ORDER OF THE COURT 24 May 1993 *
|
|
|
- Brandon Norman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 A regulation which lays down a transitional measure for the benefit of fishermen who used a certain fishing technique before the prohibition of driftnets exceeding a given length applies to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects for classes of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner. It concerns those fishermen only in their objective capacity as fishermen using a certain fishing technique in the same way as any other economic operator in the same circumstances. ORDER OF THE COURT 24 May 1993 * In Case C-131/92, 1. Thierry Arnaud, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 2. Alain Augereau, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 3. Denis Bareyt, residing in Lege (France), 4. Jean Luc Bernard, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 5. Michel René Burgaud, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 6. Frederic Cajean, residing in Plogoff (France), 7. Laurent Jean-Pierre Chauvet, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 8. Bruno René Henri Chiron, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 9. Yves Claquin, residing in Plouhinec (France), 10. Olivier Delvigne, residing in Santec (France), * Language of the case: French. I
2 ARNAUD AND OTHERS v COUNCIL 11. Francis Favroul, residing in La Teste (France), 12. Pascal Flohic, residing in Moelan sur Mer (France), 13. Bruno Girard, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 14. Bernard Groisard, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 15. Gilles Gueguen, residing in Penmarch (France), 16. Georges Guilcher, residing in Douarnenez (France), 17. André Kerloch, residing in Poullan sur Mer (France), 18. Christian Le Brun, residing in Ploenour Lanvern (France), 19. Jean-Claude Le Coze, residing in Moelan sur Mer (France), 20. Jean-Pierre Le Gall, residing in Douarnenez (France), 21. René Le Roux, residing in Plomeur (France), 22. Jean-Claude Moreau, residing in Saint Hilaire de Riez (France), 23. Claude Moriceau, residing in Tailmont Saint Hilaire (France), 24. Daniel Pasquon, residing in Le Château d'olonne (France), 25. Joël Penisson, residing in Noirmoutier (France), 26. Christian Philippe Rafin, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 27. Eric Patrie Rivallin, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 28. Jacques Tadilec, residing in Douarnenez (France), 29. Eric François René Taraud, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), I
3 30. André Gaston Turbe, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 31. Fernand Gilbert Voisin, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 32. Bernard Guy Zereg, residing in L'Ile d'yeu (France), 33. Yves Le Garree, residing in Penmarch (France), represented by Beatrice Ghelber, of the Paris Bar, and Paul-François Ryziger, avocat with a right of audience at the Cour de Cassation and the Conseil d'etat, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, v applicants, Council of the European Communities, represented by Jean Paul Jacqué, Manager in the Legal Directorate, and John Carbery, Legal Adviser, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Xavier Herlin, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard K. Adenauer, supported by defendants, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Robert Caspar Fischer, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Nicola Annecchino, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, intervener, APPLICATION for the annulment of Article 9a(2) inserted into Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 7 October 1986 (OJ 1986 L 288, p. 1) by Article 1(8) I
4 ARNAUD AND OTHERS v COUNCIL of Council Regulation (EEC) No 345/92 of 27 January 1992 amending for the eleventh time Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1992 L 42, p. 15), THE COURT, composed of: O. Due, President, C. N. Kakouris, G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, M. Zuleeg and J. L. Murray, (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, R. Joliet, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, F. Grévisse, M. Diez de Velasco, P. J. G. Kapteyn and D. A. O. Edward, Judges, Advocate General: C. Gulmann, Registrar: J.-G. Giraud, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General, makes the following Order 1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 23 April 1992, Thierry Arnaud and 32 other French tuna fishermen ('the applicants') brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the annulment of Article 9a(2), inserted into Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 7 October 1986 (OJ 1986 L 288, p. 1) by Article 1(8) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 345/92 of 27 January 1992 amending for the eleventh time Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1992 L 42, p. 15). I
5 2 In order to ensure the protection of fishing grounds, the conservation of the biological resources of the sea and their balanced exploitation on a lasting basis and in appropriate economic and social conditions, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1). 3 On the basis of Article 11 of the abovementioned Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 171/83 of 25 January 1983 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 14), which has been repealed and replaced by the abovementioned Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86. 4 Regulation 345/92 amends for the eleventh time Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86. Article 1(8) of Regulation No 345/92 inserts into Regulation No 3094/86 a new Article 9a which is worded as follows: '1. No vessel may keep on board, or use for fishing, one or more driftnets whose individual or total length is more than 2.5 kilometres. 2. A derogation shall be granted until 31 December 1993 to vessels that have fished for long-finned albacore tuna with driftnets in the north-east Atlantic during at least the two years immediately preceding the entry into force of this Regulation. These vessels shall be entered in a Community register and may use driftnets whose length may attain 2.5 kilometres, but whose total resulting length may not exceed 5 kilometres. The headline shall be submerged at a minimum depth of two metres. This derogation shall expire on the abovementioned date, unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal by the Commission, decides to extend it in the light of scientific evidence showing the absence of any ecological risk linked thereto. 3. Throughout the fishing referred to in paragraph 1, the net must, if it is longer than one kilometre, remain attached to the vessel. However, within the 12 mile I
