European - 1998

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 591 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

De Hoop C–224/98
1998 ECJ	European, Education	Casemap 1 Citers
	(year?) The pursuit of education is an activity within the scope of the Treaty, with the result that Article 18 rights of residence apply when a citizen of the European Union is seeking to engage in it.

Volger -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-1,II-1) T-176/96; [1998] EUECJ T-176/96
13 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Vela Palacios -v- ESC (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-11,II-23) T-30/97; [1998] EUECJ T-30/97
14 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Quelle Schickedanz -v- Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main (Rec 1998,p I-123) (Judgment) C-80/96; [1998] EUECJ C-80/96
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Babahenini -v- Belgian State (Rec 1998,p I-183) (Judgment) C-113/97; [1998] EUECJ C-113/97
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Belgische Staat -v- Ghent Coal Terminal (Judgment) C-37/95; [1998] ECR I-1; [1998] EUECJ C-37/95
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	VAT, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Once a right of deduction had been exercised because the inputs were for the purpose of investment work intended to be used in connection with taxable transactions, the authorities may not claim repayment merely because the taxpayer has been unable to use the goods or services for the intended purpose.
	Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977 Art 17
	Link[s] omitted

Göritz Intransco International -v- Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Judgment) C-292/96; [1998] EUECJ C-292/96
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Simon -v- Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main (Rec 1998,p I-145) (Judgment) C-125/96; [1998] EUECJ C-125/96
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and others -v- Strohal Rotationsdruck (Rec 1998,p I-73) (Judgment) C-44/96; [1998] EUECJ C-44/96
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Intertronic -v- Commission (Order) C-196/97
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Schöning-Kougebetopoulou -v- Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Judgment) C-15/96; [1998] ECR I-47; [1998] EUECJ C-15/96
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European, Employment	Casemap
	Europa Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Promotion on grounds of seniority - Collective agreement applicable to public sector employees taking into account only periods of employment completed in the national public service but not periods of comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Justification - None (EC Treaty, Art. 48; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1) and (4)) Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Clause in a collective agreement contrary to the principle of non-discrimination - De jure nullity - Obligations of the national court (EC Treaty, Art 48; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 7(1) and (4)) Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude a clause in a collective agreement applicable to the public service of a Member State which provides for promotion on grounds of seniority for employees of that service after eight years' employment in a salary group determined by that agreement without taking any account of previous periods of comparable employment completed in the public service of another Member State. Such a clause is such as to infringe the principle of non-discrimination laid down by those provisions in that the conditions for promotion on grounds of seniority manifestly work to the detriment of migrant workers who have spent part of their careers in the public service of another Member State. As regards activities not falling within the scope of Article 48(4) of the Treaty, the clause cannot be justified either by arguments based on the specific characteristics of employment in the public service or, given the multiplicity of legally separate employers, by the desire to reward employee loyalty. A clause in a collective agreement entailing discrimination contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty and to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 is null and void by virtue of Article 7(4) of that regulation. Without requiring or waiting for that clause to be abolished by collective negotiation or by some other procedure, the national court must therefore apply the same rules to the members of the group disadvantaged by that discrimination as those applicable to the other workers.
	Link[s] omitted

Obst -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-27) (Order) C-403/95
15 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kögler -v- Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-15,II-35) T-160/96; [1998] EUECJ T-160/96
20 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Her Majesty's Treasury; Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Attorney General ex parte Shepherd Neame Limited [1998] EWHC Admin 43
21 Jan 1998 Admn	Customs and Excise, European
	UK government has sole discretion on imposition of beer duties, not subject to challenge within European Community context.
	Finance (No 2) Act 1997 8
	Link[s] omitted

Costacurta -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-21,II-49) T-98/96; [1998] EUECJ T-98/96
22 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ladbroke Racing -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1) T-67/94; [1998] EUECJ T-67/94
27 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Camar -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-77) T-172/97; [1998] EUECJ T-172/97
28 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau -v- Prolacto (Rec 1998,p I-345) (Judgment) C-346/96
29 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ]

Sinochem -v- Council T-97/95; [1998] EUECJ T-97/95
29 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Lopex Export -v- Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-317) (Judgment) C-315/96; [1998] EUECJ C-315/96
29 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Affatato -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-41,II-97) T-157/96; [1998] EUECJ T-157/96
29 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Südzucker Mannheim/Ochsenfurt -v- Hauptzollamt Mannheim (Rec 1998,p I-281) (Judgment) C-161/96; [1998] EUECJ C-161/96
29 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

De Corte -v- Commission T-62/96; [1998] EUECJ T-62/96
29 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Greece -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-207) (Judgment) C-61/95; [1998] EUECJ C-61/95
29 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Edouard Dubois and Fils -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-125) T-113/96; [1998] EUECJ T-113/96
29 Jan 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Italy (Rec 1998,p I-259) (Judgment) C-280/95; [1998] EUECJ C-280/95
29 Jan 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Polyvios -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-153) T-68/96; [1998] EUECJ T-68/96
3 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Bühring -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-171) T-246/93; [1998] EUECJ T-246/93
4 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Laga -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-195) T-93/95; [1998] EUECJ T-93/95
4 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Landuyt -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-213) T-94/95; [1998] EUECJ T-94/95
4 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Abello and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-377) (Order) C-30/96; [1998] EUECJ C-30/96
5 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Interporc Im- und Export -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-231) T-124/96; [1998] EUECJ T-124/96
6 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko (Rec 1998,p I-401) (Judgment) C-245/95; [1996] EUECJ C-245/95P; [1998] EUECJ C-245/95P
10 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Germany -v- Commission (Judgment) C-263/95; [1998] EUECJ C-263/95
10 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Heathrow Airport -v- Forte (UK) Ltd and Others [1998] EuLR 98
11 Feb 1998 ChD Lawrence Collins QC	Landlord and Tenant, European
	The dominant position held by a Landlord for the provision of space for services and his imposition of a differential charge was insufficient to justify a claim of abuse of position. The provision of catering services to airlines at Heathrow Airport was of a local character necessitated by “the need for flexibility and the need for the food to be as fresh as possible”. The defendants had not shown even an arguable case that trade between Member States was affected to an appreciable extent. The trade’s local character was not affected by the fact that three customers were airlines incorporated in other Member States. The expression “Euro-defences” must not be treated as a pejorative term.
	Treaty of Rome 1957 Art 80 Art 90

