prohibit the sale on the national territory of products placed by him or with his consent on the market of another member state on the ground that such distribution did not occur within the national territory. Such a prohibition, which could legitimize the isolation of national markets, would be repugnant to the essential purpose of the treaty, which is to unite national markets into a single market.
The holder of a legally recognized exclusive right of distribution does not occupy a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty merely by exercising that right. It is necessary that the holder, alone or jointly with other undertakings in the same group, should have the power to impede the maintenance of effective competition over a considerable part of the relevant market, having regard in particular to the existence of any producers marketing similar products and to their position on the market.
The difference between the controlled price and the price of the product reimported from another member state does not necessarily suffice to disclose an abuse of a dominant position; it may, however, if unjustified by any objective criteria and if it is particularly marked, be a determining factor in such abuse.

Citations:

C-78/70, R-78/70, [1971] EUECJ R-78/70, [1971] ECR 487

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and others v Crehan HL 19-Jul-2006
The tenant had taken on pub leases with ties requiring him to buy beer from companies associated with the landlords. The European Commission had issued a decision and the House was asked whether this was binding on the parties.
Held: . .
Cited – Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters and Frankau Ltd CA 8-Mar-2007
An allegation was made that Cuban cigars imported by the claimant infringed the trade marks of the respondents being either counterfeit or parallel imports, and were impounded. The claimant sought a declaration of non-infringement and their release, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214135

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Mbh v Einfuhr Und Vorratsstelle Fuer Getreide Und Futtermittel. (Measures Adopted By Institutions ): ECJ 17 Dec 1970

1. The validity of measures adopted by the institutions of the community can only be judged in the light of community law. The law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national law, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called in question. Therefore the validity of a community measure or its effct within a member state cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the principles of its constitutional structure.
2. Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the court of justice. The protection of such rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the member states, must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the community. 3. The requirement by the agricultural regulations of the community of import and export licences involving for the licensees an undertaking to effect the proposed transactions under the guarantee of a deposit constitutes a method which is both necessary and appropriate, for the purposes of articles 40 (3) and 43 of the EEC Treaty, to enable the competent authorities to determine in the most effective manner their interventions on the market in cereals. The system of deposits violates no fundamental right.
4. The concept of force majeure adopted by the agricultural regulations is not limited to absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of unusual circumstances, outside the control of the importer or exporter, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise of all due care, could not have been avoided except at the cost of excessive sacrifice.
5. By limiting the cancellation of the undertaking to export and the release of the deposit to cases of force majeure the community legislature adopted a provision which, without imposing an undue burden on importers or exporters, is appropriate for ensuring the normal functioning of the organization of the market in cereals, in the general interest as defined in article 39 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-11/70, R-11/70, [1970] EUECJ R-11/70, [1970] EUECJ C-11/70

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Constitutional

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214118

Martinez And De Gaulle v Parliament: ECJ 2 Oct 2001

Law Governing The Institutions – Actions for annulment – Act of the European Parliament concerning a provision of its Rules of Procedure – Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament – Admissibility – Objection of illegality – Equal treatment – Observance of fundamental rights – Principles of democracy and proportionality – Freedom of association – Protection of legitimate expectations – Parliamentary traditions of the Member States – Breach of essential procedural requirements – Misuse of procedure

Citations:

T-329/99, [2001] EUECJ T-329/99, [2001] ECR II-2823, [2002] 1 CMLR 32

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214010

Impresa Lombardini: ECJ 27 Nov 2001

Law Relating To Undertakings – Directive 93/37/EEC – Public works contracts – Award of contracts – Abnormally low tenders – Detailed rules for explanation and rejection applied in a Member State – Obligations of the awarding authority under Community law

Citations:

[2001] ECR I-9233, C-286/99, [2001] EUECJ C-286/99, [2004] 1 CMLR 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/37/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Commercial

