JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 1 October 1998 *
|
|
- Maximilian Sanders
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 1 October 1998 * In Case C-38/97, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C. and Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Sri, on the interpretation of Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty and of the concepts of 'general interest' and 'collective agreement', THE COURT (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch, Judges, * Language of the case: Italian. I
2 Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, LIBRANDI v CUTTICA after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of: Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C, by A. Rocca, of the Genoa Bar, Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Sri, by G. Conte and G. Giacomini, of the Genoa Bar, the Italian Government, by Professor Umberto Leanza, Head of the Legal Service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, and D. del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, the French Government, by R. Loosli-Surrans, Chargée de Mission in the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and K. Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Sub-Directorate in the same Directorate, acting as Agents, the Commission of the European Communities, by G. Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and L. Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing the oral observations of Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C, of Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Sri, of the Italian Government, of the French Government and of the Commission at the hearing on 15 January 1998 I
3 after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 March 1998, gives the following Judgment 1 By order of 30 December 1996, which was received at the Court on 27 January 1997, the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrates' Court, Genoa) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty six questions on the interpretation of Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty in order to enable it to rule on the compatibility with Community law of the Italian legislation relating to the fixing of road haulage tariffs. 2 Those questions have been raised in proceedings brought by Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C. (hereinafter 'Librandi') against Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Sri (hereinafter 'Cuttica') for payment of the balance of the price of road transport services performed for Cuttica. Legal background 3 In Italy, the road-haulage sector is governed by Law No 298 of 6 June 1974 establishing the national register of road-haulage operators operating for hire or reward, laying down rules on the carriage of goods by road and introducing a system of bracket tariffs for the carriage of goods by road (GURI No 200 of 31 July 1974, hereafter 'the Italian Law'). That Law has been amended and supplemented several times. I
4 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA 4 The Italian Law established a national register of road-haulage operators operating for hire or reward (hereinafter 'the register'), the keeping of which is entrusted to a central committee. Under Article 3 of that Law, this committee was originally composed of: '(a) a member of the State Council, acting as chairman; (b) four representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation; one representative of each of the Ministries of Industry, Commerce and Crafts, State Holdings, Foreign Trade, Agriculture and Forestry, the Interior, Public Works, Finance and the Treasury; (c) four representatives of the regions...; (d) 12 representatives of the national associations most representative of road hauliers operating for hire or reward and of national associations representing, assisting and safeguarding the cooperative movement, as legally recognised by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare...'. 5 The Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994 (GURI No 34 of 11 February 1994) increased from 12 to 17 the number of representatives of national associations of road-haulage operators on the central committee for the register (hereinafter 'the central committee'). 6 The members of the central committee are appointed by decree by the Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation. Appointments are made upon nomination by: ' the President of the Council of State for the member referred to in (a); I
5 the respective ministers for the members referred to in (b); the respective national associations for the members referred to in (d)'. 7 Under Articles 1(3), 26 and 41 of the Italian Law, road haulage for hire or reward is subject to entry on the register and to the grant of a permit by the authorities. 8 Article 50 et seq. of the Italian Law lays down a system of compulsory bracket tariffs subject to maximum and minimum limits. 9 Article 52 of the Italian Law provides: 'Each tariff shall be calculated using a basic price at the mid-point of the bracket. The basic price shall be determined having regard to the average cost of the relevant transport services, including commercial expenses, calculated for well-managed undertakings operating under normal conditions as regards utilisation of their transport capacity, and to the market situation in such a manner as to enable transport undertakings to obtain a fair return.' 10 Article 53 of the Italian Law provides that the transportation tariffs and any special conditions governing their application, as well as any subsequent changes to them, are to be proposed by the central committee to the Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation. After consulting the regions and the representative national trade federations of the economic sectors directly concerned, the Minister approves the tariffs, the conditions governing them and any changes made to them and brings them into force by decree. I
6 LINBRANDI v CUTTICA 11 If the Minister does not approve the proposals, he refers them back to the central committee with a request for new proposals or counter-proposals. If the Minister does not consider those new proposals or counter-proposals to be satisfactory, he may amend the proposals originally submitted and bring them into force by decree. 12 Failure to comply with the tariffs laid down renders economic operators liable to administrative penalties and, where the offence is repeated, to disciplinary measures. 13 The criteria for calculating the bracket tariffs were specified, in particular, in Decree No 56 of the President of the Italian Republic of 9 January 1978 (GURI No 77 of 18 March 1978). 14 The Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1982 (Supplement to GURI No 342 of 14 December 1982), which brought into effect the initial determination of the bracket tariffs, authorised certain derogations from the compulsory tariff. Article 13 of that decree provides: 'special contracts may be concluded on different terms... solely pursuant to collective economic agreements entered into between the most representative carriers' associations on the central registration committee and users...'. 15 Article 3 of Decree-Law No 82 of 29 March 1993 concerning urgent measures in respect of the sector of road haulage for hire or reward (GURI No 73 of 29 March 1993), as transposed, following amendment, by Law No 162 of 27 May 1993 (GURI No 123 of 28 May 1993), then provided that any contractual term derogating from the tariffs laid down by the Italian Law and/or the collective agreements provided for by the Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1982 was not permissible. I