Commission -v- Italy (Rec 1998,p I-605) (Judgment) C-139/97; [1998] EUECJ C-139/97
12 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Blasi -v- Finanzamt München C-346/95; [1998] ECR 1-481; [1998] EUECJ C-346/95
12 Feb 1998 ECJ	European, VAT, Landlord and Tenant	1 Citers
	Europa Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for guests is taxable, as constituting the provision of accommodation in sectors with a function similar to that of the hotel sector. In that regard, Article 13.B(b)(1) does not preclude taxation in respect of letting agreements concluded for a period of less than six months, if that duration is deemed to reflect the parties' intention. It is, however, for the national court to determine whether, in a case before it, certain factors (such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement) suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement does not reflect the parties' true intention, in which case the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to be taken into consideration. A distinction drawn by Member States, who enjoy a margin of discretion in this regard, between accommodation in the hotel sector and the letting of dwelling accommodation on the basis of its duration constitutes an appropriate criterion of distinction, since one of the ways in which hotel accommodation specifically differs from the letting of dwelling accommodation is the duration of the stay, and the use to this end of the criterion of the provision of short-term accommodation, being defined as less than six months, appears to be a reasonable means by which to ensure that the transactions of taxable persons whose business is similar to the essential function performed by a hotel, namely the provision of temporary accommodation on a commercial basis, are subject to tax.
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- France (Rec 1998,p I-613) (Judgment) C-144/97; [1998] EUECJ C-144/97
12 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Raso and others (Rec 1998,p I-533) (Judgment) C-163/96; [1998] EUECJ C-163/96
12 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Spain (Rec 1998,p I-505) (Judgment) C-92/96; [1998] EUECJ C-92/96
12 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Cordelle -v- Office national des pensions (Judgment) C-366/96; [1998] EUECJ C-366/96
12 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Guérin automobiles -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-253) T-275/97; [1998] EUECJ T-275/97
13 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Guérin automobiles -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-261) T-276/97; [1998] EUECJ T-276/97
13 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Alexopoulou -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-51,II-117) T-195/96; [1998] EUECJ T-195/96
13 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Smanor and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-271) T-182/97; [1998] EUECJ T-182/97
16 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pharos -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-285) T-105/96; [1998] EUECJ T-105/96
17 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Maccaferri -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-57,II-133) T-56/96; [1998] EUECJ T-56/96
17 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Grant -v- South West Trains Ltd [1998] IRLR 188; C-249/96; [1998] ICR 449; [1998] 3 BHRC 578; [1998] EUECJ C-249/96
17 Feb 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European	1 Cites 1 Citers
	A company's ban on the provision of travel perks to same sex partners of employees did not constitute breach of European sex discrimination law. An employer's policy was not necessarily to be incorporated into contract of employment. The court said that since the rule applied equally to male and female employees it was not discriminatory on grounds of “sex” narrowly understood. The Court then considered whether “persons who have a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex are in the same situation as those who are married or have a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex”. The European Parliament, although deploring all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, had not yet introduced measures to support that view; and that the laws of the member states only gave limited protection to such a relationship. So far as the European Commission on Human Rights was concerned, national provisions which, for the purpose of protecting the family, accord more favourable treatment to married persons and persons of the opposite sex living together as man and wife than to persons of the same sex in a stable relationship are not contrary to article 14 of the Convention which prohibits, inter alia, discrimination on the ground of sex. Stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages and stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex. Consequently, an employer is not required by Community law to treat the situation of a person who has a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex as equivalent to that of a person who is married to or has a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex.
	Council Directive 75/117/EEC - EC Treaty 119
	Link[s] omitted

E -v- ESC (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-67,II-159) T-183/96; [1998] EUECJ T-183/96
17 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Hankart -v- Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-63,II-149) T-91/96; [1998] EUECJ T-91/96
17 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pantochim -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-311) T-107/96; [1998] EUECJ T-107/96
17 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Comité d'entreprise de la Société française de production and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-335) T-189/97; [1998] EUECJ T-189/97
18 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

SPAR Österreichische Warenhandels -v- Finanzlandesdirektion für Salzburg (Rec 1998,p I-785) (Judgment) C-318/96; [1998] EUECJ C-318/96
19 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Greece (Rec 1998,p I-823) (Judgment) C-8/97; [1998] EUECJ C-8/97
19 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

NIFPO and Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation -v- Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-681) (Judgment) C-4/96; [1998] EUECJ C-4/96
19 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Dir International Film & Ors -v- Commission (Commercial Policy) T-85/95; [1998] EUECJ T-85/95
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Dir International Film Srl & Ors -v- Commission Of The European Communities. (Action For Annulment) T-369/84; [1998] EUECJ T-369/84
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

DIR International Film and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-357) T-369/94; [1998] EUECJ T-369/94
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-655) (Judgment) C-309/95; [1998] EUECJ C-309/95
19 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Chevassus-Marche -v- Council régional de la Réunion C-212/96; [1998] EUECJ C-212/96
19 Feb 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Campogrande -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-89,II-215) T-3/97; [1998] EUECJ T-3/97
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Toller -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-77,II-179) T-142/96; [1998] EUECJ T-142/96
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pierard -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-85,II-205) T-169/96; [1998] EUECJ T-169/96
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Continolo -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-101,II-261) T-196/97; [1998] EUECJ T-196/97
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Eyckeler & Malt -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-401) T-42/96; [1998] EUECJ T-42/96
19 Feb 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Wright -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise
23 Feb 1998 QBD	European
	Freedom of trade provisions in European Law did not prevent member nations limiting access for material thought to be indecent or obscene.
	European Community Treaty 1992