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214012

Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v Barsotti and Others C-84/01: ECJ 4 Mar 2004

ECJ (Social Policy) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions – Ceiling to the liability – Part payments by the employer – Social objective of the directive

Citations:

[2004, ECR I-2005, C-84/01, [2004] EUECJ C-84/01

Links:

Bailii

European, Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213789

AOK-Bundesverband and Others C-355/01: ECJ 16 Mar 2004

ECJ Competition – Undertakings – Sickness funds – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC – Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products

Citations:

[2004] 4 CMLR 22, C-355/01, [2004] EUECJ C-355/01

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213778

Barsotti and Others C-50/01: ECJ 4 Mar 2004

ECJ (Social Policy) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of their employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC – Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions – Ceiling to the liability – Part payments by the employer – Social objective of the directive

Citations:

C-50/01, [2004] EUECJ C-50/01

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213788

Aok-Bundesverband and Others C-306/01: ECJ 16 Mar 2004

(Competition) Competition – Undertakings – Sickness funds – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC – Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products

Citations:

C-306/01, [2004] EUECJ C-306/01

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213776

AOK-Bundesverband and Others C-354/01: ECJ 16 Mar 2004

ECJ Competition – Undertakings – Sickness funds – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC – Decisions of groups of sickness funds determining maximum amounts paid in respect of medicinal products

Citations:

[2004] ECR I-2493, C-354/01, [2004] EUECJ C-354/01

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213777

Sunrider Corporation v OHMI Vitakraft-Werke Wuehrmann (Vitataste): ECJ 28 Apr 2004

ECJ Community trade mark – Regulations (EC) Nos 2868/95 and 40/94 – Costs of opposition proceedings – Partial withdrawal of the trade mark application – Withdrawal of opposition – Tax Refund of Appeal – Obligation to state reasons.

Citations:

T-156/02, [2004] EUECJ T-156/02

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213805

Prasident Ruhrkolec-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh, Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh, Mausegatt Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft Mbh And I. Nold Kg v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community: ECJ 15 Jul 1960

ECJ 1. The court has jurisdiction over the legality of decisions taken by the high authority, but it is not the function of the court to ensure respect for national law in force in a member state, and this is true even of constitutional laws. Therefore the court may neither interpret nor apply national law.
2. Community law, such as it arises under the ecsc treaty, does not contain any general principle, whether explicit or otherwise, guaranteeing the maintenance of vested rights.
3. By article 65 (2), the high authority shall authorize specialization agreements or joint-buying or joint-selling agreements if it finds that the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) are fulfilled. Such authorization therefore depends on a finding which, of its very nature, comprises an assessment of the situation created by the facts or economic circumstances, and for this reason is partly immune from review by this court. Therefore the high authority has an absolute duty to state specific reasons for these authorizations and this rule must be strictly observed. Those reasons must enable the interested parties, as also the court should occasion arise, to check the information on which the high authority has relied in finding that the requirements necessary for the granting of its authorization are met so as to be in a position to examine whether the authorization was rightly granted as a matter both of fact and of law.
4. The advantages which the selling agencies may derive from trading with the smallest possible number of wholesalers do not constitute a sufficient reason to justify the restriction which is thereby imposed on trade, particularly since the very purpose for which the selling agencies have been created is to take away from the mines the effort involved or organizing the sale of their products on a commercial basis and their function, which is to furnish wholesalers with supplies, constitutes the essential reason for their authorized joint-selling agreement.