7 16 The bracket tariffs have been amended several times by ministerial decrees. At the time of the facts in question, the applicable tariffs were those resulting from the adjustments made by the Ministerial Decrees of 24 March 1995 (GURI No 74 of 29 March 1995) and of 26 June 1995 (GURI No 151 of 30 June 1995). The main proceedings 17 Librandi was commissioned by Cuttica to effect certain transport of containers. When the transport operations had been carried out, Cuttica paid to Librandi a sum lower than that resulting from the Italian Ministerial Decrees of 24 March and 26 June 1995 fixing the mandatory tariffs for the carriage of goods by road for hire or reward. 18 By summons of 18 June 1996 Librandi consequently asked the Guidice di Pace di Genova to order Cuttica to pay the difference between the sum paid and the sum due under the tariff made mandatory by the aforementioned ministerial decrees. 19 Cuttica contested that claim on the ground that Article 3 of Decree-Law No 82 of 29 March 1993, in so far as it covers different sectors of the tariff regime laid down for the transport of goods by road, was incompatible with the principles laid down by the Court in its judgment in Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533 and that the tariffs laid down in the Ministerial Decrees of 24 March and 26 June 1995 following the increase in the number of representatives of national associations of road transport hauliers on the central committee were contrary to the principles laid down by the Court in its judgment in Case C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto [1995] ECR I I
8 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA 20 The national court is not sure -whether, in view of the judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto, cited above, the Ministerial Decrees of 24 March and 26 June 1995, laying down the mandatory tariffs governing the transport services in question, should not be declared inapplicable on the ground that they were adopted on the basis of legislation incompatible with the rules of Community competition law. 21 The national court considers, in particular, that in Centro Servizi Spediporto the Court did not address the question of the compatibility with Community law of extending the mandatory tariff scheme to any contract under which a transport service is provided and that it had to determine whether Article 3 of Decree-Law No 82 of 29 March 1993, which has now become Law No 162/93, might cause unjustified unequal treatment. 22 The national court also points out that, following the judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto, the Italian Government increased the number of road haulier representatives on the central committee. Since then, the body which makes proposals is no longer representative of the public authorities but of the interests of undertakings and associations of undertakings in the road transport sector. In those circumstances, it is necessary to clarify further the notion of 'public interest' used by the Court in its judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto. 23 Finally, the national court enquires whether the collective agreement in question is lawful in Community law, binding equally on the parties which are not members of the associations which are signatories to it, and not a restrictive agreement on tariffs prohibited by Article 85 of the Treaty. I
9 24 Consequently, the Giudice di Pace di Genova has decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: '1. Is national legislation which provides for mandatory tariffs for the carriage of goods by road to be approved and brought into force by the public authority on the basis of a proposal from a committee on which interested economic operators are in the majority (Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994) compatible with Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85 and 86 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 October 1995 in Case 96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto v Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is a national provision (Article 3 of Decree Law No 82/93 transposed by Law No 162/93), which extends mandatory tariffs in the field of contracts for road haulage services to cover other types of contract relating to different services, such as, in particular, contracts whereby a contractor undertakes to achieve a particular result (contratti di appalto) and/ or contracts for hire, compatible with Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85 and 86 of the Treaty? 3. Does the concept of "general interest" referred to by the Court of Justice in the judgments in Reiff and Delta correspond to the concept of "public interest" mentioned by the Court, in a similar legal situation, in the judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto v Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo? 4. Is that concept ("general interest" and/or "public interest") defined by Community law or left to the competence of the individual Member States? 5. In particular, can that concept cover a national situation such as that described in the main proceedings in which: (a) the tariff proposal is drawn up on the basis of criteria which are described by the national legislature as being in the public interest and defined in abstract terms by Law No 298/74 and in detail by Presidential Decree I
10 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA No 56/78, but in practice refer to the characteristics of a "typical undertaking" specified by Decree No 56/78 (Articles 3 and 4) which no longer corresponds to the realities of the market in question; (b) the public authority's powers (which have never been exercised) to refer the committee's proposal back to it and to adopt tariffs ex officio if the committee's new proposal is not considered satisfactory are strictly confined to merely examining whether the proposal is in accordance with the criteria delegated by the legislature in 1974 (Article 53 of Law No 298/74) to secondary implementing legislation adopted in 1978 (Presidential Decree No 56/78) and never since updated; (c) the conditions for setting the mandatory tariff are fixed in that way and, more importantly, the public authority's review of the legality of the tariff is restricted to checking whether the tariff proposed by the committee corresponds to the economic and technical data of a "typical undertaking" which is not representative of the market in question; (d) in that context the public authority is given the task of ensuring that the tariff determined in that way enables haulage undertakings to obtain a return described as "fair" (Article 52 of Law No 298/74) but based on rigid and totally obsolete legislative data which cannot be reviewed by the public authority even though they are now divorced from reality and consequently do not reflect the actual cost of the service provided by road-haulage undertakings? 6. In the alternative, the Court is asked to clarify what concept of "collective agreement" allows the national court to decide that there is no restrictive tariff agreement, prohibited by Article 85 of the Treaty.' I