Gouvernement des Antilles néerlandaises -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-455) T-310/97; [1998] EUECJ T-310/97
2 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Carlsen and others -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-485) T-610/97; [1998] EUECJ T-610/97
3 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

De Abreu -v- Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-109,II-281) T-146/96; [1998] EUECJ T-146/96
4 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pevasa -v- Commission (Agriculture) C-200/94; [1998] EUECJ C-200/94P
5 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Molenaar -v- Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg (Judgment) C-160/96; [1998] EUECJ C-160/96
5 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Manzo-Tafaro -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-115,II-307) T-221/96; [1998] EUECJ T-221/96
5 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kulzer -v- Freistaat Bayern (Rec 1998,p I-895) (Judgment) C-194/96; [1998] EUECJ C-194/96
5 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Inpesca -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-831) (Judgment) C-199/94; [1995] EUECJ C-199/94P; [1998] EUECJ C-199/94P
5 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- France (Rec 1998,p I-963) (Judgment) C-175/97; [1998] EUECJ C-175/97
5 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Solred -v- Administración General del Estado (Rec 1998,p I-937) (Judgment) C-347/96; [1998] EUECJ C-347/96
5 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

MTV Europe (a Firm) -v- BMG Records (Uk) Ltd and others [1998] EWCA Civ 430
10 Mar 1998 CA	European, Commercial
	The claimants sought damages for alleged breaches of the European Treaty by the defendants in anti-competitive behaviour.
	Link[s] omitted

T. Port (Agriculture) C-365/95; [1998] EUECJ C-365/95
10 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Germany -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-973) (Judgment) C-122/95; [1998] EUECJ C-122/95
10 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

T Port -v- Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-1023) (Judgment) C-364/95; [1998] EUECJ C-364/95
10 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Laboratoires Sarget -v- FIRS (Rec 1998,p I-1121) (Judgment) C-270/96; [1998] EUECJ C-270/96
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Berthu -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-509) T-207/97; [1998] EUECJ T-207/97
12 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Italy (Rec 1998,p I-1191) (Judgment) C-313/97; [1998] EUECJ C-313/97
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Germany (Rec 1998,p I-1165) (Judgment) C-344/96; [1998] EUECJ C-344/96
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Dethier Équipement -v- Dassy and Sovam (Rec 1998,p I-1061) (Judgment) C-319/94; [1998] EUECJ C-319/94
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Djabali -v- Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne (Rec 1998,p I-1149) (Judgment) C-314/96; [1998] EUECJ C-314/96
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Greece (Rec 1998,p I-1095) (Judgment) C-187/96; [1998] EUECJ C-187/96
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-1181) (Judgment) C-163/97; [1998] EUECJ C-163/97
12 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lonuzzo-Murgante -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-119,II-317) T-247/97; [1998] EUECJ T-247/97
13 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Bossa -v- Nordstress Ltd
13 Mar 1998 EAT	Discrimination, European
	The defendant company had refused to employ the complainant at Heathrow on the basis that he was Italian, and relied upon exemptions in the 1976 Act. Held: A Statutory provision which permitted discrimination against a worker employed in Europe operated against the Treaty obligation to afford free movement of workers and is to be ignored.
	Race Relations Act 1976 8 - EC Treay Art 48

Goldstein -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-523) T-235/95; [1998] EUECJ T-235/95
16 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Sjöberg (Rec 1998,p I-1225) (Judgment) C-387/96
17 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechselbank -v- Dietzinger C-45/96; [1998] 1 WLR 1035; [1998] EUECJ C-45/96
17 Mar 1998 ECJ	European, Consumer, Banking	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court was asked whether the Directive applied to a bank guarantee given by a natural person who was not acting in the course of a trade or business to secure the overdraft of a third party. Held. The scope of the Directive is not limited according to the nature of the goods or services to be supplied under a contract; the only requirement is that the goods or services must be intended for private consumption. The grant of a credit facility is indeed the provision of a service, the contract of guarantee being merely ancillary to the principal contract, of which in practice it is usually a precondition. However, a contract of guarantee concluded by a natural person who is not acting in the course of his trade or profession does not come within the scope of the Directive where it guarantees repayment of a debt contracted by another person who, for his part, is active within the course of his trade or profession.
	Council Directive 85/557/EEC
	Link[s] omitted

Carraro -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-123,II-329) T-183/95; [1998] EUECJ T-183/95
17 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Jules Dethier Equipement Sa -v- Dassy and Another
18 Mar 1998 ECJ	Employment, European
	Employment protection continued after liquidation where company continued to trade up to sale as going concern.
	Council Directive 77/187/EEC Feb 14 1977

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte British Council of Turkish Cypriot Associations and Another [1998] EWHC Admin 341; 112 ILR 735
19 Mar 1998 Admn Sedley J	European, Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicants sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to support the application for admission to the Eurorpean Community of Cyprus. Held: Leave was refused: "the independence of Cyprus since 17th August 1960 forecloses any power in the United Kingdom courts to entertain issues which do not merely touch upon but are inseparable from the constitutionality of events in Cyprus. That the facts amounting to the asserted want of constitutionality are not themselves contentious cannot be an answer because it is not the evidence but the adjudication which in such a situation violates comity."
	Cyprus Act 1960 1
	Link[s] omitted