Citations:

C-36/59, C-38/59, [1960] EUECJ C-38/59

Links:

Bailii

European, Constitutional

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213748

Commission v Denmark C-467/98: ECJ 5 Nov 2002

(Judgment) Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

Citations:

[2002] EUECJ C-467/98

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.178330

Commission v Suede: ECJ 5 Nov 2002

(Judgment) Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

Citations:

C-468/98, [2002] EUECJ C-468/98

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.178331

Shindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another: CA 20 May 2016

UK free to disenfranchise citizens resident abroad

The claimants appealed against rejection of their challenges to the 2015 Act. As British citizens who had lived abroad for more than fifteen years, they were not to be allowed to vote.
Held: The claim failed. The Act was not in breach of European law supporting freedom of movement. The EU had recognised that the decision of a Member State to withdraw is an exercise of national sovereignty which is governed by its own constitutional arrangements. The Act fell outside the scope of European law. Nor did any right at common law override the precedence given to an Act of Parliament.
Lord Dyson MR said that ‘Parliament agreed to join the EU by exercising sovereign powers untrammelled by EU law and I think it would expect to be able to leave the EU in the exercise of the same untrammelled sovereign power’.

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Elias, King LJJ

Citations:

C1/2016/1796, [2016] EWCA Civ 469, [2016] WLR(D) 273, [2016] HRLR 14, [2016] 3 WLR 1196, [2017] QB 226, [2016] 3 CMLR 23

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary, JGU Summary, WLRD

Statutes:

EU Referendum Act 2105 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Shindler and Another v Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster and Another Admn 28-Apr-2016
The claimants challenged the franchise for the forthcoming European Referendum which excluded them rom voting on the basis that they were not resident within the UK and had neot been registered to vote here for more than five years.
Held: ‘1) . .

Cited by:

Cited – McCord, Re Judicial Review QBNI 28-Oct-2016
The claimant made application for judicial review of the stated intention of the Government of the UK to issue an article 50 notice to leave the EU, by means of the use of the royal Prerogative. They said that any use of the royal prerogative had . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which later became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, European, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.564452

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 which might be available.
Held: The right approach to the decision in Marra is to treat the term ‘informed’ as requiring a formal communication to the court from the Parliament. There is good reason for that approach, as it gives effect to the underlying principle which is one of co-operation between the Parliament and the national bodies, in their capacities as institutions. Further, this approach allows the Parliament a role in assessing a request for the defence of privilege before it decides to communicate with a national court. The stay should be granted pending the reply of the Parliament, but it would then be for the national court to make the decision.

Judges:

Warby J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1166 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Criminal Proceedings Against Zwartveld and Others ECJ 13-Jul-1990
Europa European Communities – Institutions – Obligations – Duty to cooperate with national authorities acting to ensure respect for Community law – Implementation – Disclosure of documents and authorization of . .
Cited – Marra v De Gregorio C-200/07 ECJ 21-Oct-2008
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling European- Parliament – Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks Claim for non-pecuniary damages Immunity of Members of the European . .
Cited – Patriciello (Privileges And Immunities) ECJ 9-Jun-2011
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 . .
See Also – Barron MP and Others v Collins MEP QBD 29-Apr-2015
Trial of preliminary issues in for defamation. The claimants, MPs for Rotherham areas, said that a speech by the defendant to the UKIP conference and repeated on TV contained assertions defamatory of them.
Held: The words complained of bore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, European, Constitutional

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.564497

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Oce Van Der Bgrinton Nv: ChD 21 Nov 2000

The question of how to balance double taxation provisions when considering deduction of tax at source under such an agreement with a member from dividends paid by a UK company to its Dutch parent is one to be settled by the European court. This was a question of whether this constituted a ‘withholding tax’ forbidden by the Directive.

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2000

Statutes:

UK/Netherlands Double Taxation Agreement

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82354

Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen: ECJ 4 Mar 2014

ECJ (Opinion) Preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 46 bis, paragraph 3 c) – Social security for migrant workers – Old Age and Survivors Insurance – Calculation of benefits – National rules against overlapping – Definition of” voluntary insurance or optional continued ‘- National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme with the possibility to request exemption from affiliation to that scheme for a certain period – Scope of the certificate issued by the competent institution of another Member State – Regulation (EC) No 574/72 – Article 47

Judges:

Maciej Szpunar AG

Citations:

