JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 May 1985 *
|
|
- Lindsey Dixon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 May 1985 * In Case 21/84 Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel van Ackere, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Manfred Beschel, a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, v applicant, French Republic, represented by François Renouard, acting as Agent, and by Gérard Boivineau, acting as Deputy Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, defendant, APPLICATION for a declaration that by refusing, without proper justification, to approve postal franking machines from another Member State the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, THE COURT composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, G. Bosco and C. Kakouris (Presidents of Chambers), T. Koopmans, U. Everling, Y. Galmot and R. Joliet, Judges, Advocate General: C. O. Lenz Registrar: D. Louterman, Administrator after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 14 March 1985, gives the following * Language of the Case: French. 1360
2 COMMISSION v FRANCE JUDGMENT (The account of the facts and issues which is contained in the complete text of the judgment is not reproduced) Decision 1 By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 23 January 1984 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action before the Court under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that by refusing, without proper justification, to approve postal franking machines from another Member State the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. 2 In France, as in the other Member States, the users of the postal service are in general authorized by the post office to use letter-franking machines, which enable them to save time and money. As those machines are used to collect postal charges, their release onto the market is made subject to the grant of approval by the postal authorities in order to prevent their fraudulent use. In France the rules for granting such approval were laid down most recently in Article 2 of the Interministerial Decree of 28 January 1980 on the use of letter-franking machines (Journal Officiel de la République Française 1980, p N.C.). That provision states that 'every type of franking machine must be approved by the Administration of Posts and Telecommunications following a favourable opinion from the Conseil technique [technical advisory board]'. Before it was amended on 7 March 1984, Article 3 of the decree provided that 'the machines, including the components and spare parts, must be exclusively of French manufacture, subject to any provisions of international agreements which may be applicable. 3 The action now before the Court arises out of a complaint lodged with the Commission by a leading United Kingdom manufacturer whose postal franking machines are approved in a considerable number of countries but which has attempted unsuccessfully, since 1 January 1973, to obtain the approval of the French postal authorities. 1361
3 4 In support of its application the Commission contended that the general reference to international agreements in Article 3 of the interministerial decree did not clearly open the French market to franking machines imported from other Member States, that, as a result, it failed to satisfy fully the French Republic's obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and that, in any event, the manner in which the system of approval had been applied by the French postal authorities was incompatible with that provision, inasmuch as applications for approval submitted by the complainant had been repeatedly refused without proper justification. 5 The French Government's only attempt to answer the Commission's argument was made in the telex message sent to the Commission on 5 February 1982 in reply to the letter inviting it to submit its observations. In that message it maintained that the requirement of French manufacture was accompanied by the proviso concerning international agreements in order to take account of the provisions of Community law regarding the free movement of goods, that the proviso was not merely formal since it had allowed two types of machines manufactured in the Federal Republic of Germany to be approved and marketed and that only reasons of a technical nature had prevented the approval requested by the complainant company from being granted. However, in its defence, the French Government merely stated that it intended to amend Article 3 of the Interministerial Decree of 28 January 1980 so as expressly to place machines imported from other Member States in the same position as machines of French manufacture. That intention was carried out in an interministerial decree of 7 March 1984 (Journal Officiel de la République Française 1984, p N.C.), which provides that 'the machines, including the components and spare parts, must be manufactured in France or imported from other Member States of the European Economic Community, subject to any provisions of international agreements which may be applicable'. 6 At the hearing the Commission stated that, in view of that amendment, the action now concerned only the question of the compatibility with Article 30 of the attitude adopted by the French post office towards the complainant company. 7 In its application the Commission set out the following summary of the steps which the complainant company took, to no avail, between 1973 and 1980: 1362
4 COMMISSION v FRANCE 12 December 1972 to July 1975: delays in replying to letters and abortive contacts; July 1975 to December 1976: correspondence resulting in various requests by the Centre national d'études techniques [National Technical Research Centre] for technical modifications to be made to the machines submitted for testing; 12 February 1977 (with confirmation on 12 April 1977): final rejection of the application for approval because of 'latent design faults', although the applicant company was in the process of carrying out the modifications to the machines requested by the Centre national d'études techniques; October 1977: rejection of a fresh application, submitted in August, on the ground that the French market was already adequately supplied with franking machines; October 1980: the authorities rejected a further application, stating that the French Government's position had not changed but the application might be reconsidered once electronic equipment had been developed. 