Tzoanos -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-129,II-343) T-74/96; [1998] EUECJ T-74/96
19 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming (Judgment) C-1/96
19 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Directive 91/629/EEC - European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes - Recommendation concerning Cattle - Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation - Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State - Quantitative restrictions on exports - Exhaustive harmonisation - Validity of the Directive.
	Link[s] omitted

van der Wal -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-545) T-83/96; [1998] EUECJ T-83/96
19 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Buehler Ag -v- Chronos Richardson Ltd [1998] 2 All ER 960; [1998] EWCA Civ 509
20 Mar 1998 CA Roch, Aldous LJJ	Intellectual Property, European	Casemap
	The rejection of an opposition claim to a European Patent by the European Patents Office, did not create an estoppel for an English Court looking at a similar issue.
	Patents Act 1977 72
	Link[s] omitted

CAS Succhi di Frutta -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-573) T-191/96
20 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Feral -v- Committee of Regions (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-145,II-471) T-301/97; [1998] EUECJ T-301/97
20 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Criminal Proceedings Against Sjoberg C-387/96; [1998] EUECJ C-387/96
23 Mar 1998 ECJ	Transport, European
	Regulation of road transport applied to passenger transport services contracted to public authority, and to carry duty roster extracts.
	Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85
	Link[s] omitted

Atlantic Container Line and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-589) T-18/97
23 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Huguette Meyer & Ors -v- Court Of Justice Of The European Communities. (Officials) T-181/97; [1998] EUECJ T-181/97
24 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Bailii ]

International Procurement Services -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-601) T-175/94
24 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Becret-Danieau and others -v- Parliament T-232/97; [1998] EUECJ T-232/97
24 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Koopman -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-163,II-511) T-202/97; [1998] EUECJ T-202/97
25 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission of the European Communities -v- Hellenic Republic
25 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Public service for one member government must be allowed as service under subsequent member government for salary scale increments.
	ECTreaty Art 16

Bayerische Hypotheken Und Wechselbank Ag -v- Dietringer
25 Mar 1998 ECJ	Consumer, European
	A contract of guarantee by private individual was not subject to cooling off period even though it was supporting a person trading.
	Council Directive 85/577/EEC Art 4

Petridi -v- Simou and others (Rec 1998,p I-1333) (Judgment) C-324/96; [1998] EUECJ C-324/96
26 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

France -v- Commission (Competition) C-30/95; [1998] EUECJ C-30/95
31 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Preussag Stahl -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-609) T-129/96; [1998] EUECJ T-129/96
31 Mar 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

France and Société commerciale des potasses and de l'azote and Entreprise minière and chimique -v- Commission C-68/94; [1998] EUECJ C-68/94
31 Mar 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Lunn Poly and another [1998] EWHC Admin 391
2 Apr 1998 Admn	European
	The application of differential rates of insurance premium tax, in order to prevent price shifting between products sold together, was against European law and void.
	EC Treaty Art 92(1) - Finance Act 1997
	Link[s] omitted

Proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy C-213/96; [1998] ECR I-1777; [1998] EUECJ C-213/96
2 Apr 1998 ECJ	European, Utilities, Customs and Excise	Casemap 1 Citers
	An excise duty which is charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which is higher than the lowest rate but lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin, constitutes internal taxation within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty, not a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12, where it forms part of a general system of taxation which is levied not only on electrical energy as such but also on several primary energy sources, and where both imported electricity and electricity of domestic origin form part of the same tax system and the duty is levied by the same authorities under the same procedures, whatever the origin of the electricity. The fact that imported electricity is taxed at the moment of import and electricity of domestic origin at the moment of production makes no difference for the classification of such a duty, since in view of the characteristics of electricity those two moments correspond to the same marketing stage, namely that when the electricity enters the national distribution network. Community law does not, at its present stage of development, restrict the freedom of each Member State to establish a tax system which differentiates between certain products, even products which are similar within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty, on the basis of objective criteria, such as the nature of the raw materials used or the production processes employed. Such differentiation is compatible with Community law, however, only if it pursues objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation, and if the detailed rules are such as to avoid any form of discrimination, direct or indirect, against imports from other Member States or any form of protection of competing domestic products. Article 95 of the Treaty therefore does not preclude the rate of an internal duty on electricity from varying according to the manner in which the electricity is produced and the raw materials used, in so far as that differentiation is based on environmental considerations. Protection of the environment constitutes one of the essential objectives of the Community. The Community's task includes the promotion of sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment and its activities include a policy in the sphere of the environment. Furthermore, compatibility with the environment of methods of producing electrical energy is an important objective of the Community's energy policy. Europa The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes an excise duty which forms part of a national system of taxation on sources of energy from being levied on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary according to its method of production while being levied on imported electricity, whatever its method of production, at a flat rate which, although lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin, leads, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being imposed on imported electricity. Article 95 of the Treaty is infringed by a system of internal taxation where the taxation on the imported product and that on the similar domestic product are calculated in a different manner on the basis of different criteria which lead, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being imposed on the imported product. The fact that, because of the characteristics of electricity, it may prove extremely difficult to determine precisely the method of production of imported electricity and hence the primary energy sources used for its production cannot justify such a system of taxation, since practical difficulties cannot justify the application of internal taxation which discriminates against products from other Member States. Although in principle Article 95 of the Treaty does not require Member States to abolish objectively justified differences which national legislation establishes between internal taxes on domestic products, it is otherwise where such abolition is the only way of avoiding direct or indirect discrimination against the imported products.
	Link[s] omitted

