Tag: European

Biscuiterie confiserie LOR and Confiserie du Tech v Commission: ECFI 26 Mar 1999

ECJ Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation concerning the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 – Action brought by producers of `tourons’ – Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 189, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2081/92; Commission Regulation No 1107/96)
The action brought by `touron’ producers established in France for annulment of Regulation No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 in so far as it registers the names `Jijona’ and `Turron de Alicante’ as protected geographical indications, is inadmissible.
Regulation No 1107/96 is, by nature and by virtue of its sphere of application, of a legislative nature and does not constitute a decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, since it applies to objectively determined situations and produces its legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract, in conferring on any undertaking whose products fulfil the prescribed geographical and qualitative requirements the right to market them under one of the names specified, and in denying that right to any undertaking whose products do not fulfil those conditions.
Although it is conceivable that, in certain circumstances, even a legislative measure applying to traders in general may be of individual concern to particular traders, that is not the position in the present case. The mere fact that the undertakings have used names such as `Jijona’ or `Alicante’ for the marketing of the `tourons’ that they produce is not sufficient to distinguish them in the absence of any other evidence enabling it to be established that such use stems from a similar specific right which they acquired at national or Community level before the adoption of the contested regulation and which has been adversely affected by that regulation.

Citations:

T-114/96, [1999] EUECJ T-114/96

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173244

IECC v Commission T-133/95: ECFI 16 Sep 1998

ECJ 1 A claim in an action for annulment that the Commission should be required to adopt appropriate measures to comply with its obligations under Article 176 of the Treaty is inadmissible. While it is for the institution concerned, under that provision, to adopt the measures required to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, it is not the function of the Community judicature to issue directions to the Community institutions or to substitute itself for those institutions when exercising its powers of review.
2 Article 3(2)(b) of Regulation No 17 provides that natural or legal persons claiming a legitimate interest may file a complaint alleging infringement of Articles 85 or 86 of the Treaty. The Commission is therefore entitled, and without prejudice to its right to institute, where appropriate, proceedings ex proprio motu in order to establish an infringement, not to pursue a complaint from an undertaking unable to demonstrate a legitimate interest. Determining the stage of the investigation at which the Commission ascertained that this condition has not been met does not therefore matter.
3 The interception by public postal operators of international ABA remail which, originating within the geographical monopoly of one of those operators, has been transported and put by private companies into the postal system of another country in order to be sent back via the traditional international postal system to the country of origin cannot be regarded as lawful under Article 86 of the Treaty in so far as such interception
– cannot be justified solely by the existence of the postal monopoly and its alleged circumvention by ABA remail,
– cannot be justified by any imbalance between the costs which a public postal operator bears in delivering incoming mail and the remuneration which it receives if such imbalance is the result of an agreement concluded among the public postal operators themselves,
and
– cannot, in the absence of evidence by the Commission to the contrary, be the only means by which the public postal operator of the country of destination can recover the costs involved in delivering that mail.
4 Only acts of the institutions which are tainted by an irregularity whose gravity is so obvious that it cannot be tolerated by the Community legal order are to be treated as non-existent in law. Given the gravity of the consequences attaching to a finding that an act of a Community institution is non-existent, such a finding must, for reasons of legal certainty, be reserved for very extreme situations
5 The statement of reasons for an individual decision must be such as, first, to enable the person to whom it is addressed to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that he can, if necessary, defend his rights and verify whether or not the decision is well founded and, second, to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review. The precise extent of the duty to state reasons, moreover, depends on the nature of the act in question and on the context in which it was adopted.
6 Having regard, first, to the general objective which Article 3(g) of the Treaty assigns to Community action in the area of competition law, second, to the task conferred on the Commission in this area by Article 89(1) of the Treaty and, finally, to the fact that Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer on a person making an application under that article the right to obtain a decision, within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty, as to whether or not there has been an infringement of Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty or of both those articles, the Commission is lawfully entitled to decide, on condition that it provides reasons for such a decision, that it is not appropriate to pursue a complaint denouncing practices which have subsequently been discontinued.
In particular, subject to review by the Community judicature, the Commission is entitled to take the view that, where operators against which a complaint has been made have given undertakings and the applicant has failed to provide any evidence whatever that those undertakings have been disregarded, and the Commission has carefully examined the facts of the case, it is unnecessary for it to examine that complaint any further.
Nor is the Commission obliged to refer expressly to the concept of `Community interest’. It is sufficient, for that purpose, that this concept should underlie the reasoning on which the decision in question is based.
7 A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken for the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated.

Citations:

T-133/95, T-133/95, [1998] EUECJ T-133/95

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173050

IECC v Commission T-110/95: ECFI 16 Sep 1998

ECJ 1 A claim in an action for annulment that the Commission should be required to adopt appropriate measures to comply with its obligations under Article 176 of the Treaty is inadmissible. While it is for the institution concerned, under that provision, to adopt the measures required to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment, it is not the function of the Community judicature to issue directions to the Community institutions or to substitute itself for those institutions when exercising its powers of review.
2 Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer on a person who lodges an application under that article the right to obtain from the Commission a decision, within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty, regarding the existence or otherwise of an infringement of Article 85 or Article 86 of the Treaty or of both. Further, the Commission is entitled to reject a complaint when it forms the view, either before commencing investigation of the case or after taking investigative measures, that the case does not display a sufficient Community interest to justify further investigation.
In order to assess the Community interest in further investigation of a case, the Commission must take account of the circumstances of the case, and especially of the legal and factual particulars set out in the complaint referred to it. The Commission should, in particular, after assessing with all due care the legal and factual particulars submitted by the complainant, balance the significance of the alleged infringement as regards the functioning of the common market, the probability of establishing the existence of the infringement and the scope of the investigation required in order to fulfil, under the best possible conditions, its task of ensuring that Articles 85 and 86 are complied with. However, since the assessment of the Community interest is necessarily based on an examination of the circumstances particular to each case, the Commission is entitled to take account of other relevant factors when making its assessment.
In this regard, given the general objective of the activities of the Community laid down by Article 3(g) of the Treaty, namely, the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted, and the general supervisory role conferred on the Commission by Articles 89 and 155 of the Treaty, the latter may, subject to the requirement that it give reasons for such a decision, decide that it is not appropriate to investigate a complaint alleging practices contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty where the facts under examination give it proper cause to assume that the conduct of the undertakings concerned will be amended in a manner conducive to the general interest.
In such a situation, it is for the Commission, as part of its task to ensure that the Treaty is properly applied, to decide whether it is in the Community interest to encourage undertakings challenged in administrative proceedings to change their conduct in view of the complaints made against them and to require from them assurances that such conduct will in fact be altered along the lines recommended by the Commission, rather than formally holding in a decision that such conduct by undertakings is contrary to the Treaty rules on competition.
3 Where the Commission rejects, on grounds of a lack of Community interest, an application for a finding under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 that an infringement has been committed, the review of legality which the Community judicature must undertake focuses on whether or not the contested decision is based on materially incorrect facts, or is vitiated by an error of law, a manifest error of appraisal or misuse of powers.
4 A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken for the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated.
5 The statement of reasons on which an individual decision is based must, first, be such as to enable the person concerned to ascertain the matters justifying the measure adopted so that, if necessary, he can defend his rights and verify whether the decision is well founded, and, secondly, enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review of the legality of the decision.
The extent of the duty to state reasons depends on the nature of the act in question and on the circumstances in which it was adopted. The obligation to provide a statement of reasons under Article 190 of the Treaty is essential for the exercise of judicial review of the way in which the Commission uses the concept of Community interest in rejecting certain complaints.
In regard to the Commission’s obligation to state reasons when conducting an examination under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, the legitimate interests of complainants are fully protected where they are informed of the outcome of the confidential negotiations between the undertakings concerned by the investigation and the Commission in order to determine which alterations are necessary to satisfy the latter’s objections, without their having the right as such to access to the specific documents which were the subject of those negotiations.

Citations:

[1998] EUECJ T-110/95

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173033

British Airways and others and British Midland Airways v Commission: ECFI 25 Jun 1998