8 It is also clear from statements made at the hearing on 6 December 1984 that a further application for approval, submitted on 25 May 1984, had, six months later, still not even reached the stage of the opening of the examination procedure, although the application partly concerned a model which had already been put through a certain number of tests by the competent departments on previous occasions. 9 In the pre-litigation procedure the French Government did attempt to explain the refusal to grant an approval in February In its telex of 5 February 1982 it explained that 'owing to the very design of its security mechanism, the machine in question could not be adapted satisfactorily to the French system of recording and collecting the charges. Under that system the franking charges are invoiced and paid after the service has been provided, unlike in other countries (including the United Kingdom), which have opted for a system of payment by deduction from a sum which is prerecorded on a counter in the machine and paid in advance by the users'. In reply to that argument the Commission stated in its application that 'such technical considerations are in fact irrelevant since the complainant company, 1363
5 which was aware of this difference between the French and United Kingdom systems, took it into account by submitting, in April 1976, machines designed to accord with the French system... The modifications required by the Centre national d'études techniques in December 1976 and carried out by the complainant company... concerned only certain aspects of the functioning of the security mechanisms. It is in any event clear that a significant difference of that nature, which is related to the actual design of the machine, could not have been the subject of quick, last-minute modifications before the commencement of the tests. Moreover, such incompatibility could have been detected when the machines were submitted...'. The French Government has made no further attempt to contradict the Commission. 10 In those circumstances the facts recounted by the Commission must be considered established. Those facts must be assessed in the light of the following principles. 11 The fact that a law or regulation such as that requiring prior approval for the marketing of postal franking machines conforms in formal terms to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is not sufficient to discharge a Member State of its obligations under that provision. Under the cloak of a general provision permitting the approval of machines imported from other Member States, the administration might very well adopt a systematically unfavourable attitude towards imported machines, either by allowing considerable delay in replying to applications for approval or in carrying out the examination procedure, or by refusing approval on the grounds of various alleged technical faults for which no detailed explanations are given or which prove to be inaccurate. 12 The prohibition on measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions would lose much of its useful effect if it did not cover protectionist or discriminatory practices of that type. 13 It must however be noted that for an administrative practice to constitute a measure prohibited under Article 30 that practice must show a certain degree of consistency and generality. That generality must be assessed differently according 1364
6 COMMISSION v FRANCE to whether the market concerned is one on which there are numerous traders or whether it is a market, such as that in postal franking machines, on which only a few undertakings are active. In the latter case, a national administration's treatment of a single undertaking may constitute a measure incompatible with Article In the light of those principles it is clear from the facts of the case that the conduct of the French postal administration constitutes an impediment to imports contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. 15 It must therefore be concluded that by refusing without proper justification to approve postal franking machines from another Member State, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. Costs 16 According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the French Republic has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, hereby: THE COURT (1) Declares that by refusing without proper justification to approve postal franking machines from another Member State, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty; 1365
7 (2) Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. Mackenzie Stuart Bosco Kakouris Koopmans Everling Galmot Joliét Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 May P. Heim Registrar A. J. Mackenzie Stuart President 1366
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 January 1986 * (1) Compagnie française de l'azote (Cofaz) SA, having its registered office in Paris,
JUDGMENT OF 28. 1. 1984 CASE 169/84 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 January 1986 * In Case 169/84 (1) Compagnie française de l'azote (Cofaz) SA, having its registered office in Paris, (2) Société CdF Chimie azote
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 June 1988*
JUDGMENT OF 30.6. 1988 CASE 226/87 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 June 1988* In Case 226/87 Commission of the European Communities, represented by Xenophon Yataganas and Luis Antunes, members of its Legal Department,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 January 1988 *
JUDGMENT OF 14. 1. 1988 CASE 63/86 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 January 1988 * In Case 63/86, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Guido Berardis, a member of its Legal Department, acting
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 March 1985 *
CICCE v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 March 1985 * In Case 298/83 Comité des industries cinématographiques des Communautés européennes (CICCE), the registered office of which is at 5 Rue du Cirque,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10 March 1987 *
COMMISSION v ITALY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10 March 1987 * In Case 199/85 Commission of the European Communities, represented by Guido Berardis, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 September 1988 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 September 1988 * In Case 302/86 Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Wainwright, Legal Adviser, and J. Christoffersen, a member of its Legal Department, acting