Apostolidis -v- Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-167,II-521) T-86/97; [1998] EUECJ T-86/97
2 Apr 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Norbrook Laboratories -v- Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Rec 1998,p I-1531) (Judgment) C-127/95; [1998] EUECJ C-127/95
2 Apr 1998 ECJ	European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag Lloyd Fluggesellschaft -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-641) T-86/96
2 Apr 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader's Ferry Limited [1998] UKHL 40; [1999] 1 CMLR 1320; [1998] 3 WLR 1260; [1999] 2 AC 418; [1999] 1 All ER 129
2 Apr 1998 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hope of Craighead	Police, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Protesters sought to prevent the appellant's lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under community law. Held: Police do not have an absolute duty to prevent breaches of the peace. A Chief Constable must have a wide discretion as to how his resources are applied. He had no duty to apply all the resources required to prevent a breach of peace. The actions of the police did not amount to a restraint on exports. LMA Where the Authorities had taken some action, providing policing of demonstrations by animal rights protestors against the export of live animals on three days a week, but this was not enough to eliminate the effects of demonstrations on the export of live animals by the applicant. The HL found for the authorities but would the UK be seen to be in breach of its obligations had the question been referred to the ECJ. The majority of the HL suggested that, were the case to turn on the question of whether the Chief Constable's decision as to the appropriate level of policy constituted a measure having an equivalent effect or not, that questions would have been referred.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd C-1/96; [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
2 Apr 1998 ECJ	European, Animals, Commercial
	Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
	ECTreaty Art 36
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Sytraval and Brink's France (Rec 1998,p I-1719) (Judgment) C-367/95; [1998] EUECJ C-367/95P
2 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

The Queen -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac and others (Rec 1998,p I-1605) (Judgment) C-296/95
2 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Greenpeace and others -v- Commission (Judgment) C-321/95; [1998] EUECJ C-321/95P
2 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Factortame Ltd and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for Transport (No.5) [1998] EWCA Civ 1971; [1998] Eu LR 456; [1998] 3 CMLR 192; [1998] COD 381; [1999] 2 All ER 640
8 Apr 1998 CA	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Customs and Excise Commissioners, Ex Parte EMU Tabac Sarl and Others (Imperial Tobacco Ltd, Intervener) C-296/95; [1998] EUECJ C-296/95
9 Apr 1998 ECJ	Customs and Excise, European
	Excise duty is payable on cigarettes imported as if personal imports but by use of agent in Luxembourg organising he imports as a commercial enterprise.
	Link[s] omitted

Camar -v- Commission and Council (Rec 1998,p I-1815) (Order) C-43/98
15 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Camar -v- Commission and Council (Rec.1998,p.I-1815) (Order) C-43/98
15 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kohll -v- Union des caisses de maladie (Rec 1998,p I-1931) (Judgment) C-158/96; [1998] EUECJ C-158/96
28 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Safir -v- Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas län (Rec 1998,p I-1897) (Judgment) C-118/96
28 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Reisebüro Binder (Rec 1998,p I-1889) (Order) C-116/96
28 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft -v- Council and Commission T-184/95; [1998] EUECJ T-184/95
28 Apr 1998 ECFI Bellamy P	European
	ECJ 1 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Lawful or unlawful act - Damage - Causal link - Burden of proof (EC Treaty, Art. 215) 2 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Regulation imposing a trade embargo against a non-member country - Damage resulting from retaliatory measures taken by the government of that country - Causal link - None (EC Treaty, Arts 113 and 215; Council Regulation No 2340/90) 3 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Regulation imposing a trade embargo against a non-member country - Lawful act - Lack of unusual and special damage - Community liability - Not incurred (EC Treaty, Art. 215; Council Regulation No 2340/90) 4 If the Community is to incur non-contractual liability as the result of a lawful or unlawful act, it is necessary to prove that the alleged damage is real and the existence of a causal link between that act and the alleged damage. It is incumbent upon the applicant to produce to the Community judicature evidence to establish the fact of the loss which he claims to have suffered. 5 Liability on the part of the Community, as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation No 2340/90 prohibiting trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait, for damage caused by the impossibility, for an undertaking established in a Member State, of recovering its debts from the Government of Iraq following the latter's adoption, in response to the embargo imposed on it, of a law freezing the assets of undertakings established in the States responsible for the embargo, cannot be incurred unless there is a direct causal link between the adoption of that regulation and the damage. It is for the undertaking seeking compensation for the damage to establish that the adoption of that law constituted, as a retaliatory measure, an objectively foreseeable consequence, in the normal course of events, of the adoption of that regulation. In any event, there can be no causal link between the adoption of Regulation No 2340/90 and the damage concerned since the trade embargo against Iraq was imposed by a United Nations Security Council resolution. Whilst it is true that, under Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, only the Members of the United Nations are required to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council and were required, in that capacity, to take all necessary measures to give effect to the trade embargo imposed by it, the fact remains that those Members of the United Nations Organisation which were also Member States of the Community were able to take action to that effect only under the Treaty, since any measure of common commercial policy, such as the imposition of a trade embargo, falls, by virtue of Article 113 of the Treaty, within the exclusive competence of the Community. Regulation No 2340/90 was adopted on the basis of those considerations in order to ensure uniform implementation, throughout the Community, of the measures concerning trade with Iraq and Kuwait decided upon by the United Nations Security Council. The damage allegedly resulting from the counter-measures adopted by the Iraqi Government can therefore be attributed not to the adoption of Regulation No 2340/90 but only to the United Nations Security Council resolution which imposed the embargo. 6 In the event of the principle of Community liability for a lawful act being recognised in Community law, such liability can be incurred only if the damage alleged, if deemed to constitute a 'still subsisting injury', affects a particular circle of economic operators in a disproportionate manner by comparison with others (special damage) and exceeds the limits of the economic risks inherent in operating in the sector concerned (unusual damage), without the legislative measure that gave rise to the alleged damage being justified by a general economic interest. A Community undertaking whose claims against the government of a non-member country have become irrecoverable following the imposition by a Community regulation of a trade embargo against that country cannot be regarded as having suffered special damage where not only its claims were affected but also those of all other Community undertakings which, when the embargo was imposed, had not yet been paid. Furthermore, the damage resulting from the suspension of payments by that non-member country cannot be regarded as unusual damage, falling outside the foreseeable risks inherent in any provision of services in a 'high-risk' non-member country. In any event, whilst it is true that rules intended, by the imposition of a trade embargo against a non-member country, to maintain international peace and security have, by definition, effects which affect the freedom to pursue a trade or business, thereby causing harm to persons who are in no way responsible for the situation which led to the adoption of the sanctions, the fact nevertheless remains that the importance of the aims pursued by such rules is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some operators. Such damage cannot therefore render the Community liable.
	EC Treaty 215
	Link[s] omitted