C-114/13, [2014] EUECJ C-114/13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, Regulation (EC) No 574/72

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ECJ 12-Feb-2015
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Old age and survivors’ insurance – Article 46a(3)(c) – Award of benefits – National rules against overlapping – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.521986

Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen: ECJ 12 Feb 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Old age and survivors’ insurance – Article 46a(3)(c) – Award of benefits – National rules against overlapping – Derogation – Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’ – National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme – Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period – Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State – Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 – Article 47

Judges:

A. Tizzano, P

Citations:

[2015] EUECJ C-114/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:81

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 47

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ECJ 4-Mar-2014
ECJ (Opinion) Preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Article 46 bis, paragraph 3 c) – Social security for migrant workers – Old Age and Survivors Insurance – Calculation of benefits – National rules . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.565704

Hendry and others v World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association Ltd: CA 11 Jul 2001

Expedited application for permission to appeal. Professional snooker players had sought an injunction to prevent their professional association bringing in a change of rules without the claimants having adequate opportunity to take advice.
Held: The refusal had been a matter of the exercise of a judicial discretion. The judge had had a difficult case, but had given proper reasons for his decision, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Henry, Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1127

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, European

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201248

Weald Leasing (Taxation): ECJ 26 Oct 2010

ECJ Opinion – Value added tax (VAT) – Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC – Concept of ‘abusive practice’ and ‘normal commercial operations’ – Transaction designed solely to obtain a tax advantage – Leasing and sub-leasing transactions intended to defer the payment of VAT – Redefinition of abusive practice
The taxpayer’s decision to take equipment on lease from an intermediate company rather than buy it outright was an ordinary commercial transaction. It was not abusive even though it was unusual for the taxpayer in question and was designed to obtain a tax advantage by spreading the liability to tax over a longer period. The choice between leasing and outright purchase was a choice accommodated by the scheme of the VAT legislation. The tax treatment of lease payments being a facility available under the legislation itself, resort to it could not be regarded as contrary to its purpose.

Judges:

Mazak AG

Citations:

C-103/09, [2010] EUECJ C-103/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Halifax plc etc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 21-Feb-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) – Economic activity – Supplies of goods – Supplies of services – Abusive practice – Transactions designed solely to . .
At VDT – Weald Leasing Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 6-Feb-2007
VDT VAT – AVOIDANCE – Abuse of rights – Appellant associate of exempt trader purchasing assets to lease to separate company to lease on to exempt trader – Associate outside VAT group – Associate credited with . .
Reference from – HM Revenue and Customs v Weald Leasing Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2008
. .

Cited by:

Opinion – HM Revenue and Customs v Weald Leasing (Taxation) ECJ 2-Dec-2010
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Concept of ‘abusive practice’ – Leasing transactions effected by a group of undertakings to spread the payment of non-deductible VAT . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Pendragon Plc and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
‘This appeal is about an elaborate scheme designed and marketed by KPMG relating to demonstrator cars used by retail distributors for test drives and other internal purposes. In the ordinary course, a car distributor will buy new cars for use as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.425771

Regina v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State For Health, ex Parte Fedesa and Others: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