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 15 March 1988*
COMMISSION v GREECE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 15 March 1988* In Case 147/86 Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, with an address for service
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 March 1985 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 March 1985 * In Case 41/83 Italian Republic, represented by Arnaldo Squillante, Head of the Department of Diplomatic Legal Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Giorgio Azzariti,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 April 1986 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 April 1986 * In Case 294/83 Parti écologiste 'Les Verts', a non-profit-making association, whose headquarters are in Paris, represented by Étienne Tête, special delegate, and Christian
More information1 of 5 12/17/2008 7:28 PM Managed by the Avis Publications juridique important Office BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV Site map LexAlert FAQ Help Contact Links 61986J0302
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27 September 1988 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27 September 1988 * In Case 302/87 European Parliament, represented by F. Pasetti Bombardella, Jurisconsult of the Parliament, assisted by C. Pennera and J. Schoo, members of the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 15 October 1987*
JUDGMENT OF 15. 10. 1987 CASE 222/86 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 15 October 1987* In Case 222/86 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de grande instance (Regional Court),
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 24 March 1987 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 24 March 1987 * In Case 286/85 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court, Dublin, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 172/82
JUDGMENT OF 10. 3. 1983 CASE 172/82 1. The fact that Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty enable the Gommission and the Member States to bring before the Court a State which has failed to fulfil one of its
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10 July 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF 10. 7. 1991 CASE C-294/89 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10 July 1991 * In Case C-294/89, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Etienne Lasnet, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with
More information1. COMMUNITY LAW - INTERPRETATION - TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Avis juridique important 61984J0222 Judgment of the Court of 15 May 1986. - Marguerite Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Industrial Tribunal,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 8 December 1987*
MINISTÈRE PUBLIC v GAUCHARD JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 8 December 1987* In Case 20/87 REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de police (Local
More informationcomposed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of Chamber, T. Koopmans and M. Díez de Velasco, Judges,
JUDGMENT OF 7. 2. 1990 CASE C-343/87 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 7 February 1990 * In Case C-343/87 A. Culin, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Jean-Noël
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 3 October 1985 *
JUDGMENT OF 3. 10. 1985 CASE 311/84 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 3 October 1985 * In Case 311/84 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal de commerce [Commercial
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 February
JUDGMENT OF 13. 2. 1985 CASE 267/83 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 February 1985 1 In Case 267/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 180/83
JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1984 CASE 180/83 In Case 180/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arbeitsgericht [Labour Court] Reutlingen, Federal Republic of Germany, for a preliminary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 November 1991*
FNCE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 November 1991* In Case C-354/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the French Conseil d'état (Council of State) for a preliminary ruling in the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 June 1987 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 June 1987 * In Case 316/85 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the cour du travail (Labour Court), Mons, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 July 1987*
COMMISSION v BELGIUM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 July 1987* In Case 247/85 Commission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas van Rijn, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an
More informationConfederation Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT) v Council of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 17 FEBRUARY 1977 1 Confederation Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT) v Council of the European Communities Case 66/76 Costs Order that the parties bear their own costs Exceptional
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 6 October 1987 *
OPENBAAR MINISTERIE v NERTSVOEDERFABRIEK NEDERLAND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 6 October 1987 * In Case 118/86 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Gerechtshof, Arnhem,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 May 1989*
JUDGMENT OF 11. 5. 1989 CASE 25/88 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 May 1989* In Case 25/88 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny for a preliminary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 December 1991 *
Gß-INNO-BM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 December 1991 * In Case C-18/88, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Vice- President of the Tribunal de Commerce (Commercial
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 11 March 1986*