ECFI 1 Far from enjoying the same rights to a fair hearing as those which individuals against whom a procedure has been instituted are recognised as having, concerned parties, within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, have only the right to be involved in the administrative procedure to the extent appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case.
There may be two reasons for restricting the extent of the right to participate and to be informed which such parties enjoy. First, where a Member State notifies the Commission of planned aid and submits supporting documentation, and the relevant Commission departments subsequently hold a series of meetings with officials from the Member State in question, the amount of information in the Commission’s possession may already be relatively extensive, leaving outstanding only a small number of doubts which information supplied by the parties concerned may dispel. In so far as they relate to the details of the planned aid, to the economic, financial and competitive position of the recipient undertaking and to its internal operations, the discussions between the Member State and the Commission will inevitably be more thorough than those conducted with the parties concerned. While providing such parties with general information on the essentials of the planned aid, therefore, the Commission may confine itself to concentrating its communication in the Official Journal on those aspects of the planned aid concerning which it still harbours doubts. Second, the Commission is required, under Article 214 of the Treaty, not to disclose to interested parties information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular information relating to the internal operations of the recipient undertaking.
The limited nature of the rights of concerned parties to participate and to be informed, in so far as they relate solely to the administrative procedure, is not at variance with the Commission’s duty under Article 190 of the Treaty to provide, in its final decision authorising planned aid, sufficient reasons which must address all the essential complaints which parties directly and individually concerned by that decision have made either on their own initiative or as a result of information supplied by the Commission. Thus, even on the assumption that the Commission may validly prefer to use other sources of information and thereby reduce the significance of the participation of concerned parties, it is not thereby released from its obligation to include an adequate statement of reasons in its decision.
2 There is nothing in the Treaty or in Community legislation requiring decisions on State aid adopted at the conclusion of the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty to comply with a fixed period. On the assumption that the Commission acted with excessive haste and did not give itself sufficient time to examine proposed aid, such conduct could not, by itself, justify annulment of the decision authorising that aid. To entail annulment, such conduct would have to involve a breach of specific rules governing procedure, the duty to provide reasons or the internal legality of the decision in question.
Nor is there anything in the Treaty or in Community legislation which requires the Commission to seek assistance from external experts in order to draft a decision relating to State aid.
3 In view of the fact that interveners must, under Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, accept the case as they find it at the time of their intervention and that their submissions in an application to intervene are, under the fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, limited to supporting the submissions of one of the main parties, an intervener is not entitled to raise a plea in law that was not raised by the applicant.
4 The text of Article 93 of the Treaty does not require the Commission to forward to the other Member States observations which it has received from the Government of the State seeking authorisation to grant aid. On the contrary, it follows from the third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty that the other Member States may be involved in a specific case of aid only where that case has, at the request of the State concerned, been submitted to the Council.
5 The Commission enjoys a broad discretion in the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty. Since that discretion involves complex economic and social appraisals, the Court must, in reviewing a decision adopted in that context, confine itself to verifying whether the Commission complied with the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons, whether the facts on which the contested finding was based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error in the assessment of those facts or misuse of powers.
In that regard, in the context of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty, the legality of a Community measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot depend on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy. In particular, the complex assessments made by the Commission must be examined solely on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time when those assessments were made.
6 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the contested measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Community judicature to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question. While the Commission, in the statement of reasons for a decision, is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by interested parties during the administrative procedure, it must none the less take account of all the circumstances and all the relevant factors of the case in question.
In regard to a decision authorising State aid, the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations, are to be regarded as concerned parties within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty and considered, in that capacity, to be directly and individually concerned by that decision.
Since the requirement of a statement of reasons must be assessed on the basis, in particular, of the interest which those to whom the measure is addressed or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, may have in receiving explanations, it cannot be determined solely on the basis of the interest which the Member State to which that decision is addressed may have in obtaining information. Where a Member State has obtained from the Commission that which it was seeking, namely authorisation for its planned aid, its interest in having a reasoned decision addressed to it may be greatly reduced, in contrast to that of competitors of the beneficiary of the aid, in particular where it has received sufficient information during the negotiations with the Commission through, inter alia, exchange of correspondence with that institution before the authorising decision was taken.
7 Since, according to well-established case-law of the Court of Justice and a consistent administrative practice on the part of the Commission, investment in normal modernisation intended to maintain an undertaking’s competitiveness should be carried out using the undertaking’s own financial resources, and not through State aid, and investment intended for the renovation and technical modernisation of a production line, which has to be carried out periodically, cannot be regarded as designed to facilitate the development of certain economic activities within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission must, when replying to the observations of concerned parties regarding specific planned aid during the administrative procedure and relating to that case-law and administrative practice, provide precise indications as to whether the criteria established by that case-law and practice can be regarded as having been satisfied or whether it is appropriate, for specific reasons, to derogate from them.
8 The operative part and the statement of reasons of a decision, which must be reasoned under Article 190 of the Treaty, constitute an indivisible whole, with the result that it is for the college of Commissioners alone, in accordance with the principle of collegiate responsibility, to adopt both the one and the other, any alteration to the statement of reasons going beyond simple corrections of spelling or grammar being the exclusive province of that college.
9 In regard to State aid, while there can be no grounds for denying that the Commission is entitled to compare the restructuring measures envisaged by the recipient undertaking with those taken by other undertakings operating in the same economic sector, the fact remains that the restructuring of an undertaking must be targeted at its own specific problems and that the experiences of other undertakings, in different economic and political contexts and at other times, may be irrelevant.
10 The Commission was entitled to form the view that genuine restructuring of one of the three largest European airline companies, which was the recipient of State aid, would have the effect of facilitating the economic development of the European civil aviation sector.
11 Information as to the situation on the markets in question, in particular the position of the undertaking benefiting from the aid and of competing undertakings, constitutes an essential element in the reasoning of a decision relating to the compatibility of planned aid with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, both where the decision has been taken pursuant to Article 92(1) and where it has been taken pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty and Article 61(3)(c) of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area in regard to the question whether the aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
12 Economic assessments pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, in respect of which the Commission enjoys a broad discretion, must be made in a Community context. The Commission is for that reason under an obligation to examine the impact of the aid on competition and intra-Community trade.
In order to determine whether aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, it is necessary to consider, in particular, whether there is an imbalance between the charges imposed on the undertakings concerned on the one hand and the benefits derived from the aid in question on the other. The Commission is under an obligation, when examining the impact of State aid, to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition.
The Commission may in principle make a decision authorising aid under Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty subject to conditions for ensuring that authorised aid does not alter trading conditions to an extent contrary to the general interest.
The legal and practical utility of such conditions of authorisation lies in the fact that, if the recipient undertaking were to fail to observe them, it would be for the Member State concerned to ensure proper implementation of the authorisation decision and for the Commission to assess whether it was appropriate to demand that the aid be repaid. If the State were not to comply with the conditions imposed by the Commission in a decision approving aid, the Commission would be entitled, under the second subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, to refer the matter directly to the Court of Justice by way of derogation from Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty.
Having regard to the way in which the conditions underlying a decision to authorise aid thus operate, the mere assertion that one of those conditions will not be complied with cannot cast doubt on the legality of that decision. In general, the legality of a Community act cannot depend on the possible existence of opportunities for circumvention or on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy.
13 Since the purpose of Article 155 of the Treaty is to provide a general definition of the Commission’s powers, it cannot be argued that each time the Commission infringes a specific Treaty provision such infringement involves an infringement of the general provision of Article 155 of the Treaty.

Judges:

Bellamy P

Citations:

T-371/94, [1998] EUECJ T-371/94

Links:

Bailii

European, Transport

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172964

BP Chemicals v Commission T-11/95: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

EJ Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date on which the measure came to the applicant’s knowledge – Subsidiary criterion – Date of publication (EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and 173, fifth para.) 2 Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding that a form of State aid is compatible with the common market – Rival undertaking which did not participate in the proceeding before the Commission – Right of action (EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and 173, fourth para.) 3 Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision classifying a State measure as State aid or finding that aid is compatible with the common market – Inter partes procedure not opened – Rival undertaking – Right of action (EC Treaty, Arts 93(2) and (3), and 173, fourth para.) 4 State aid – Commission investigation of a capital injection – Preliminary stage and adversarial stage – Classification of a State measure as State aid – Difficulties in making the assessment – Commission’s obligation to open the inter partes procedure (EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and (3))

Citations:

T-11/95, [1998] EUECJ T-11/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172986

Compagnie Generale maritime and others v Commission: ECFI 28 Feb 2002

ECJ Competition – Liner conferences – Intermodal transport – Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 – Scope – Block exemption – Regulation No 1017/68 – Individual exemption – Fine.