Javico -v- Yves Saint Laurent Parfums (Rec 1998,p I-1983) (Judgment) C-306/96; [1998] EUECJ C-306/96
28 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Decker -v- Caisse de maladie des employés privés (Rec 1998,p I-1831) (Judgment) C-120/95; [1998] EUECJ C-120/95
28 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Metronome Musik -v- Music Point Hokamp (Judgment) C-200/96; [1998] EUECJ C-200/96
28 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

British Coal -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-705) T-367/94
29 Apr 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salariés -v- Thibault (Rec 1998,p I-2011) (Judgment) C-136/95; [1998] EUECJ C-136/95
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Cordiale -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-177,II-551) T-205/95; [1998] EUECJ T-205/95
30 Apr 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Cabour and Nord Distribution Automobile -v- Arnor 'SOCO' (Rec 1998,p I-2055) (Judgment) C-230/96; [1998] EUECJ C-230/96
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Sodiprem and others and Albert -v- Direction générale des douanes (Judgment) C-37/96; [1998] EUECJ C-37/96
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

De Vriendt and others -v- Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and others (Rec 1998,p I-2105) (Judgment) C-377/96; [1998] EUECJ C-377/96
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Germany (Rec 1998,p I-2133) (Judgment) C-24/97; [1998] EUECJ C-24/97
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Italia Testa and Modesti (Rec 1998,p I-2181) (Order) C-128/97
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Clarke & Sons and Ferne (Rec 1998,p I-2147) (Judgment) C-47/97
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Cityflyer Express -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-757) T-16/96; [1998] EUECJ T-16/96
30 Apr 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Bellone -v- Yokohama (Rec 1998,p I-2191) (Judgment) C-215/97; [1998] EUECJ C-215/97
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

De Vriendt (Social Policy) C-384/96; [1998] EUECJ C-384/96
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment - Old-age and retirement pensions - Method of calculation - Pensionable age.
	Link[s] omitted

Vlaamse Gewest -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-717) T-214/95; [1998] EUECJ T-214/95
30 Apr 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Sodiprem (Taxation) C-38/96; [1998] EUECJ C-38/96
30 Apr 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Dock dues (octroi de mer) - Fiscal rules applicable to the French overseas departments - Decision 89/688/EEC - Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty - Internal taxation.
	Link[s] omitted

Paul Jeremy Duffen -v- Fra Bo Spa [1998] EWCA Civ 748; [2000] EuLR 167
30 Apr 1998 CA	Agency, Damages, European	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff had been appointed as an exclusive sales agent for the defendant for a minimum period of four years. The defendants terminated it eighteen months early claiming fraudulent misrepresentation. Held: The clause setting the damages claim was a penalty clause and was unenforceable. The termination of the agency gave rise to a claim additional to the statutory claim. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated within the regulations was entitled to augment the common law damages due to him with the sums due to him by virtue of the Commercial Agents Regulations. The right approach was to look at net earnings which might have made during the remainder of the period for which his agency would have run had it not been terminated prematurely, but without taking into account common law concepts such as avoided loss and mitigation. An award based on gross earnings would give the agent an undeserved windfall. The judge awarded compensation for loss of future earnings, ignoring the ordinary rules of mitigation.
	Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal Proceedings Against E Clarke Ltd & Sons (Coaches) Ltd and Another C-47/97; [1998] EUECJ C-47/97
1 May 1998 ECJ	Road Traffic, European
	Tachograph equipment was required for tour coach which took passengers from airports, tourist locations and hotels. Lack of predetermined routes or stopping off places disallowed exemption.
	Link[s] omitted

Safir -v- Skattemyndigheten I Dajarnas Lan C-118/96; [1998] EUECJ C-118/96
1 May 1998 ECJ	Financial Services, European
	Different tax treatment of insurance products according to whether company offering them was based in the member country or another was unlawful breach of Treaty.
	ECTreaty Art 59
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Yiadom
1 May 1998 CA	Immigration, European
	The decision to exclude an EU national from United Kingdom for the facilitation of illegal immigration was proper, even though the decision was also motivated by a wish to avoid the costs of prosecution and imprisonment for the national purse.

BEUC -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-795) T-84/97; [1998] EUECJ T-84/97
4 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Glencore Grain -v- Commission (Judgment) C-404/96; [1998] EUECJ C-404/96P
5 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte National Farmers' Union and others Case C-293/97; C-157/96; [1998] EUECJ C-157/96
5 May 1998 ECJ	Environment, European, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. "As regards . . . the principle of proportionality, it is settled law that, in order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with that principle, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it."
	Council Directive 91/676/EEC
	Link[s] omitted

Dreyfus -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-2309) (Judgment) C-386/96; [1998] EUECJ C-386/96P
5 May 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Glencore Grain -v- Commission (Judgment) C-403/96; [1998] EUECJ C-403/96P
5 May 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Compagnie Continentale -v- Commission C-391/96; [1998] EUECJ C-391/96P
5 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte National Farmers' Union and others Case C-293/97; C-157/96; [1998] EUECJ C-157/96
5 May 1998 ECJ	Environment, European, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Land from which nitrates were leeching off into rivers causing pollution, had to be designated as environmentally vulnerable land, if agricultural activities were a substantial even if only partially cause of the pollution. "As regards . . . the principle of proportionality, it is settled law that, in order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with that principle, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it."
	Council Directive 91/676/EEC
	Link[s] omitted