6 ARNAUD AND OTHERS v COUNCIL coastal band, a vessel may detach itself from the net, provided it keeps it under constant observation. 4. Notwithstanding Article 1(1), this Article shall apply in all waters, with the exception of the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States and, outside those waters, to all fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a Member State.' 5 Since they considered the derogation provided for by Article 9a(2) to be too restrictive with regard both to the period of duration of the transitional system and to the length of the driftnets permitted, the applicants have brought this action. 6 The Council challenges the admissibility of the action primarily by alleging that the contested measure is not of individual concern to the applicants within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. 7 By order of the President of the Court of 18 September 1992, the Commission was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council. The Commission likewise claims primarily that the contested measure is not of individual concern to the applicants. 8 The applicants, however, point out that they belong to the class of operators of vessels that have fished for tuna with driftnets in the north-east Atlantic during at least the two years preceding the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 345/92. They state that the number of these vessels is limited and cannot grow in future, since the condition laid down by the disputed provision relates to the past. The applicants therefore form a closed class of operators whose identity could have been established by the Community authorities. That being so, the contested measure is of individual concern to the applicants. I
7 9 Under Article 92(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time consider whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with a case, and give its decision in accordance with Article 91(3) and (4), without opening the oral procedure. 10 As the documents before it contain all the information enabling it to give a decision, the Court has decided to give judgment without hearing oral argument from the parties. 1 1 The second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty allows natural or legal persons to challenge decisions which are addressed to them or which, although in the form of a regulation or decision addressed to another person, are of direct and individual concern to them. 12 As the purpose of this action is the annulment of a provision in a regulation, it must be established whether the contested measure is of direct and individual concern to the applicants. 13 With respect to the question whether the measure is of individual concern to the applicants, the Court has consistently held that the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (see, for example, Case 123/77 UNICME v Council [1978] ECR 845). 1 4 In order for a measure to be of individual concern to the persons to whom it applies, it must affect their legal position by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed (see, for example, Case 26/86 Deutz und Geldermann v Council [1987] ECR 941). I
8 ARNAUD AND OTHERS v COUNCIL is It should be noted that the purpose of the contested provision is to lay down a transitional measure for the benefit of albacore fishermen in the north-east Atlantic who used a certain fishing technique before the entry into force of the prohibition on driftnets whose length is more than 2.5 kilometres. 16 That provision applies, therefore, to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects for classes of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner. 17 It follows that the contested measure concerns the applicants only in their objective capacity as albacore fishermen using a certain fishing technique in a particular area, in the same way as any other economic operator in the same circumstances. 18 That being so, the application must be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 19 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the costs. In accordance with the first indent of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission, as intervener, must be ordered to bear its own costs. I-2581
9 On those grounds, THE COURT hereby: 1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible; 2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs; 3. Orders the Commission, as intervener, to bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 24 May J.-G. Giraud Registrar O. Due President I
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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,
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 October 1989 *
ORKEM v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 October 1989 * In Case 374/87 Orkem, formerly called CdF Chimie, a limited liability company (société anonyme) whose registered office is in Paris, represented
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 September 1990 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 September 1990 * In Case C-192/89, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Raad van State, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 May 1992 *
JUDGMENT OF 19. 5.1992 JOINED CASES C-104/89 AND C-37/90 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 May 1992 * In Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90, J. M. Mulder, Den Horn, W. H. Brinkhoff, de Knipe, J. M. M. Muskens, Heusden,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 June 1990 *
JUDGMENT OF 19. 6. 1990 CASE C-213/89 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 June 1990 * In Case C-213/89 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 August 1993*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 August 1993* In Case C-271/91, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 August 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 August 1995 * In Case C-431/92, Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by Ingolf Pernice, of the Legal Service, acting as Agent, and then by Rolf Wägenbaur,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 4 April 1995 *
COMMISSION v ITALY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 4 April 1995 * In Case C-348/93, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Antonino Abate, Principal Legal Adviser, and Vittorio Di Bucci, of the Legal
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 November 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 November 1991 * In Case C-269/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 1995 *
PETERBROECK v BELGIAN STATE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 1995 * In Case C-312/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour d'appel, Brussels, for a preliminary ruling
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 June 1992 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 June 1992 * In Case C-45/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach (Federal Republic of Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 May 1993 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 May 1993 * In Case C-320/91, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Liège (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