Citations:

T-86/95, [2002] EUECJ T-86/95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 1017/68

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173018

Koelman v Commission: ECFI 9 Jan 1996

ECFI 1. The Community judicature manifestly has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Community institutions, to the Member States or to natural or legal persons or to give a ruling, on the initiative of a natural or legal person, on the compatibility of a Member State’ s or a natural or legal person’ s conduct with the provisions of the Treaty or to annul, in whole or in part, agreements concluded by natural or legal persons.
2. Where a complaint has been submitted to the Commission under Article 3 of Regulation No 17, it is required to examine carefully the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant in order to decide whether they disclose conduct liable to distort competition in the common market and affect trade between Member States. Nevertheless, Article 3 of Regulation No 17 does not confer upon a person who lodges an application under that article the right to obtain from the Commission a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty regarding the existence or otherwise of an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty.
It follows that, when rejecting a complaint, the Commission must indicate the reasons why careful examination of the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant do not prompt it to initiate a procedure to establish whether Article 85 of the Treaty has been infringed. In so doing, the Commission may investigate the agreements and practices called into question in the light of Article 85 as a whole and set out the reasons why it considers that assuming that those agreements and practices constitute an infringement of Article 85(1) this provision could in any event be declared ‘inapplicable’ to those agreements and practices under Article 85(3), so that it does not appear to it that careful examination of the complaint must lead it to take the action requested by the complainant. The Commission is therefore entitled to explain its decision to reject the complaint by giving the reasons why it considers, on the basis of the facts and points of law brought to its notice by the complainant, that the agreements satisfy the conditions of Article 85(3), without previously adopting a decision exempting those agreements which has been addressed to the contracting parties, or definitively ruling on the compatibility of those agreements with Article 85(1).
3. A decision to reject a complaint, which does not definitively rule on the question whether or not there is an infringement of Article 85(1) and does not grant an exemption under Article 85(3), is merely an assessment by the Commission of the agreements and practices in question. Accordingly, it has the same legal status as a ‘comfort letter’.
It follows that the assessments made by the Commission in a decision rejecting a complaint of that kind do not prevent a national court which has to rule upon the compatibility with Article 85 of the agreements and practices criticized by the complainant from declaring those agreements and practices to be automatically void under Article 85(2) of the Treaty, having regard to the evidence before it. The fact that, unlike in the case of comfort letters, the Commission’ s assessments are contained in a challengeable measure does not affect that conclusion, since such assessments entail no definitive decision on the issue whether or not Article 85(1) has been infringed or an exemption is to be granted under Article 85(3) on the conditions laid down in Regulation No 17.
When examining whether the agreements or conduct in question are in accord with the abovementioned provisions, the national courts may take into account the Commission’ s assessments as constituting facts, and they can, if necessary, contact the Commission.
4. When the Commission has decided not to take any action with regard to a complaint submitted under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 without holding an investigation, the purpose of review by the Community judicature is to ensure that the challenged decision is based on a correct assessment of the facts and that it is not vitiated by any error of law, manifest error of assessment or abuse of power.
5. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person against a Commission decision not to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failing to fulfil its obligations is inadmissible.
The Commission is not bound to commence proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty but enjoys a discretion in that regard which precludes any right of individuals to require it to take a specific position.
An action for annulment (brought by a legal or natural person) against a Commission decision not to issue a directive or a decision to a Member State using the powers which it has under Article 90(3) of the Treaty is also inadmissible. The exercise of those powers is not coupled to an obligation on the part of the Commission to take action.
6. The Community cannot be liable under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty unless a set of conditions, relating to the existence of actual damage, a causal link between the damage claimed and the conduct alleged against the institutions and the illegality of such conduct, is satisfied.
As regards damage, it is for the applicant to provide the Court with evidence to establish the fact and the extent of the loss which he claims to have suffered.

Citations:

T-575/93, [1996] EUECJ T-575/93

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172768

CCE Vittel and others v Commission: ECFI 27 Apr 1995

ECJ Competition – Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 – Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Trade unions and works councils – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Sufficient interest giving the recognized representatives of the employees the right to submit their observations, upon application, in the administrative procedure.

Citations:

[1995] EUECJ T-12/93

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Comitu Central d’Entreprise de la SA Vittel and Comitu d’Etablissement de Pierval v Commission of the European Communities ECFI 6-Jul-1993
ECFI Where the effect of suspending the operation of a Commission decision authorizing, at the request of employees’ representative bodies in some of the undertakings concerned, a concentration between . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172639