ECJ 1. Community law – Principles – Legal certainty – Protection of legitimate expectations – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action in the absence of unanimity as to their harmlessness – Infringement – None (Council Directive 88/146) 2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Prohibition of an economic activity – Whether disproportionate – Assessment criteria – Discretionary power of the Community legislature in the field of the common agricultural policy – Judicial review – Limits (EEC Treaty, Arts 40 and 43) 3. Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Harmonization measure applied equally to all the Member States – Differing effects depending on the previous state of national law – Discrimination – None 4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Prohibition of the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action – Objectives pursued – Choice of legal basis – Article 43 of the Treaty – Misuse of powers – None
(EEC Treaty, Arts 39 and 43, Council Directive 88/146) 5. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Procedure for enactment – Preparatory documents not affected by a procedural defect occurring at the stage of the final decision in the Council leading to annulment by the Court – Adoption of a new measure on the basis of earlier preparatory documents -Legality 6. Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Application ratione temporis – Period for compliance by the Member States with a directive expiring prior to its adoption – Retroactive effect – Permissibility in the light of the objective to be attained and in the absence of any infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Limits -Principle of non-retroactivity of penal provisions (Council Directive 88/146, Art. 10)
1. Having regard to the divergent appraisals by the national authorities of the Member States, reflected in the differences between existing national legislation, of the dangers which may result from the use of certain substances having a hormonal action, the Council, in deciding in the exercise of its discretionary power to adopt the solution of prohibiting them, neither infringed the principle of legal certainty nor frustrated the legitimate expectations of traders affected by that measure. 2. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question, it being understood that when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued. However, with regard to judicial review of compliance with those conditions it must be borne in mind that in matters concerning the common agricultural policy the Community legislature has a discretionary power which corresponds to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 and 43 of the Treaty. Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue. 3. Although a harmonization measure which is intended to standardize previously disparate rules of the Member States inevitably produces different effects depending on the prior state of the various national laws, there cannot be said to be discrimination where it applies equally to all Member States. 4. A decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case. That was not so in the case of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action, which was adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty alone. By regulating conditions of the production and marketing of meat in order to improve its quality while curbing surplus production, that directive falls within the scope of the measures provided for by the common organization of the markets in meat and thus contributes to the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. 5. The annulment by a judgment of the Court of a Council directive on account of a procedural defect concerning solely the manner in which it was finally adopted by the Council does not affect the preparatory acts of the other institutions. Therefore, these acts need not be repeated when the Council adopts a new directive replacing the one which has been annulled. Changes occurring in the interval in the composition of those institutions are of no effect since they do not affect the continuity of the institutions themselves. Whether or not a subsequent change in circumstances must be taken into consideration is for each institution to assess. 6. By fixing 1 January 1988 as the date of expiry of the period for implementation of Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of substances having a hormonal action, Article 10 of the directive gives it retroactive effect in so far as the directive was adopted and notified in March 1988. Outside the criminal sphere, such retroactive effect is permissible, since, first, the directive replaced an earlier directive annulled because of a procedural defect, and the Council considered it necessary in order to avoid a temporary legal vacuum during the period between the annulment of one instrument and its replacement by a lawfully adopted text with regard to the existence of a basis in Community law for national provisions adopted by the Member States in order to comply with the directive which was annulled, and, secondly, there was no infringement of the legitimate expectations of the traders concerned, in light of the rapid succession of the two directives and the reason for which the first one was annulled. As regards the criminal sphere, on the other hand, Article 10 of the directive cannot be interpreted as requiring Member States to adopt measures which conflict with Community law, in particular with the principle that penal provisions may not have retroactive effect, which Community law incorporates, as a fundamental right, among its general principles. Nor may it provide a basis for criminal proceedings instituted under provisions of national law which may have been adopted in implementation of the annulled directive and whose sole basis is to be found therein.
In relation to an alleged infringement of the principle of legal certainty: ‘ . . having regard to the discretionary power conferred on the Council in the implementation of the common agricultural policy, be limited to examining whether the measure in question is vitiated by a manifest error or misuse of powers, or whether the authority in question has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.’
and . . ‘The Court has consistently held that the principle of proportionality is one of the general principles of Community law. By virtue of that principle, the lawfulness of the prohibition of an economic activity is subject to the condition that the prohibitory measures are appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.’