11 The first two questions 25 By its first two questions, which should be examined together, the national court is asking essentially whether Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty preclude legislation of a Member State which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be approved and brought into force by the State on the basis of proposals submitted by a central committee the majority of whose members are representatives of the economic operators concerned and which extends the mandatory tariffs applicable in the road-haulage sector to other types of contracts, relating to different services, such as, in particular, contracts under invitations to tender and contracts for hire. 26 It is established case-law that Articles 5 and 85 are infringed where a Member State requires or favours the adoption of restrictive agreements contrary to Article 85 or reinforces their effects, or where it deprives its own rules of the character of State legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere (see Case 267/86 Van Eycke [1988] ECR 4769, paragraph 16; Case C-185/91 Reiff [1993] ECR , paragraph 14; and Case C-153/93 Delta Schiffahrts- und Speditionsgesellschaft [1994] ECR I-2517, paragraph 14). 27 The Court has held that Articles 3(g), 5 and 86 of the Treaty could only apply to legislation of the kind contained in the Italian Law if it were proved that the legislation concerned placed an undertaking in a position of economic strength enabling it to prevent effective competition from being maintained on the relevant market by allowing it to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, of its customers and ultimately of the consumers (Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 38). I
12 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA 28 Finally, it should also be pointed out that in Centro Servizi Spediporto the Court was faced with a similar question in relation to the Italian legislation in force at the time, which differed essentially from that applicable in the main proceedings in one single respect: the national associations of road hauliers were represented on the central committee by 12 persons instead of In that judgment the Court ruled that neither Articles 3(g), 5, 85, 86 or 90 of the EC Treaty nor Article 30 of that Treaty precluded the legislation of a Member State from providing for road-haulage tariffs to be approved and brought into force by the State on the basis of proposals submitted by a committee, where that committee was composed of a majority of representatives of the public authorities and a minority of representatives of the economic agents concerned and in its proposals had to observe certain public interest criteria, and where, moreover, the public authorities did not relinquish their rights and powers by taking into consideration, before the proposals were approved, the observations of other public and private bodies, or even by fixing tariffs ex officio. 30 In concluding, first of all, that under a system for determining road-haulage tariffs such as that established by the Italian Law, proposals discussed by the committee could not be regarded as restrictive agreements between economic agents which the public authorities imposed or favoured or the effects of which they reinforced, the Court, in paragraphs 22 to 24 of its judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto noted that the central committee was composed of a majority of representatives of the public authorities and of a minority of representatives of associations of economic agents and that the central committee was obliged, when adopting its proposals, to observe a number of public interest criteria defined in the Italian Law. 31 Secondly, in holding that the public authorities had not delegated their tariff-fixing powers to private economic agents, the Court found, in paragraphs 26 to 28 of its judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto, that, according to the Italian Law, the central committee proposes to the competent minister the road-haulage tariffs and any special conditions governing their application. The Italian Law also confers on the I
13 minister the power to approve them, to reject them or to amend them before bringing them into force and provides that, before approving the tariffs and bringing them into force, the minister must consult the regions and the representatives of the economic sectors concerned and must have regard to the guidelines issued by the Interministerial Committee on Prices. 32 Finally, in determining that national rules providing for the fixing of road-haulage tariffs by the public authorities do not bestow on economic operators a collective dominant position characterised by the absence of competition between them, the Court, in paragraphs 33 and 34 of its judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto, found that they were not sufficiently linked to adopt the same conduct on the market. 33 Those findings are not called in question by the fact that, since the adoption of the Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994, which increased the number of representatives of national road-haulier associations on the central committee from 12 to 17, the representatives of the economic agents are no longer in the minority on the central committee, or by the fact that, according to the information provided by the Italian Government, the 'Inter-ministerial Price Committee', a consultative body, was replaced by a body called 'the Italian Price and Tariffs Monitoring Authority', or by the fact that the Italian Law maintained the extension of tariffs to various services, such as contracts under invitation to tender and contracts for hire. 34 First, the change in the majority-minority relationship within the central committee does not warrant the conclusion that a restrictive agreement within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty exists when, under the national legislation in question, the central committee must continue to observe, in adopting its proposals, the publicinterest criteria defined by the Italian Law. I
14 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA 35 Second, the amendment of the Italian Law does not entail a delegation by the public authorities of their powers to private economic agents since the power of the competent minister to reject or amend transport tariffs proposed to him by the central committee and his obligation to consult the regions and the representatives of the economic sectors concerned remain unchanged. 36 However, it is for the national court to determine, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, that in practice tariffs are fixed subject to observance of the public-interest criteria defined by the Italian Law and that the public authorities are not handing over their prerogatives to private economic agents. 37 The answer to be given to the first two questions must therefore be that Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be approved and brought into force by the State on the basis of proposals of a central committee the majority of whose members are representatives of the economic agents concerned and which extends the mandatory tariffs applicable in the field of contracts for the carriage of goods by road to other types of contracts, relating to different services, such as, in particular, contracts under invitations to tender and contracts for hire, provided that the tariffs are fixed with due regard for the public-interest criteria defined by the Italian Law and the public authorities do not hand over their prerogatives to private economic agents in taking into account, before the approval of proposals, of the observations of other public and private bodies and even by fixing tariffs ex officio. The third question 38 By its third question the national court asks whether the concept of general interest to which the Court referred in its judgments in the Reiff ana Delta Schiffahrts- und Speditionsgesellschaft cases corresponds to the concept of public interest mentioned in its judgment in the Centro Servizi Spediporto case. I