Rasmussen v Commission: ECFI 6 Jul 1993

ECJ 1. The existence of a vacant post, within the meaning of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations, presupposes that a post is not filled amongst the total number of permanent posts referred to in the list of posts appended, in accordance with Article 6 of the Staff Regulations, to the section of the budget relating to the institution in question and indicating, for each category and each service, the number of posts in each grade for each career bracket. A procedure for the rotation of staff within an institution, under which officials are re-assigned together with their posts, does not constitute a procedure for the filling of a vacant post. It follows that Articles 4, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations do not apply to a procedure of that kind.
However, the organization of the Community civil service is governed by certain general principles of law, including equality of treatment and protection of legitimate expectations, which may not be disregarded in the context of a procedure, such as that for the rotation of staff, which is not explicitly provided for by the Staff Regulations. The application of those principles implies, on the one hand, that the administration is obliged to undertake a proper comparative examination of the merits of the candidates and, on the other, that once it has decided to fill a specific post by means of that procedure, it must carry it through properly, observing the terms of the notice which it has published, before calling for applications from external candidates under a different procedure.
2. The decision to terminate a staff rotation procedure without filling a particular job by appointing an internal candidate falls within the discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority in this context. Although the administration is not obliged to carry through a recruitment procedure initiated pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations with a view to filling a vacant post, that principle must, a fortiori, apply by analogy in cases where the administration calls for internal applications in the context of a staff rotation procedure.

Citations:

T-32/92, [1993] EUECJ T-32/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172560

Noonan v Commission: ECFI 16 Sep 1993

Officials – Admissibility – Action challenging a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid down in a competition notice.

Citations:

T-60/92, [1993] EUECJ T-60/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Noonan v Commission ECFI 28-Mar-1996
ECJ Any condition in a competition notice which prohibits candidates with a university degree from entering a competition for category C posts is unlawful – as is any decision of a selection board based on such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172579

Koelman v Commission: ECFI 29 Nov 1993

ECJ 1. The Community court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to issue directions to Community institutions, to Member States or to natural or legal persons, or to find unlawful, on whatever ground, the actions of Member States or of natural or legal persons on the initiative of natural or legal persons, or to annul agreements concluded by such persons.
2. Claims seeking annulment of all acts of the Council and the Commission adopted in a specific area on the ground of manifest lack of legitimacy, without any indication of the acts for which annulment is sought, are not sufficiently precise to be admissible.
3. Under Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must indicate the subject-matter of the proceedings and include a brief statement of grounds relied on. The information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to give a ruling, if appropriate, without other information in support. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible, the essential facts and law on which it is based must be apparent from the text of the application itself, even if only stated briefly, provided the statement is coherent and comprehensible. If specific points in the text of the application can be supported and completed by references to specific passages in the documents attached, a general reference to other documents cannot compensate for the lack of essential information in the application itself, even if those documents are attached to the application. It is not for the Community judicature to do the work of the applicant and his lawyer by trying to locate and identify in the numerous annexes to which the application makes general reference the information which may support the claims formulated in the application.
4. Where, in an action for a declaration that a Community institution has failed to act, the act in question in the proceedings was adopted after they were brought, but before delivery of the judgment, the application becomes devoid of purpose so there is no longer any need to give a ruling.

Citations:

T-56/92, [1993] EUECJ T-56/92

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172575

Stagakis v Parliament: ECFI 8 Feb 1993

ECJ The reason for the requirement that the lawyer acting for a party lodge at the Registry a certificate of entitlement to practise before a court of a Member State, which is laid down by Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, and which is one of the conditions for the regularity of the application, is to enable the Community court to check compliance with Article 17 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, pursuant to which parties other than Member States must be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State. This requirement therefore constitutes an essential procedural requirement, failure to observe which within the time prescribed for the party concerned to put his application in order renders it inadmissible.

Citations:

T-101/92, [1993] EUECJ T-101/92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172617

Moat v Commission T-20/92: ECFI 13 Jul 1993

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.

Citations:

[1993] EUECJ T-20/92

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172550

Josu Miguel Dyaz Garcya v European Parliament: ECFI 18 Dec 1992

ECJ 1. Under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the treatment, as a dependent child, of a person whom an official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure constitutes an exceptional step. The condition that the official must have a legal responsibility to maintain a person other than a dependent child must for that reason be interpreted strictly. The concept of ‘a legal responsibility to maintain’ used in the Staff Regulations is derived from the legal systems of the Member States, which, under their laws, impose a mutual responsibility to provide maintenance on relatives by blood and/or marriage of a greater or lesser degree of proximity. That concept must therefore be understood as referring exclusively to an obligation maintenance imposed on an official by a source of law independent of the will of the parties and as excluding maintenance obligations of a contractual, moral or compensatory nature. Since neither Community law nor the Staff Regulations provide the Community court with any guide as to how it should define, by way of independent interpretation, the meaning and scope of a legal responsibility to maintain, entitling an official to receive a dependent child allowance under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary to determine whether the national legal system to which the official in question is subject imposes such a legal responsibility on the official. 2. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation, which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations. In the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation. 3. An official has no legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision for breach of procedural requirements where the administration has no scope for the exercise of discretion but is bound to act as it has done. In such a case, the annulment of the contested decision could lead only to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the decision annulled.