CONEGATE v HM CUSTOMS & EXCISE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 11 March 1986* In Case 121/85 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice for a preliminary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 April 1987*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 April 1987* In Case 402/85 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Versailles, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 June 1993 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 June 1993 * In Case C-243/89, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Peter Hartvig and Richard Wainwright, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 14 December 2000 *
COMMISSION V FRANCE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 14 December 2000 * In Case C-55/99, Commission of the European Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-Castéra,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 April 1988* 1. Asteris AE, a public limited company incorporated under the law of Greece whose head office is in Athens,
JUDGMENT OF 26. 4. 1988 JOINED CASES 97, 193, 99 AND 215/86 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 April 1988* In Joined Cases 97, 193, 99 and 215/86 Joined Cases 97 and 193/86 1. Asteris AE, a public limited company
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27 September 1988*
BELGIAN STATE v HUMBEL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27 September 1988* In Case 263/86 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the justice de paix (Cantonal Court), Neuf château (Belgium),
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 April 1988*
JUDGMENT OF 28. 4. 1988 CASE 120/86 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 April 1988* In Case 120/86 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 September 1987 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 September 1987 * In Case 12/86 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Stuttgart for a preliminary ruling in
More informationSrl Bensider and Others v Commission of the European Communities
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 23 MAY 1984 1 Srl Bensider and Others v Commission of the European Communities Case 50/84 R Application for the adoption of interim measures Suspension of operation
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 237/83
JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1984 CASE 237/83 taking, and that in connection with the application of the national provisions of the Member State in which that undertaking is established concerning the retention
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 102/79
JUDGMENT OF 6. 5. 1980 CASE 102/79 has adopted measures which do not conform to a directive, has the Court of Justice recognized the right of persons affected thereby to rely in law on a directive as against
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 May 1994 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 May 1994 * In Case C-328/92, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Rafael Pellicer, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 24/83
JUDGMENT OF 14. 2. 1984 CASE 24/83 which has to be consulted at all stages of the procedure. 2. No fresh consultation of the Commission is required in the case of the re-enactment, without substantive
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 53/81
JUDGMENT OF 23. 3. 1982 CASE 53/81 minimum or is satisfied with means of support lower than the said minimum, provided that he pursues an activity as an employed person which is effective and genuine.
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 May 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1991 CASE C-361/88 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 May 1991 * In Case C-361/88, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ingolf Pernice, a member of its Legal Department, acting
More informationORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 12 JULY 1983»
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 12 JULY 1983» Société d'initiatives et de Coopération Agricole and Société Interprofessionnelle des Producteurs et Expéditeurs en Fruits et Légumes v Commission of the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 16 May 1989*
JUDGMENT OF 16. 5. 1989 CASE 382/87 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 16 May 1989* In Case 382/87 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Paris
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 October 2000 *
JUDGMENT OF J. 10. 2000 CASE C-337/98 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 October 2000 * In Case C-337/98, Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
More informationJUDGMENT OF 17. I CASE 56/79
JUDGMENT OF 17. I. 1980 CASE 56/79 2. If the place of performance of a contractual obligation has been specified by the parties in a clause which is valid according to the national law applicable to the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 July 1992 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 July 1992 * In Case C-2/90, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou- Durande and Xavier Lewis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 November 1997'
COMMISSION AND FRANCE v LADBROKE RACING JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 November 1997' In Joined Cases C-359/95 P and C-379/95 P, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Francisco Enrique Gonzalez
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 May 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1991 CASE C-59/89 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 May 1991 * In Case C-59/89, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ingolf Pernice, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
More informationORDER OF CASE 792/79 R
ORDER OF 17. 1. 1980 CASE 792/79 R measures which may appear necessary at any given moment. From this point of view the Commission must also be able, within the bounds of its supervisory task conferred
More informationAcciaierie e Ferriere Pugliesi SpA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 FEBRUARY 19661 Acciaierie e Ferriere Pugliesi SpA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community Case 8/65 Summary Basis ofassessment Estimated assessment Statement of
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 107/83
JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1984 CASE 107/83 liberal professions, according to which the right of establishment includes freedom to set up and maintain, subject to observance of the professional rules of conduct,
More information(preliminary ruling requested by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven)