JUDGMENT 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,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 17 May 1990 *
SONITO AND OTHERS v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 17 May 1990 * In Case C-87/89 (1) Société nationale interprofessionnelle de la tomate (Sonito), a French firm whose registered office
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 July 1994 *
JUDGMENT OF 5. 7. 1994 CASE C-432/92 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 July 1994 * In Case C-432/92, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 12 July 1990 *
FOSTER AND OTHERS JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 12 July 1990 * In Case C-188/89, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 2 March 1994 *
HIĽT1 v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 March 1994 * In Case C-53/92 P, Hilti AG, whose registered office is at Schaan, Liechtenstein, represented by Oliver Axster, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, and by
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 April 1997 *
JUDGMENT OF 22. 4. 1997 CASE C-395/95 P JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 April 1997 * In Case C-395/95 P, Geotronics SA, a company incorporated under the laws of France, having its registered office at Logneš
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 October 1993 *
JUDGMENT OF 20. 10. 1993 CASE C-272/92 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 October 1993 * In Case C-272/92, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Federal Republic
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 June 1992"
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 June 1992" In Case C-26/91, REFERENCE to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
JUDGMENT 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
Re Lawyers' Services: E.C. v. Commission France (Case C-294/89) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ
Re Lawyers' Services: E.C. v. Commission France (Case C-294/89) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ (Presiding, Due C.J.; O'Higgins, Moitinho de Almeida and DÍez de Velasco PP.C.;
JUDGMENT 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),
JUDGMENT 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,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 April 1998 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 April 1998 * In Case C-306/96, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'appel de Versailles (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Panhellinia Omospondia Idioktiton Frontistririon Xenon Glosson (POIFXG) and Others v. The Republic (Greece) and the E.C. Commission (Case 147/86 TO 1)
Panhellinia Omospondia Idioktiton Frontistririon Xenon Glosson (POIFXG) and Others v. The Republic (Greece) and the E.C. Commission (Case 147/86 TO 1) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10 December 1991 *
MERCI CONVENZIONALI PORTO DI GENOVA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10 December 1991 * In Case C-179/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by thetribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa)
Judgment of the Court of Justice, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, Case C-263/02 P (1 April 2004)
Judgment of the Court of Justice, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, Case C-263/02 P (1 April 2004) Caption: In its judgment of 1 April 2004, in Case C-263/02 P, Commission v Jégo-Quéré, the Court of Justice points
Confederation 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 June 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 6 June 1995 * In Case C-434/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 1991 * In Case C-362/89, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Pretore di Milano for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 15 December 1993 *
JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1993 CASE C-292/92 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 15 December 1993 * In Case C-292/92, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 December 1994 *
BAYER v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 December 1994 * In Case C-195/91 P, Bayer AG, a company incorporated under German law, having its registered office in Leverkusen (Federal Republic
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 November 1996 *
JUDGMENT OF 26. 11. 1996 CASE C-68/95 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 November 1996 * In Case C-68/95, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Germany,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 November 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1995 CASE C-55/94 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 November 1995 * In Case C-55/94, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italy) for
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 1991 CASE C-345/89 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 1991 * In Case C-345/89, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal de Police (Local Criminal Court),
European Court reports 1991 Page I Swedish special edition Page I Finnish special edition Page I-00147
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 1991. - Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht München - Germany. - Freedom to provide
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 November 1995 *
ATLANTA FRUCHTHANDELSGESELLSCHAFT (Ι) ν BUNDESAMT FÜR ERNÄHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 November 1995 * In Case C-465/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 29 April 1999 *
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 29 April 1999 * In Case T-120/98, Alce Sri, a company incorporated under Italian law and established in Novara (Italy), represented by Celestino Corica,
composed 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 May 1994 *
WEBB JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 May 1994 * In Case C-294/92, REFERENCE to the Court, under Article 3 of the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 15 February 1996*
JUDGMENT OF 15. 2. 1996 CASE C-309/94 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 15 February 1996* In Case C-309/94, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 September 1997 * REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 September 1997 * In Case C-54/96, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1995 CASE C-317/93 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 1995 * In Case C-317/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Sozialgericht Hannover (Germany) for
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 28 March 1996 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 28 March 1996 * In Case C-318/94, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and, initially, by Angela Bardenhewer, and,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 February 1990 *