Citations:

T-43/90, [1992] EUECJ T-43/90

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Children, Benefits

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172447

Lilian R Khouri v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1992,p II-2637): ECFI 18 Dec 1992

1. Where the application of a rule of the Staff Regulations depends on the application of a legal rule applying in the legal system of one of the Member States, it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice and proper application of the Staff Regulations that the review by the Court of First Instance should also extend to an examination of the way in which the appointing authority of a Community institution has interpreted the national law of one of the Member States. 2. Under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the treatment, as a dependent child, of a person whom an official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure constitutes an exceptional step. The condition that the official must have a legal responsibility to maintain a person other than a dependent child must for that reason be interpreted strictly. The concept of ‘a legal responsibility to maintain’ used in the Staff Regulations is derived from the legal systems of the Member States, which, under their laws, impose a mutual obligation to provide maintenance on relatives by blood and/or marriage of a greater or lesser degree of proximity. That concept must therefore be understood as referring exclusively to an obligation of maintenance imposed on an official by a source of law independent of the will of the parties and as excluding maintenance obligations of a contractual, moral or compensatory nature. Since neither Community law nor the Staff Regulations provide the Community court with any guide as to how it should define, by way of independent interpretation, the meaning and scope of the concept of a legal responsibility to maintain entitling an official to receive a dependent child allowance under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary to determine whether the national legal system to which the official in question is subject imposes such a responsibility on the official. 3. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of de?ermining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. In the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation.

Citations:

T-85/91, [1992] EUECJ T-85/91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Administrative

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172530

Holtbecker v Commission: ECFI 17 Dec 1992

ECJ 1. Both Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities take as their starting point the idea that, as far as possible, an official’ s spouse who is in gainful employment must seek reimbursement of his or her medical expenses under the sickness insurance scheme which covers him or her, by virtue of his or her own employment, against the risks of sickness, since only supplementary cover is provided under the Community scheme. Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules makes the spouse’ s supplementary cover under the joint scheme, where he or she is gainfully employed, subject to the condition that, by the very fact of the occupation in question, compulsory insurance against the same risks is also provided by virtue of other legal provisions or regulations. On the contrary, Article 3(1) of the Insurance Rules must be interpreted as referring to both the case where the spouse’ s occupation gives rise in itself, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, to an obligation to insure against sickness and also the case where the occupation only makes it possible for him or her to benefit, by virtue of legal provisions or regulations, from voluntary insurance against the same risks. 2. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it appears that the conduct of the Community administration has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. An official may not plead a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations unless the administration has given him precise assurances. Promises which do not take account of the provisions of the Staff Regulations cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person concerned.

Citations:

T-20/91, [1992] EUECJ T-20/91

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172470

Raiola-Denti and others v Council: ECFI 11 Feb 1993

ECJ A selection board may not depart from the terms of the notice of competition with respect either to the purpose of the tests or to their nature and, as regards the order in which the candidates are short-listed, it may not award an overall mark instead of adding the marks awarded for the different tests since, by so doing, it fails to fulfil its obligations to comply with the method of marking the tests laid down by the notice of competition and to state the reasons for its decisions.
The absence of a statement of reasons for the selection board’ s decision resulting from its failure to undertake the marking of the tests in accordance with the notice of competition also has the effect of preventing review by the Court of the influence on the results of the competition of the selection board’ s application, contrary to the notice of competition, of an extraneous criterion to test the abilities of the candidates.
In the event of such irregularities, the Court must annul all steps taken by the selection board from the point at which those irregularities first occurred.

Citations:

T-22/91, [1993] EUECJ T-22/91

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172471

Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten: ECJ 18 Apr 2002

Europa Social security for migrant workers – Article 48 and Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 and Article 42 EC) – Article 9a and 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Accident at work occurring in another Member State before the entry into force of the regulation in the worker’s home State – Incapacity for work

Judges:

P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass

Citations:

C-290/00, [2002] EUECJ C-290/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Benefits

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170166

Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v Swingward Ltd and Another: ECJ 23 Apr 2002

The applicant sought to restrict the right of parallel importers of its goods to repackage the goods, and re-supply them in packaging on which their trade mark had been re-applied.
Held: The prohibition of quantitative restrictions on imports does not preclude restrictions justified on the grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such restrictions must not allow arbitrary discrimination or be a disguised restriction on trade between member states. The mark owners were allowed to prevent the repackaging so long as it did not operate to prevent trade.

Judges:

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and C. W. A. Timmermans Advocate-General F. G. Jacobs

Citations:

Times 23-May-2002, C-143/00, [2002] EUECJ C-143/00, [2002] ECR I-3759

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of December 21, 1988 to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L40, p1) 7(2)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Answered by – Boehringer Ingelheim Kg, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co Kg, Swingward Limited v Boehringer Ingelheim Kg, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co Kg, Boehringer Ingelheim Limited-And-Dowelhurst Limited CA 5-Mar-2004
. .
Cited – L’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others ChD 22-May-2009
The court was asked as to whether the on-line marketplace site defendant was liable for trade mark infringements by those advertising goods on the web-site.
Held: The ECJ had not yet clarified the law on accessory liability in trade mark . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170259

Regina v Environmental Agency, ex parte Marchiori and Another: QBD 12 Apr 2001

The Agency had granted licences for the disposal of nuclear waste from military sites by a private company. Such disposals were not governed by the Euratom Treaty, which dealt with civil wastes only. The matter was generated in the course of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, the legality of which under international law, which the Environment Agency had properly considered to be outwith its jurisdiction. The later confirmation by the Food Standards Agency of the licence remedied the defect as regards the need for its approval at the time.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (Nov 1990), Environment Act 1995 16(4A)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Environment, Administrative

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88445

Merz and Krell GmbH and Co: ECJ 4 Oct 2001

ECJ Trade marks – Approximation of laws – Article 3(1)(d) of First Directive 89/104/EEC – Grounds for refusal or invalidity – Trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade – Need for signs or indications to have become customary to designate the goods or services in respect of which registration of the mark is sought – No need for the signs or indications to be directly descriptive of the properties or characteristics of the goods or services in respect of which registration of the mark is sought.