Citations:

C-331/88, R-88/14, [1990] EUECJ R-88/146, [1990] ECR I-4023

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EEC Treaty 39 43, Council Directive 88/146

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others HL 8-Feb-2001
The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 25-Feb-2015
Appeal about the distribution of European Structural Funds among the regions of the United Kingdom. It arises out of the complaint of a number of local authorities in Merseyside and South Yorkshire about the way in which it is proposed to distribute . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Gubeladze SC 19-Jun-2019
The claimant had come from Latvia to the UK in 2008, but not registered under the Worker Registration Scheme until 2010. She now sought state pension credit. The SS appealed from a judgment that it was to calculate her entitlement to include her . .
Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Health

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.134975

Spain v Commission C-415/96: ECJ 12 Nov 1998

ECJ (Judgment) State aid for undertakings in the textile sector – Consequences of an annulling judgment for acts preparatory to the act annulled

Citations:

[1998] ECR I-6993, [1998] EUECJ C-415/96, [1998] ECR I-7008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the CJEU.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.162019

J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd: EAT 19 Jun 1981

The claimant worked part time. She said that she should have been paid at the same rate as her male full time equivalents, the failure being incompatible with her rights under Article 119.
Held: The scope of Article 119 EEC covers not only direct but also indirect discrimination. The difference between part-time and full-time work is by itself ‘a material difference’ for the purposes of Section 1(3). The decision of the European Court of Justice clearly establishes that a differential in pay cannot be justified simply by showing that the women are part-time workers, and, where the circumstances are such that part-time workers are wholly or mainly women, an employer cannot justify paying less for like work to a part-time woman than to a full-time man by simply relying on the fact that the woman is a part-time employee.

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson J P

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 1485, [1981] ICR 715, [1981] UKEAT 145 – 79 – 1906, [1981] 2 CMLR 24, [1981] IRLR 228, [1981] ECR 911

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970, EEC Treaty 119

Citing:

Cited – J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd ECJ 31-Mar-1981
ECJ The fact that work paid at time rates is remunerated at an hourly rate which varies according to the number of hours worked per week does not offend against the principle of equal pay laid down in article 119 . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200625

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): ECJ 22 Oct 2002

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.

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2002, C-94/00, [2002] EUECJ C-94/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.177483

Commission v Moreno: ECJ 10 Jan 2006

ECJ Staff Regulations – Appeal – Officials – auxiliary staff – Conference interpreter – Action – Request pursuant to Article 90, paragraph 1, of the Statute – Act adversely affecting – Concept

Citations:

C-373/04, [2006] EUECJ C-373/04, [2006] EUECJ C-373/04, [2006] EUECJ C-373/04

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.237636

Commission v Belgium C-415/02: ECJ 15 Jul 2004

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Indirect taxes – Directive 69/335/EEC – Raising of capital – Tax on stock exchange transactions – Tax on the delivery of bearer securities

Citations:

[2004] EUECJ C-415/02, [2004] ECR I-7215

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 69/335/EEC

European, Stamp Duty

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199459

Commission v France C-262/02: ECJ 13 Jul 2004

The court was concerned with a national measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic drinks, in the case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of advertisements visible during the re-transmission of certain sporting events. This was said to infringe the freedom to provide services contrary to Article 59 (now 49) of the Treaty. Relevant restrictions are again capable of justification under Article 56 and 66. The Court observed: ‘In that context, it is for the member States to decide on the degree of protection which they wish to afford to public health and on the way in which that protection is to be achieved. They may do so, however, only within the limits set by the Treaty and must, in particular, observe the principle of proportionality . . which requires that the measures adopted be appropriate to secure the attainment of the objective which they pursue and not to go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.’ Having found that the measure constituted a relevant restriction the Court held that the rules pursued an objective relating to the protection of public health and were appropriate to secure that aim, going no further than necessary to achieve such an objective. It was said that, ‘They limit the situation in which hoardings advertising alcoholic beverages may be seen on television and are therefore likely to restrict the broadcasting of such advertising, thus reducing the occasions on which television viewers might be encouraged to consume alcoholic beverages.’ Meeting an argument that the French rules were inconsistent , ‘ . . since they apply only to alcoholic beverages whose alcohol content exceeds 1.2%, concerns only television advertising, and do not apply to advertising for tobacco.’ The Court said, ‘ . . it is significant to reply that that option lies within the discretion of the Member states to decide on the degree of protection which they wish to afford to public health and as the way in which that protection is to be achieved . . .’