BUSSENI JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 February 1990 * In Case C-221/88 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty by the tribunale (sez. fallimentare) di Brescia (District Court, Brescia (Bankruptcy
JUDGMENT 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
European Court reports 1991 Page I Swedish special edition Page I Finnish special edition Page I-00343
Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others v Commissariaat voor de Media. Case C-288/89 Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van State - Netherlands. Freedom to provide services - Conditions
JUDGMENT 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),
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 October 1993 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 October 1993 * In Joined Cases C-92/92 and C-326/92, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Landgericht Munchen I and by the Bundesgerichtshof for a
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 September 1998 *
COOTE v GRANADA HOSPITALITY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22 September 1998 * In Case C-185/97, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London, for a preliminary
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 1 April 1993 *
HEWLETT PACKARD FRANCE v DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL DES DOUANES JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 1 April 1993 * In Case C-250/91, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 15 September 1994 *
KYDEP v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 15 September 1994 * In Case C-146/91, Koinopraxia Enoseon Georgikon Synetairismon Diacheiriseos Enchorion Proionton (KYDEP), established
ORDER 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
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 16 February 1998 *
SMANOR AND OTHERS v COMMISSION ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 16 February 1998 * In Case T-182/97, Smanor SA, a company incorporated under French law, established at Saint- Martin-d'Ecublei, France,
1 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 29 September 1998 *
COMMISSION v GERMANY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 29 September 1998 * In Case C-191/95, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Jürgen Grunwald, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 May 1994 *
JUDGMENT OF 13. 5. 1994 CASE C-18/93 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 May 1994 * In Case C-18/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa),
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium),
ORDER OF 28. 11. 2005 JOINED CASES T-236/04 AND T-241/04 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) 28 November 2005 * In Joined Cases T-236/04 and T-241/04, European Environmental Bureau (EEB),
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 June 1998 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 June 1998 * In Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dijon, France, for a preliminary
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1995 JOINED CASES C-163/94, C-165/94 AND C-250/94 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 1995 * In Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94, REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 1991 CASE C-208/90 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 1991 * In Case C-208/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Ireland for a preliminary ruling
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 *
JUDGMENT OF 25. 7. 2002 CASE C-459/99 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 25 July 2002 * In Case C-459/99, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Conseil d'état (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 29 June 1999 (1) (Copyright and related rights - Directive 93/98/EEC - Harmonisation of the term of protection) and THE COURT,
Seite 1 von 7 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 29 June 1999 (1) (Copyright and related rights - Directive 93/98/EEC - Harmonisation of the term of protection) In Case C-60/98, REFERENCE to the Court under Article
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 September 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 September 1995 * In Case C-48/94, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by Sø-og Handelsretten, Copenhagen, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 5 May 2009 (*)
Page 1 of 10 ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 5 May 2009 (*) (Appeal Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 Consultation of Regional Advisory Councils concerning measures governing access to waters and resources
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 February 1992*
JUDGMENT OF 26. 2. 1992 CASE C-357/89 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 February 1992* In Case C-357/89, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the College van Beroep Studiefinanciering (Study
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 January 2001*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 January 2001* In Case C-361/98, Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by I.M. Braguglia and P.G. Ferri, avvocati dello Stato, with an address for
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 May 1992 *
JUDGMENT OF 19. 5. 1992 CASE C-29/91 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 May 1992 * In Case C-29/91, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Kantongerecht (Cantonal Court), Groningen, for
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 8 February 1990 *
JUDGMENT OF 8. 2. 1990 CASE C-233/88 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 8 February 1990 * In Case C-233/88 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tariefcommissie (administrative
JUDGMENT 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
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 4 May 1999 *
JUDGMENT OF 4. 5. 1999 JOINED CASES C-108/97 AND C-109/97 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 4 May 1999 * In Joined Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 14 December 2000 (1) (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 2815/98 - Marketing
Page 1 of 8 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. standards for olive oil) In Case C-99/99, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 14 December
Judgment of the Court of 22 April The Queen v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Eunice Sutton
Judgment of the Court of 22 April 1997 The Queen v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Eunice Sutton Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division. United
JUDGMENT 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