Citations:

C-517/99, [2001] EUECJ C-517/99

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166677

Jippes and others v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij: ECJ 12 Jul 2001

(Judgment) Community law did not recognise the rights of animals as fundamental. The applicant owned animals, which fell to be destroyed as part of a preventive cull to protect against the spread of foot and mouth disease. The animals would not be moved nor mix with other animals. They claimed that the ban on vaccination which left the cull as an only alternative, was made without regard to a principle of promoting the welfare of animals. The protection of animals was neither an objective of the community, nor a principle of law. The directive was not manifestly inappropriate.
ECJ Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Prohibition of vaccination – Principle of proportionality – Taking animal welfare into account
‘the criterion to be applied is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only one or the best one possible but whether it was manifestly inappropriate’

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-2001, [2001] EUECJ C-189/01, C-189/01, [2001] ECR I-5689, ECLI:EU:C:2001:420

Links:

Bailii

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.

Agriculture, European, Animals

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162815

Commission v France C-230/99: ECJ 15 Feb 2001

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) – National legislation concerning rubber materials and rubber articles entering into contact with foodstuffs, food products and beverages – Mutual recognition – No proper letter of formal notice – Action inadmissible

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ C-230/99

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162669

Emsland-Starke GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 14 Dec 2000

ECJ Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Regulation No 2730/79 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version resulting from Regulation No 568/85, must be interpreted as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after its release for home use in that non-member country, transported back to the Community under the external Community transit procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community exporter. A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter and the importer of the goods into the non-member country. The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts which can be taken into account by the national court when ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to repay refunds are fulfilled.
The exporter was refused a rebate of duty to which he was entitled on the face of the relevant Commission Regulation upon the export of his goods, because he had abused the law by claiming it in respect of goods which had been exported to a third country only to be at once re-imported into the country of origin. The court held at para 59 that:
‘a finding that there has been an abuse presupposes an intention on the part of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the conditions for obtaining it.’
The essential reason why the trading scheme failed was that the choice of a circular supply route did not involve a choice between different methods of achieving the trader’s commercial purpose. It had no commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax.

Judges:

G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

C-110/99, [2000] ECR I-11569, [2000] EUECJ C-110/99

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Debenhams Retail Plc CA 18-Jul-2005
The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .
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.

European, VAT, Agriculture

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162629

Mahlburg v Land Mecklenberurg-Vorpommern Cas: ECJ 3 Feb 2000

A refusal to appoint a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period because of that pregnancy was in breach of the Directive even though national statutory rules precluded employment of the woman during the period of the pregnancy.

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-2000, C-207/98, [2000] EUECJ C-207/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC)

Discrimination, Employment, European

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162409

Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte Taylor: ECJ 16 Dec 1999

The government made additional payments to pensioners in respect of the additional fuel costs incurred in winter. The complainant asserted that as a man aged 62, he would not receive this benefit where a woman of the same age would have done, and that this was discrimination arising from his sex.
Held: The Directive provided for services including those relating to the age of the applicant, this benefit was one such, and the rules were discriminatory and unlawful.
Europa Directive 79/7/EEC – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Grant of a winter fuel payment – Link with pensionable age. Case C-382/98.
1 Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Matters covered by Directive 79/7 – Winter fuel payment payable to those who have reached a minimum age rather than on the basis of a lack of financial means – Included (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 3(1)) 2 Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security – Directive 79/7 – Derogation allowed in respect of possible consequences for other benefits of different pensionable ages – Scope -Limited to forms of discrimination necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages – Discrimination with regard to grant of a winter fuel payment – Excluded (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 7(2)(a))
Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, which defines the matters covered by the Directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a winter fuel payment, which is part of a statutory scheme, is covered by that directive in so far as payment of the benefit is always subject to the recipients having reached statutory retirement age and it is therefore aimed at protecting them against the risk of old age mentioned in that article. The benefit may be granted to elderly persons, even if they do not have financial difficulties, so that protection against a lack of financial means cannot be considered to be the aim of the benefit. 2 The derogation from the principle of equal treatment for men and women laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security is not applicable to a benefit such as the winter fuel payment, which is subject to the condition that the recipient has reached statutory retirement age, that is to say the age of 60 for women and 65 for men. Such discrimination is not objectively and necessarily linked to the difference in retirement age for men and women. First, from the point of view of the financial equilibrium of the social security system, it is not necessary either for the financial equilibrium of contributory pension schemes, in view of the fact that the benefits are granted under a non-contributory scheme, or for the financial equilibrium of the social security system as a whole. Secondly, from the point of view of consistency between the retirement pension scheme and the other benefit scheme, it is not required, since if the benefit is designed to provide protection against the risk of old age and must, therefore, be paid only to those above a certain age, it does not follow that that age must necessarily coincide with the statutory age of retirement and, as a result, be different for men and women.

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2000, C-382/98, [1999] EUECJ C-382/98, [1999] ECR I-8955

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Amendment Regulations 1998 No 1910

Citing:

Cited – Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spa San Giorgio ECJ 9-Nov-1983
ECJ Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling – reference to the court – right of every national court – stage of the proceedings before the national court – nature of the decision to be given by the national . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mcdermott and Cotter v Minister For Social Welfare and Attorney-General ECJ 24-Mar-1987
Europa Where council directive 79/7 has not been implemented, article 4(1) of the directive, which prohibits all discrimination on grounds of sex in matters of social security, could be relied on as from 23 . .
Cited – Walker-Fox v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant pensioner had moved to France. He sought to claim a retrospective winter fuel allowance claim. The government had eventually agreed to make payments to UK residents abroad.
Held: The claimant was deemed to have had knowledge of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European, Benefits

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162518

Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confianca SA: ECJ 14 Sep 2000

ECJ Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC – Minimum amounts of cover – Type of civil liability – Injury caused to a member of the family of the insured person or driver.