United Kingdom -v- Commission (Judgment) C-180/96;; [1996] EUECJ C-180/96R; [1998] EUECJ C-180/96
5 May 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture, Health, Animals	Casemap 1 Cites
	The European ban of the export of British beef in order to contain the spread of BSE was not disproportionate to the need nor outside the range of possible discretion of the Commission of the Community. Europa In order for an act of the Council or the Commission to form the subject-matter of an action for annulment, it must be intended to have legal effects. That is not the position in the case of an act of the Commission which reflects its intention, or that of one of its departments, to follow a particular line of conduct or which merely confirms a previous act in such a way that annulment of the confirmatory act would follow from annulment of the previous act. In adopting Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, the Commission acted within the framework of the powers conferred on it by Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade. First, the conditions governing the adoption of safeguard measures in accordance with those two directives were fulfilled, particularly since the power to adopt such measures is justified by the fact that a zoonosis, disease or other cause is likely to constitute a serious hazard. Second, having regard, in particular, to the fact that the directives are drafted in very wide terms, without imposing any restrictions as to the temporal or territorial scope of the measures concerned, it does not appear that the Commission clearly exceeded the bounds of its broad discretion in seeking to contain the disease within the territory of the United Kingdom by banning exports from that territory to other Member States and to third countries. Lastly, the decision is not vitiated by misuse of powers, since the Commission was prompted to act by concerns as to the risk of transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to humans, after examining the measures adopted by the United Kingdom and consulting the Scientific Veterinary Committee and the Standing Veterinary Committee, its exclusive or main purpose not being to protect economic interests rather than health. Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which imposes, on a temporary basis, a total ban on exports of bovine animals, bovine meat and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom to the other Member States and to third countries, fulfils the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, does not breach the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination or legal certainty and is in accordance with the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39(1) of the Treaty. As regards, more particularly, the principle of proportionality, it was open to the Commission, in view of the great uncertainty as to the risks posed by the animals and products concerned, to take the protective measures in issue without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks became fully apparent. As regards the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, the fact that, at the time of adoption of the decision, almost all the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Europe were recorded in the United Kingdom meant that the situation in that Member State could not be regarded as comparable with that in the other Member States. Article 43 of the Treaty is the appropriate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty. In that connection, and having regard to the importance of the role played by the free movement of animals, animal products and products of animal origin in achieving those objectives, Article 43 constituted the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade, even though those directives authorise the Commission incidentally to adopt safeguard measures covering `products of animal origin', `products derived from those products' and `products derived' from animals which are not included in Annex II to the Treaty.
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-2643) (Judgment) C-145/97; [1998] EUECJ C-145/97
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Viscido and others -v- Ente Poste Italiane (Rec 1998,p I-2629) (Judgment) C-52/97; [1998] EUECJ C-52/97
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lease Plan Luxembourg -v- Belgische Staat (Rec 1998,p I-2553) (Judgment) C-390/96; [1998] EUECJ C-390/96
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Viscido (State Aid) C-54/97; [1998] EUECJ C-54/97
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Aid granted by Member States - Meaning - National law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the obligation of observing a rule of general application relating to fixed-term employment contracts.
	Link[s] omitted

Ireland -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-2655) (Order) C-239/97
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Viscido (State Aid) C-53/97; [1998] EUECJ C-53/97
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Aid granted by Member States - Meaning - National law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the obligation of observing a rule of general application relating to fixed-term employment contracts.
	Link[s] omitted

Gómez Rodríguez -v- Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (Rec 1998,p I-2461) (Judgment) C-113/96; [1998] EUECJ C-113/96
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Spain (Rec 1998,p I-2501) (Judgment) C-124/96; [1998] EUECJ C-124/96
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Clean Car Autoservice -v- Landeshauptmann von Wien (Rec 1998,p I-2521) (Judgment) C-350/96
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Somaco -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-2587) (Judgment) C-401/96; [1998] EUECJ C-401/96P
7 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Moore -v- Piretta Pta Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 174; [1998] CLY 113
11 May 1998 QBD John Mitting QC	Agency, European, Commercial	Casemap 1 Citers
	M had a series of agency contracts selling women's clothing. The last contract was in 1994, and on termination, M claimed an indemnity under the contract which itself applied the regulations. Reg 17(3) gave an indemnity for new customers, where the principal continued to derive benefit. Held: The agency contract was to be interpreted to include the series of contracts, including those before the regulations. The indemnity was capped at one year's average remuneration over the previous five years. A commercial agent whose contract had been terminated during term of contract was entitled nevertheless to an indemnity in accordance with the Regulations for custom introduced for entire period. In an indemnity case, equitable principles might require there to be taken into account such part of the goodwill as the agent was able to exploit for himself, or for the benefit of another principal. John Mitting QC said: "Consistent with the purpose of achieving harmony between member states, it is in my judgment permissible to look into the law and practice of the country in which the relevant right . . originated . . ; and to do so for the purpose of construing the English (sic) Regulations and to use them as a guide to their application". and "There are three stages in assessing the amount of the indemnity. First, it has to be asked what is the value of the business to the principal of new customers brought . . by the agent and of existing customers whose business has been significantly increased. The factors to be taken into account in making that judgment include the loss of the business of such customers after the agency has been terminated, whether due to causes beyond the agent's and principal's control (for example insolvency on the part of the customer or a decision on the part of that customer to buy goods elsewhere) or to factors within the agent's control, for example the agent taking the custom of that customer with him. That is because the thing that has to be assessed is the extent to which the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the efforts of the agent. The value of the business which remains for the benefit of the principal can, and in some cases no doubt should be, assessed by reference to periods as short as a year. But there is nothing in the regulations that requires them to be thus limited. If on the evidence the benefits of the agent's efforts are likely to endure for more than a year after the termination of the agency then that fact can be taken into account in the assessment and need not be limited to looking at the period of one year after termination only. The second factor is that the payment must be equitable having regard to all the circumstances and particularly the commission 'lost' by the agent. . Other factors which can be taken into account under this head include . . the expenses which the agent would have incurred in earning the commission which was his due. Another factor common to all cases is accelerated payment: the indemnity is accrued as at the date of termination in respect of commission which would have occurred after it. Some discount on that account must be made. The purpose of the indemnity seems to me to be to award a share of the goodwill built up by the efforts of the agent to him on the termination of the agency. Otherwise the whole benefit of that goodwill will remain with his former principal. The third step in the calculation is this. Having calculated the amount of the indemnity, a cap is applied. The cap is provided for in reg 17(4)."
	Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 No 3053 - Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17