15 39 In this regard, it should be observed, as the Advocate General points out in point 40 of his Opinion, that in each of those three judgments the Court examined, in the light of the same criteria, whether the tariff committee in question had to fix tariffs by taking account of interests other than those of the economic agents represented on the committee and whether, before adopting tariffs, the minister had to request the opinion of third parties in relation to those agents. 40 In so doing, the Court was making it clear that the interests of the collectivity had to prevail over the private interests of individual operators. 41 In those circumstances, the conclusion must be that the concepts of general interest and public interest have the same meaning. 42 The answer to be given to the third question must therefore be that the concept of general interest to which the Court referred in its judgments in the Reiff and Delta Schiffahrts- und Speditionsgesellschaft cases corresponds to the concept of public interest mentioned in its judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto. The fourth and fifth questions 43 By its fourth and fifth questions, which should be examined together, the national court seeks to ascertain whether specific criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in force under Italian law, are in accord with the public interest within the meaning of the judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto. I
16 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA 44 In order to give a helpful reply to that enquiry, it should be recalled that it is established case-law that Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, read together with Article 5 of the Treaty, require the Member States to refrain from introducing or maintaining in force measures, even of a legislative or regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings (judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto, paragraph 20). 45 Therefore, in order to ensure that their action does not prevent, restrict or distort the operation of competition, the Member States must necessarily take account of the public interest. 46 It is therefore for the Member States to determine the criteria which best allow the Community rules of competition to be observed. 47 It is then for the national courts to determine whether the public-interest criteria defined in the national legislation are observed in practice. 48 The answer to be given to the fourth and fifth questions must therefore be that it is for the Member States to determine the specific criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in force under Italian law, and for the national courts to determine whether the criteria thus defined are respected in practice. I
17 The sixth question 49 By its final question, the national court asks whether the fact that it is possible for collective agreements to be concluded which under national law are enforceable against operators which have not signed them, as is the case with those in question in the main proceedings, is liable to constitute a breach of Article 85 of the Treaty. 50 In this regard, it must be recalled first of all that the Court has held that the fact that collective agreements, such as those provided for in Article 13 of the Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1982, may be concluded does not have the effect of restricting competition but allows certain derogations from the mandatory tariffs and therefore increases the scope for competition (judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto, paragraph 29). 51 It must be observed, next, that, as the Commission has observed and the Advocate General has pointed out in paragraph 55 of his Opinion, it is for the State concerned to define the group of operators against which collective agreements may be enforced. 52 The answer to be given to the sixth question must therefore be that the fact that collective agreements such as those provided for in Article 13 of the Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1982 can be concluded and that they are even enforceable under national law against operators who have not signed them does not have the effect of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty. I
18 LIBRANDI v CUTTICA Costs 53 The costs incurred by the Italian and French Governments, and by the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. On those grounds, THE COURT (Second Chamber), in answer to the questions referred to it by the Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of 30 December 1996, hereby rules: 1) Articles 3(f) and (g), 5, 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be approved and brought into force by the State on the basis of proposals of a central committee the majority of whose members are representatives of the economic agents concerned and which extends the mandatory tariffs applicable in the field of contracts for the carriage of goods by road to other types of contracts, relating to different services, such as, in particular, contracts under invitations to tender and contracts for hire, provided that the tariffs are fixed with due regard for the public-interest criteria defined by Law No 298 and the public authorities do not hand over their prerogatives to private economic agents in taking into account, before the approval of proposals, of the observations of other public and private bodies and even by fixing tariffs ex officio. I
19 2) The concept of general interest to which the Court referred in its judgments in Case C-185/91 Reiff and in Case C-153/93 Delta Schiffahrts- und Speditionsgesellschaft corresponds to the concept of public interest mentioned in its judgment in Case C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto. 3) It is for the Member States to determine the specific criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in force under Italian law, and for the national courts to determine whether the criteria thus defined are respected in practice. 4) The fact that collective agreements such as those provided for in Article 13 of the Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1982 can be concluded and that they are even enforceable under national law against operators who have not signed them does not have the effect of restricting competition within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty. Schintgen Mancini Hirsch Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 October R. Grass Registrar R. Schintgen President of the Second Chamber I