Citations:

C-348/98, [2000] EUECJ C-348/98, [2000] ECR 1-6711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Knight v Axa Assurances QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant was injured in a car accident in France. The defendant insurer said that the quantification of damages was to be according to French law and the calculation of interest also. The claimant said that English law applied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Churchill Insurance Company Ltd v Wilkinson and Others CA 19-May-2010
The various insured defendants had been driven in the insured vehicles by a non-insured driver. Suffering injury at the negligence of the driver, they recovered variously damages. Their insurance companies sought recovery of the sums paid from their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162492

Commission v Autriche C-205/98: ECJ 26 Sep 2000

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 93/89/EEC – Tolls – Brenner motorway – Prohibition of discrimination – Obligation to set toll rates by reference to the costs of the infrastructure network concerned

Citations:

C-205/98, [2000] EUECJ C-205/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/89/EEC

European, Transport

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162407

Regina v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading and others: ECJ 29 Sep 1998

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division – United Kingdom. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef – Export refunds -Beef of British origin repatriated to the United Kingdom as a result of the announcements and decisions made in relation to ‘mad cow disease’ – Force majeure. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Refunds paid in advance – Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of export – Repayment of refunds paid in advance – Obligation incumbent on the exporter – Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 – Regulation No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance – Breach of the principles of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity – None – Validity of Regulation No 773/96 (Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239).
Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation No 1615/90, must be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result of, in particular, force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the Member State of export, the exporter is obliged to repay any export refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, the formalities for release of the product for consumption in the country of destination have not been completed, so that it cannot be regarded, for the purposes of payment of the differentiated refund, as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87. By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef from the United Kingdom from retaining all or part of any export refunds paid in advance in circumstances where (1 exports of beef from the United Kingdom to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (2 bans on the importation of beef from the United Kingdom have also been imposed by a number of third countries, (3 exporters of beef were in the process of carrying goods to third countries on the date on which Decision 96/239 was adopted, (4 those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the United Kingdom, (5 the exporters had received, in accordance with Regulation No 565/80 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products and Regulation No 3665/87, advance payments of export refunds in respect of the export transactions in issue, and (6 the exporters suffered loss as a result of their inability to sell their beef on the export markets in question, Regulation No 3665/87 does not contravene the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity. Furthermore, and since none of those principles require exporters, in the circumstances described, to be authorised to retain all or part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation No 773/96 laying down special measures derogating from Regulations No 3665/87, No 3719/88 and No 1964/82 in the beef and veal sector does not provide for such retention does not render it invalid

Citations:

C-263/97, [1997] Eu LR 195, [1998] EUECJ C-263/97

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Reference from – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte First City Trading Limited and Others Admn 26-Mar-1997
. .
See Also – Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Another Ex Parte First City trading Etc QBD 20-Dec-1996
EU law principles do not apply in domestic law unless implementing EU law. Laws J said that: ‘Wednesbury and European review are two different models – one looser, one tighter -of the same juridical concept, which is the imposition of compulsory . .

Cited by:

Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement.
Held: In an action for breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162183

Courage Limited v Crehan: ChD 25 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Ch 281

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .
Appeal from – Courage Ltd v Crehan; The Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd v Byrne; Same v Langton; Greenalls Management Ltd v Smith; Walker Cain Ltd v McCaughey CA 14-Jun-1999
There is not to be read into a beer tie term any implied provision that the beer to be supplied under the term was to be supplied at any kind of advantageous price. A tenant seeking damages for failure to supply under such a term was not entitled to . .
See Also – Courage Ltd and Crehan v Crehan and Courage Ltd and Others ECJ 20-Sep-2001
The company had leased a public house to the respondent. The lease was subject to a tie, under which the respondent had to purchase supplies from the company. The company came to sue for the price of beer supplied. The respondent asserted that the . .
See Also – Courage Ltd v Crehan CA 12-Nov-2001
. .
See Also – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (Cpc), Brewman Group Limited ChD 26-Jun-2003
The landlord had signed agreements tieing him to sales of beers. After falling into debt, he challnged the prices he had been obliged to pay as contravening the Treaty. The European Court had held that there was a possible claim under the Treaty. . .
See Also – Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had taken two leases, but had been made subject to beer ties with the defendant. He claimed damages for the losses, saying he had been forced to pay higher prices than those allowed to non-tied houses, and that the agreement was . .
See Also – 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Commercial, European

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.135872

Commission v Italy C-295/00: ECJ 19 Feb 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 – Disembarkation/embarkation tax payable by passengers – Tax not applicable to passengers travelling between ports on Italian territory

Citations:

[2002] EUECJ C-295/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Taxes – Other

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.167698

Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV: ECJ 1 Jun 1999

ECJ Competition – Application by an arbitration tribunal, of its own motion, of Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) – Power of national courts to annul arbitration awards.
‘Article [81] of the Treaty constitutes a fundamental provision which is essential for the accomplishment of the tasks entrusted to the Community and, in particular, for the functioning of the internal market.’

Citations:

C-126/97, [1999] EUECJ C-126/97, [1999] ECR 1-3055

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 81

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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.162087