Citations:

[2004] ECR I-6569, [2004] EUECJ C-262/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – British American Tobacco UK Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 5-Nov-2004
The claimants challenged the validity of regulations restricting cigarette advertisements, saying that greater exceptions should have been allowed, and that the regulations infringed their commercial right of free speech.
Held: The Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199454

Pearle and others v Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten: ECJ 15 Jul 2004

ECJ State aid – Definition of aid – Collective advertising campaigns in favour of one sector of the economy – Financing by means of a special contribution payable by undertakings in that sector – Action taken by a body governed by public law

Citations:

C-345/02, [2004] EUECJ C-345/02

Links:

Bailii

European, Media

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199457

Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellshaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and another: ChD 16 Jun 2004

The claimants were due to have substantial sums repaid after it had been found that the system of making premature reclaims of advance corporation tax had been was discriminatory under European Law.
Held: The sums payable were to carry interest calculated on a compound interest basis.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

Times 25-Jun-2004, [2004] EWHC 2387 (Ch), [2004] STI 1495, [2004] Eu LR 939, [2004] BTC 358, [2004] STC 1178

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At First Instance – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
Appeal from – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue and Another CA 12-Apr-2005
The court was asked whether it was contrary to Community law – specifically, the provisions then contained in article 52 of the EC Treaty (now renumbered as article 43) – for the domestic tax law in the United Kingdom to differentiate, in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, European, Corporation Tax

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198393

Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan-Garcia: QBD 11 Oct 1995

An applicant’s immigration status was proper factor in assessing housing need. A Local Authority may look to whether an EC national has right of residence before assessing its own duty to house the applicant.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Nov-1995, Times 20-Oct-1995, Independent 11-Oct-1995

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Castelli; Regina v Same Ex Parte Tristan Garcia CA 23-Feb-1996
A Local Authority has a duty to house European Union migrants even without leave to stay as long as they are looking for work. EU nationals who were properly entering the UK were owed the Housing Act duties until they were told that they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Immigration, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.88303

Beuttenmuller v Land Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 29 Apr 2004

ECJ (Judgment) Freedom of movement for workers – Recognition of diplomas – Directives 89/48 and 92/51 – Primary and secondary school teachers – Holder of a diploma of post-secondary studies of two years’ duration – Conditions for the exercise of the profession

Citations:

C-102/02, [2004] EUECJ C-102/02, [2004] ECR I-5405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196663

British Sugar v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce: ECJ 19 Feb 2004

CJ Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 – Proof of export – Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 – Correction of an export licence – Obvious inaccuracy – Principle of proportionality.

Citations:

C-329/01, [2004] EUECJ C-329/01, [2004] ECR I-1899

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88, Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194041

Olli Mattila v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 22 Jan 2004

Europa Appeal – Access to documents – Decisions 93/731/EC and 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom – Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations – Partial access.
It was not proper for the Commission to evade an obligation to disclose documentation to an enquirer on the basis that they were entitled to make a partial disclosure, and that such a partial disclosure would be of no use to the applicant. The decision of the ECFI was annulled in part.

Citations:

C-353/01, Times 30-Jan-2004, [2004] EUECJ C-353/01P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Council v Hautala and others ECJ 6-Dec-2001
Europa The aim pursued by Decision 93/731 on public access to Council documents, as well as being to ensure the internal operation of the Council in conformity with the interests of good administration, is to . .
Appeal from – Mattila v Council and Commission (Rec 2001,p II-2265) ECFI 12-Jul-2001
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Mattila v Council and Commission (Rec 2001,p II-2265) ECFI 12-Jul-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192306