Language JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 DECEMBER 1976 1 Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen (preliminary ruling requested by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven) Case 45/76
More informationIn Case 166/80. and. on the interpretation of Articles 27 and 52 of the Convention, THE COURT
KLOMPS v MICHEL 5. Article 27, point 2, of the Convention does not require proof that the document which instituted the proceedings was actually brought to the knowledge of the defendant. As a general
More informationCriminal proceedings against Giovanni Carciati (preliminary ruling requested by the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Ravenna)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) OF 9 OCTOBER 1980 1 Criminal proceedings against Giovanni Carciati (preliminary ruling requested by the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Ravenna) "Free movement of goods
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 5 October 1988 *
ALSATEL v NOVASAM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 5 October 1988 * In Case 247/86 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de grande instance (Regional Court), Strasbourg,
More informationRobert Fearon and Company Limited v. Irish Land Commission. (Case 182/83) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ
Robert Fearon and Company Limited v. Irish Land Commission (Case 182/83) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ (Presiding, Lord Mackenzie Stuart C.J.; Due and Kakouris PP.C.; Everling,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 March 1994*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 March 1994* In Case C-316/91, European Parliament, represented initially by Jorge Campinos, jurisconsult, then by José Luis Rufas Quintana, a member of its Legal Service, acting
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 5 October 1988 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 5 October 1988 * In Case 210/87 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunale civile e penale (Civil and Criminal District Court), Venice,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 21 April 1988*
JUDGMENT OF 21. 4. 1988 CASE 338/85 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 21 April 1988* In Case 338/85 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Pretore (Magistrate), Lucca, for
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 July 2000 *
COMMISSION V FRANCE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 13 July 2000 * In Case C-160/99, Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Benyon, Legal Adviser, and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 25 February 1986 *
VINDSURFING INTERNATIONAL v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 25 February 1986 * In Case 193/83 Windsurfing International Inc., 1955 West 190th Street, Torrance, California, United States
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 96/80
Therefore a difference in pay between full-time workers and part-time workers does not amount to discrimination prohibited by Article 119 of the Treaty unless it is in reality merely an indirect way of
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 1996 *
COMMISSION v BELGIUM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 1996 * In Case C-87/94, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 November 1990 *
JUDGMENT OF 8. 11. 1990 CASE C-177/88 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 November 1990 * In Case C-177/88, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 22 March 1990 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 22 March 1990 * In Case C-347/87 Triveneta Zuccheri SpA, whose registered office is in Verona, Consorzio Maxi, whose registered office is in Laives, Unionzuccheri
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 9 February 1995 *
LECLERC-SIPLEC v TFl PUBLICITÉ AND M6 PUBLICITÉ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 9 February 1995 * In Case C-412/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 23 March 2006 * ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 September 2003,
COMMISSION v BELGIUM JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 23 March 2006 * In Case C-408/03, ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 September 2003, Commission of the
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 20 September 1988*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 20 September 1988* In Case 136/87 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 April 1996 *
JUDGMENT OF 30. 4. 1996 CASE C-194/94 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 April 1996 * In Case C-194/94, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce de Liège (Belgium) for
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 26 June 1990*
JUDGMENT OF 26. 6. 1990 CASE C-152/88 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 26 June 1990* In Case C-152/88 Sofrimport SARL, a company incorporated under French law, whose registered office is in Paris,
More informationRe Employees of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council): E.C. Commission v Italy (Case 225/85)
Re Employees of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council): E.C. Commission v Italy (Case 225/85) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ (Presiding, Galmot
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 784/79
JUDGMENT OF 6. 5. 1980 CASE 784/79 required by Article 17 of the Convention, is mentioned in a provision specially and exclusively meant for this purpose and which has been specifically signed by the party
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 11 June 2009 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 11 June 2009 (*) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Directive 2001/23/EC Transfers of undertakings Safeguarding of employees rights National legislation
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 1 July 2004 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 1 July 2004 * In Case C-65/03, Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 June 1991 *
ERT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 June 1991 * In Case C-260/89, REFERENCE by the Monemeles Protodikeio Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki Regional Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
More information(Administrative Court) of Frankfurt-on-Main for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