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 5 October 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 5 October 1995 * In Case C-96/94, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 4 December 1997 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 4 December 1997 * In Case C-225/96, Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by Antonio Aresu, and subsequently by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 30 May 1991 *
JUDGMENT OF 30. 5. 1991 JOINED CASES C-19/90 AND C-20/90 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 30 May 1991 * In Joined Cases C-19/90 and C-20/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
More informationCommission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations -
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 14 October 2004 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 14 October 2004 * In Case C-299/02, ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 August 2002, Commission of the European Communities,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 July 2004 (1)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 15 July 2004 (1) (Social policy Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 94/45/CE European Works Council Information and consultation of workers in Community scale undertakings
More informationEuropean Court reports 1998 Page I Keywords
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 1998. - Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV and Others v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. - Reference for a preliminary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 June 1997*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17 June 1997* In Case C-70/95, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 3 October 2000 *
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 3 October 2000 * In Case C-380/98, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the High Court of Justice
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 *
ASEMPRE AND ASOCIACIÓN NACIONAL DE EMPRESAS DE EXTERNALIZACIÓN Y GESTIÓN DE ENVÍOS Y PEQUEÑA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 * In Case C-240/02, REFERENCE to the Court under Article
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 August 1993 "
GRAXA NOVOA ν LANDESVERSICHERUNGSANSTALT HESSEN' JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 August 1993 " In Case C-23/92, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundessozialgericht for a preliminary
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 July 1992*
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 July 1992* In Case C-65/90, European Parliament, represented by Jorge Campinos, Jurisconsult, assisted by Roland Bieber, Legal Adviser, and Johann Schoo, of its Legal Service,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 27 November 2008 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 27 November 2008 (*) (Social policy Directive 2001/23/EC Safeguarding of employees rights Transfer of undertakings Article 4(2) Substantial change in working conditions
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 26 June 200 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 26 June 200 * In Case C-381/99, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 30 May 2013 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 30 May 2013 * (Processing of personal data Directive 95/46/EC Article 2 Concept of personal data Articles 6 and 7 Principles relating to data quality
More informationProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (presented by the Commission) EN 1 EN
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 6 July 2017 (*)
1 από 7 Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 6 July 2017 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Transport Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union Regulation
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 15 November 2018 (*)
Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 15 November 2018 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 Article 2(18) Article 23(1) Transport Common rules for the operation
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 March 1992 *
JUDGMENT OF 18. 3. 1992 CASE C-24/91 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 18 March 1992 * In Case C-24/91, Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Pellicier, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 15 February 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF 15. 2. 2007 CASE C-270/05 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 15 February 2007 * In Case C-270/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Arios Pagos (Greece), made
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 January 2004 (1)
Page 1 of 6 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 January 2004 (1) (Directive 89/104/EEC - Limitation
More informationfile://\\ftp\users\celex-plus\sentenze\2008\dicembre_08\sentenza_cdg_ _cau...
Pagina 1 di 10 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 18 December 2008(*) (Information to be provided to employees Directive 91/533/EEC Article 8(1) and (2) Scope Employees covered by a collective agreement
More informationOPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
EN OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 23 October 2008 at the request of the Banca d Italia on behalf of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs and Finance on two Decree-Laws containing urgent measures
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 2 March 2017 (*) Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main ev
1 από 5 Provisional text JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 2 March 2017 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Consumer protection Directive 2011/83/EU Article 21 Communication by telephone Operation
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 16 September 1999 *
WWF AND OTHERS V AUTONOME PROVINZ BOZEN AND OTHERS JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 16 September 1999 * In Case C-435/97, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
More informationCase T-387/04. EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG v Commission of the European Communities
Case T-387/04 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment Directive 2003/87/EC Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme German national plan
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 22 December 2010 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 22 December 2010 * In Case C-215/09, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, made by the Markkinaoikeus (Finland), by decision of 12 June 2009, received
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 March 1996 *
COMMISSION ν COUNCIL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 19 March 1996 * In Case C-25/94, Commission of the European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
More informationEuropean Court reports 1992 Page I Swedish special edition Page I Finnish special edition Page I Keywords
Judgment of the Court of 9 July 1992. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. - Failure to fulfil obligations - Prohibition of tipping waste originating in another Member State.