JUDGMENT OF 11. 12. 1973 CASE 120/73 1. In stating that the Commission shall be informed of plans to grant new or alter existing aid 'in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments', the draftsmen
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 16 September 2004 *
JUDGMENT OF 16. 9. 2004 CASE C-227/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 16 September 2004 * In Case C-227/01, ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 June 2001,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 April 2003 *
JUDGMENT OF 10. 4. 2003 JOINED CASES C-20/01 AND C-28/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 10 April 2003 * In Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01, Commission of the European Communities, represented by
More informationJUDGMENT OF 12. II JOINED CASES 212 TO 217/80
JUDGMENT OF 12. II. 1981 JOINED CASES 212 TO 217/80 In Joined Cases 212 to 217/80 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione [Supreme Court of Cassation],
More informationVON COLSON AND ΚΛΜΛΝΝ / LAND NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN
VON COLSON AND ΚΛΜΛΝΝ / LAND NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN interpret and apply the legislation adopted for the implementation of the directive in conformity with the requirements of Community law, in so far as it
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 * In Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, having its registered office in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Ledesma Bartret and J. Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate,
More informationJudgment of the Court of Justice, AETR, Case 22/70 (31 March 1971)
Judgment of the Court of Justice, AETR, Case 22/70 (31 March 1971) Caption: The AETR judgment shows that powers which, at the outset, have not been conferred exclusively upon the European Community may
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 22 October 2002 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) 22 October 2002 * In Case T-77/02, Schneider Electric SA, established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), represented by A. Winckler and É. de La Serre,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 May 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 May 1991 * In Case C-358/89, Extramet Industrie SA, a company incorporated under French law, whose registered office is in Annemasse (France), represented by Chantal Momège, of
More informationNINETIETH SESSION. In re Durand-Smet (No. 4) Judgment No. 2040
Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. NINETIETH SESSION In re Durand-Smet (No. 4) Judgment No. 2040 The Administrative Tribunal, Considering the fourth complaint filed by Mr
More informationSimmenthal S.pA. v Commission of the European Communities
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF 22 MAY 1978 1 Simmenthal S.pA. v Commission of the European Communities Case 92/78 R In Case 92/78 R Simmenthal S.pA., having its registered office in Aprilia (Italy),
More informationCase 62/86 R. AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities
Case 62/86 R AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition Abuse of a dominant position Predatory prices) Summary Application for interim measures Suspension of operation Interim
More informationORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 12 November 1996 *
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 12 November 1996 * In Case T-47/96, Syndicat Départemental de Défense du Droit des Agriculteurs (SDDDA), a farmers' union governed by French law, having
More informationJudgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of workers - Principle of
More informationÉtablissements Rohr Société anonyme y Dina Ossberger (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour ďappel Versailles)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (THIRD CHAMBER) 22 OCTOBER 1981 1 Établissements Rohr Société anonyme y Dina Ossberger (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour ďappel Versailles) (Brussels Convention :
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 2002 *
GONZÁLEZ SÁNCHEZ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 2002 * In Case C-183/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 5 de Oviedo (Spain)
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 May 1996 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 May 1996 * In Case C-5/94, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (England and Wales), for a preliminary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 22 February 2005 * APPEAL under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 15 April 2002
JUDGMENT OF 22. 2. 2005 CASE C-141/02 Ρ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 22 February 2005 * In Case C-141/02 P, APPEAL under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 15 April
More informationJudgment of the Court of Justice, Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64 (15 July 1964)
Judgment of the Court of Justice, Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64 (15 July 1964) Caption: A fundamental judgment of the Court in respect of principles, the Costa v ENEL judgment shows that the EEC Treaty has created
More informationJUDGMENT OF JOINED CASES 35 AND 36/82
JUDGMENT OF 27. 10. 1982 JOINED CASES 35 AND 36/82 require proceedings to be instituted on the substance of the case even before the courts or tribunals of another jurisdictional system and that during
More informationP. Dumortier Frères SA and Others v Council of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 MAY 1982 ' P. Dumortier Frères SA and Others v Council of the European Communities (Maize gritz Exchange rate applicable to damages) Joined Cases 64 and 113/76, 167 and 239/78,
More informationby the Cour de Cassation, Belgium)
women" JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 15 JUNE 1978 1 Gabriellc Defrenne v Société Anonyme Belge de Navigation Aérienne Sabena (preliminary ruling requested by the Cour de Cassation, Belgium) "Equal conditions
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Gérard Olivier, Assistant Director-General of its Legal Department, acting as Agent,
JUDGMENT OF 31. 3. 1971 CASE 22/70 1. The Community enjoys the capacity to establish contractual links with third countries over the whole field of objectives defined by the Treaty. This authority arises
More information