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN delivered on 13 January 1988
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN delivered on 13 January 1988 My Lords, The Commission contends, pursuant to Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, that the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations
More informationJudgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January Irmtraud Junk v Wolfgang Kühnel
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2005 Irmtraud Junk v Wolfgang Kühnel Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Berlin - Germany Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 18 September 2014 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 18 September 2014 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Article 56 TFEU Freedom to provide services Restrictions Directive 96/71/EC Procedures for the award of public
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 8 June 2006 *
JUDGMENT OF 8. 6. 2006 - CASE C-60/05 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 8 June 2006 * In Case C-60/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale
More informationAct on the Government Offices of Iceland 1)
Official translation Act on the Government Offices of Iceland 1) Entered into force on 28 September 2011. Amended by Act no. 173/2011 (entered into force on 30 December 2011), Act no. 115/2012 (entered
More informationCase T-306/01. Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Case T-306/01 Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Common foreign and security policy Restrictive measures
More informationOfficial Journal L 124, 23/05/1996 P
Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence
More informationTHE LEGAL CONVERGENCE CRITERION AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC
THE LEGAL CONVERGENCE CRITERION AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC ZOLTÁN ANGYAL Faculty of Law, University of Miskolc Abstract The Maastricht criteria are to ensure the convergence of economic performance as a basis
More informationEnergy Community Secretariat Proposed Treaty Changes For the Ministerial Council in October 2016
Energy Community Secretariat Proposed Treaty Changes For the Ministerial Council in October 2016 Annex 01/41 st PHLG/04-03-2016 I. Introduction Following the submission of the report by the High Level
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 18 September 2014 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 18 September 2014 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Article 56 TFEU Freedom to provide services Restrictions Directive 96/71/EC Procedures for
More informationTHE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER 105 Adaptation of the Greek legislation relevant to the procurement of the public domain according to the community law, and specifically according to the provisions of article
More informationARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party
ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party 05/EN WP108 Working Document Establishing a Model Checklist Application for Approval of Binding Corporate Rules Adopted on April 14 th, 2005 This Working Party
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 September 2017 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 September 2017 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Competition Concentrations between undertakings Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 Article 3(1)(b) and (4) Scope Definition
More informationGENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT 1. Scope of the general conditions governing the freight forwarding contract Unless otherwise agreed in writing, these general conditions shall govern all the forwarding
More informationCase C-12/03 Ρ. Commission of the European Communities ν Tetra Laval BV
Case C-12/03 Ρ Commission of the European Communities ν Tetra Laval BV (Appeal Competition Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Decision declaring a 'conglomerate-type' concentration incompatible with the common
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 28 July 2016 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 28 July 2016 * (Reference for a preliminary ruling Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union Directive 2003/87/EC
More informationlaying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand
No L 329/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 12. 93 COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/ 109/EC of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as
More informationOPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
EN OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 18 June 2007 at the request of the Italian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance on a draft law on the regulation and supervision of markets and the functioning
More informationThis document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
2012R1024 EN 17.06.2014 002.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B REGULATION (EU) No 1024/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN
More informationDIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/958 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
9.7.2018 Official Journal of the European Union L 173/25 DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/958 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 June 2018 on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 16.10.2009 COM(2009) 570 final 2009/0158 (CNB) Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION on the position to be taken by the European Community regarding
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 March 2010 (*)
Page 1 of 9 InfoCuria - Case-law of the Court of Justice English (en) Home > Research Form > List of results > Documents Language of document : English JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 9 March 2010
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 September 1988 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 September 1988 * In Case 203/86 Kingdom of Spain, represented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose office is at 82, calle Francisco Silvela, Madrid, in the person of Luis
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 July 1985 *
COMMISSION v GERMANY JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 July 1985 * In Case 107/84 Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Advisers, David Gilmour and Friedrich-Wilhelm Albrecht, acting
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 3 March 2009 (*) ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 May 2006,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 3 March 2009 (*) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate
More informationCONFERENCE. Training to Leadership: going to the concrete problems
CONFERENCE Training to Leadership: going to the concrete problems José Miguel García Moreno Head of International Relations Spanish General Council for the Judiciary TRAINING TO LEADERSHIP IN THE JUDICIARY
More informationGovernment Act (175/2003; amendments up to 970/2007 included)) Chapter 1 Government organisation and mandates
NB: Unofficial translation Prime Minister s Office, Finland Government Act (175/2003; amendments up to 970/2007 included)) Chapter 1 Government organisation and mandates Section 1 Government organisation
More informationEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Over the years the Union has taken over a number of tasks which involved either its institutions acting together with national administrations to implement
More informationTHE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
Case No. 50/2010 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RULING ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 6 NOVEMBER 2008) OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 April 2007 *
JUDGMENT OF 19. 4. 2007 CASE C-381/05 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 April 2007 * In Case C-381/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Cour d'appel (Court of Appeal),
More informationStructural Assistance Act
Issuer: Riigikogu Type: act In force from: 01.09.2015 In force until: 04.12.2015 Translation published: 10.08.2015 Amended by the following acts Passed 04.06.2014 RT I, 21.06.2014, 1 Entry into force 01.07.2014
More informationCommunity legal framework for a
European Research Area European Commission Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 723/2009 of 25 June 2009 Interested in European
More informationDRAFT OPINION. EN United in diversity EN. European Parliament 2016/0404(COD) of the Committee on Legal Affairs
European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on Legal Affairs 2016/0404(COD) 31.3.2017 DRAFT OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the
More informationJUDGMENT OF CASE 152/73
JUDGMENT OF 12. 2. 1974 CASE 152/73 without its being necessary to define whether the payment is made by virtue of an option or of an obligation, either statutory or contractual. 3. The rules regarding
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION. of 15 July 2009
Case No: 63734 Event No: 521127 Dec. No: 320/09/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 15 July 2009 to close a case against Norway commenced following a receipt of a complaint against that State in
More informationTHE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22 January 2010 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER INTERPRETATIVE NOTE ON DIRECTIVE 2009/72/EC CONCERNING COMMON RULES FOR THE INTERNAL MARKET IN ELECTRICITY AND DIRECTIVE
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 13 March 2014 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 13 March 2014 (*) (Request for a preliminary ruling Social policy Directive 1999/70/EC Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP Clause
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 4 December 1997 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 4 December 1997 * In Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96, REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm (Germany) for a
More informationCase C-233/94. Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Case C-233/94 Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes Legal basis Obligation to state reasons Principle of subsidiarity
More informationRules governing the use of the AB mark
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Rules governing the use of the AB mark ARTICLE 1 - PURPOSE The AB mark may be used for the certification of products and/or for informational purposes. The AB mark,
More informationGENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΥΣΚΟΛΙΕΣ ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΑΣ ΕΝΑΡΜΟΝΙΣΗΣ- CHALLENGES AND DIFFICULTIES OF THE EU LAW TRANSPOSITION PROCESS Eleni Martsoukou Head of Office 24/5/2013 1 Unlike the EC Treaty, no major changes
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION INTERPRETATIVE COMMUNICATION
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 05.02.2008 C(2007)6661 COMMISSION INTERPRETATIVE COMMUNICATION on the application of Community law on Public Procurement and Concessions to Institutionalised
More informationGN 490 of 26 April 2007: Guidelines on allocation of additional powers and functions to municipalities
GN 490 of 26 April 2007: Guidelines on allocation of additional powers and functions to municipalities MINISTRY FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT I, Fholisani Sydney Mufamadi, Minister for Provincial
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 31 May 2005*
HANNER JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 31 May 2005* In Case C-438/02, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden), made by decision of 29 November
More informationACT ON THE STATE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM ZAKON O SUSTAVU DRŽAVNE UPRAVE
EU-projekt: Podrška Pravosudnoj akademiji: Razvoj sustava obuke za buduće suce i državne odvjetnike EU-project: Support to the Judicial Academy: Developing a training system for future judges and prosecutors
More informationPubic Monopolies, Concessions and Competition Law and Policies
Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Competition Law and Policy Geneva, 7-9 July 2009 Pubic Monopolies, Concessions and Competition Law and Policies By European Communities The views expressed are those
More informationGlobal Forum on Competition
Unclassified DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2016)60 DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2016)60 Unclassified Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 07-Nov-2016 English
More informationCollective agreements
XIVth Meeting of European Labour Court Judges 4 September 2006 Cour de cassation Paris SWEDEN Collective agreements Swedish reporters: Judge Carina Gunnarsson, Judge Cathrine Lilja Hansson and Judge Inga
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 7.3.2006 COM(2006) 94 final 2004/0168 (COD) Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a European grouping
More informationCOMMISSION OPINION. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.11.2011 C(2011) 8572 final COMMISSION OPINION of 25.11.2011 pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and Article 10(6) of Directive 2009/73/EC - France -
More information1 OJ No C 24, , p OJ No C 240, , p OJ No C 159, , p. 32.
Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship Official Journal L 288, 18/10/1991
More informationTenth meeting of European Labour Court Judges Stockholm, September 2, The Role of Collective Bargaining
Tenth meeting of European Labour Court Judges Stockholm, September 2, 2002 The Role of Collective Bargaining Questionnaire General Reporter: Judge Harald Schliemann, Federal Labour Court of Germany Finnish
More informationTerms of Reference for an International Legal Consultant [and a Local Legal Adviser], among other things, to review draft legislation governing
Terms of Reference for an International Legal Consultant [and a Local Legal Adviser], among other things, to review draft legislation governing 1. Background PRIVATIZATION The Government of [COUNTRY] (the
More informationPUBLIC COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION. Brusels,27May 2014 (OR.en) 10296/14 LIMITE JUR321 JAI368 POLGEN75 FREMP104
ConseilUE COUNCILOF THEEUROPEANUNION Brusels,27May 2014 (OR.en) 10296/14 LIMITE PUBLIC JUR321 JAI368 POLGEN75 FREMP104 OPINIONOFTHELEGALSERVICE 1 Subject: Commision'sCommunicationonanewEUFrameworktostrengthentheRule
More informationFindings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2012/70 concerning compliance by the Czech Republic 1
Findings and recommendations with regard to communication ACCC/C/2012/70 concerning compliance by the Czech Republic 1 Adopted by the Compliance Committee on 20 December 2013 I. Introduction 1. On 9 May
More informationCommittee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs Commission du Règlement, des immunités et des affaires institutionnelles DECLASSIFIED 1 AS/Pro (2018) 20 def 11 December 2018 ardoc20_2018
More informationArticle I Basic Provisions
THE SENDER GENERAL BUSINESS TERMS AND CONDITIONS of SWIDA Innovative s.r.o., with its registered office at Hviezdoslavova 1234/4, Trebišov 075 01, Slovak Republic, Company Identification Number: 36 194
More informationDIRECTIVE 2002/20/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. of 7 March 2002
DIRECTIVE 2002/20/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (*) as amended by Directive
More informationMINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL, 2017
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL, 2017 Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 2 1. Short title and commencement...2 2. Interpretation...2 PART II MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT 3 3. Establishment
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 16 July 2009 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 16 July 2009 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Directive 98/59/EC Articles 2 and 6 Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 22 May 2017 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 22 May 2017 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0398 (COD) 9507/17 NOTE From: To: Presidency Council COMPET 431 MI 442 ETS 43 DIGIT 146 SOC 419 EMPL 326 CONSOM
More informationIndependence and powers of independent supervisory authorities
Independence and powers of independent supervisory authorities Dr. Eva Souhrada-Kirchmayer 10 th May 2012 3 rd Annual FRA Symposium on Data Protection Art. 28 of Directive 95/46/EC Supervisory authority
More informationObligation to inform employees - Directive 91/533/EEC - Article 2(2)(c)
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 1997 Helmut Kampelmann and Others v Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (C-253/96 to C-256/96), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v Andreas Schade (C-257/96) and
More informationInformation Requirements in the Consumer Rights Directive Proposal and in Other Directives
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY Information Requirements in the Consumer Rights Directive Proposal and in Other Directives IP/A/IMCO/NT/2010-14
More informationNV Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 9 NOVEMBER 1983 NV Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (Abuse of a dominant position Discounts on tyre purchases) Case 322/81 1. Community
More informationTREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
31.01.2012 TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION THE CONTRACTING PARTIES.. CONSCIOUS of the obligation of the Contracting Parties, as Member States of the
More informationEdition 1 July General Terms and Conditions of Eurasian carriage by rail (GTC EurAsia)
Edition 1 July 2014 General Terms and Conditions of Eurasian carriage by rail (GTC EurAsia) Applicable with effect from 1 July 2014 ABB-EurAsia This document may be shared with the public In accordance
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 7 September 2016 (*) THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
1 of 8 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) 7 September 2016 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Consumer protection Unfair commercial practices Directive 2005/29/EC Articles 5 and 7 Combined offer
More informationThis document has been provided by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).
This document has been provided by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). ICNL is the leading source for information on the legal environment for civil society and public participation.
More informationRules and approval procedures governing outside activities
Human Resources Services Services des Ressources humaines Circular No. Circulaire n HRS 28/2008 Date: 28-10-2008 Rules and approval procedures governing outside activities 1. The rules which govern the
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE SECONDMENT OF NATIONAL EXPERTS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BUREAU DECISION 4 MAY 2009
7.1.5. RULES GOVERNING THE SECONDMENT OF NATIONAL EXPERTS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BUREAU DECISION 4 MAY 2009 The Bureau, - having regard to Rule 22 of Parliament s Rules of Procedure, - after consulting
More information