Gilly -v- Directeur des services fiscaux du Bas-Rhin (Rec 1998,p I-2793) (Judgment) C-336/96; [1998] EUECJ C-336/96
12 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Landbrugsministeriet -v- Steff-Houlberg Export and others (Rec 1998,p I-2661) (Judgment) C-366/95; [1998] EUECJ C-366/95
12 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

United Kingdom -v- Commission (Judgment) C-106/96; [1998] EUECJ C-106/96
12 May 1998 ECJ	European
	It follows from Articles 205 and 209 of the Treaty and the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the Financial Regulation, read together with paragraph 3(c) of Section IV of the Joint Declaration of 30 June 1982 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, that implementation of Community expenditure relating to any significant Community action presupposes not only the entry of the relevant appropriation in the budget of the Community, which is a matter for the budgetary authority, but in addition the prior adoption of a basic act authorising that expenditure, which is a matter for the legislative authority, whereas implementation of budgetary appropriations for Community action which does not fall within that category - namely non-significant Community action - does not require prior adoption of such a basic act. The requirement that a basic act must be adopted before an appropriation is implemented derives directly from the scheme of the Treaty, in accordance with which the conditions governing the exercise of legislative powers and budgetary powers are not the same. The fact that implementation of expenditure on the basis of the mere entry of the relevant appropriations in the budget is an exception to that fundamental rule means that it cannot be assumed that Community action is non-significant and the Commission must therefore prove it to be so. The appropriations under heading B3-4103 of the budget for the financial year 1995 were to cover expenditure under a programme to combat poverty and social exclusion to be proposed by the Commission; however, when its proposal was not adopted by the Council, the Commission decided to commit that expenditure to fund the projects to combat social exclusion announced in its Press Release IP/96/67 of 23 January 1996, but did not succeed in establishing before the Court that the projects in question constituted non-significant action. Consequently, it was not competent to commit that expenditure, thus acting in breach of Article 4(1) of the Treaty, and its decision must therefore be annulled. Since annulment of the Commission's decision referred to in its Press Release IP/96/67 of 23 January 1996, announcing certain grants for European projects seeking to overcome social exclusion, takes place at a time when all, or almost all, of the relevant payments have been made, important considerations of legal certainty, comparable with those arising where certain regulations are annulled, justify the Court in exercising the power conferred on it by the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Treaty when it annuls a regulation and in deciding that the annulment is not to affect the validity of payments made or undertakings given under contracts which were the subject of the funding in issue.
	Link[s] omitted

Kefalas and others -v- Elliniko Dimosio and Organismos Oikonomikis Anasygkrotisis Epicheiriseon C-367/96; [1998] EUECJ C-367/96
12 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Council C-170/96; [1998] EUECJ C-170/96
12 May 1998 ECJ	European	1 Citers
	Europa 1. Article M of the Treaty on European Union makes it clear that a provision such as Article K.3(2), which provides for the adoption of joint action by the Council in the areas referred to in Article K.1 does not affect the provisions of the EC Treaty. In accordance with Article L of the Treaty on European Union, the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the powers of the Court of Justice and the exercise of those powers apply to Article M. It is therefore the task of the Court to ensure that acts which, according to the Council, fall within the scope of Article K.3(2) do not encroach upon the powers conferred by the EC Treaty on the Community. It follows that where an action is brought before the Court seeking a declaration that, in light of its objective, an act adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union falls within the scope of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, so that it should have been based on that provision, the Court has jurisdiction to review the content of the act in the light of Article 100c of the EC Treaty in order to ascertain whether the Act affects the powers of the Community under that provision. 2. Construed in the light of Article 3(d) of the EC Treaty, which includes among the activities of the Community for the purposes set out in Article 2, 'measures concerning the entry and movement of persons in the internal market as provided for in Article 100c', the phrase `crossing the external borders of the Member States' in Article 100c(1) refers, in the case of an airport, to the crossing of those borders at a border control point, permitting the holder of the visa to enter and to move within the internal market. The airport transit visa, introduced by the joint action adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3(2) of the Treaty on European Union on airport transit visas, does not authorise its holder to cross the external borders of Member States in the sense contemplated by Article 100c of the EC Treaty. Consequently, the act does not fall within the ambit of that provision.
	Link[s] omitted

O'Casey -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-183,II-565) T-184/94; [1998] EUECJ T-184/94
12 May 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Wenk -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-193,II-593) T-159/96; [1998] EUECJ T-159/96
12 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Martínez Sala -v- Freistaat Bayern C-85/96; [1998] ECR 1-2691; [1998] EUECJ C-85/96
12 May 1998 ECJ	European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Europa A benefit such as the child-raising allowance, which is automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which is intended to meet family expenses, falls within the scope ratione materiae of Community law as a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1408/71. A benefit such as the child-raising allowance, which is automatically granted to persons fulfilling certain objective criteria, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, and which is intended to meet family expenses, falls within the scope ratione materiae of Community law as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68. The concept of social advantage covers all the advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract of employment, are generally granted to national workers primarily because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory and whose extension to workers who are nationals of other Member States therefore seems likely to facilitate the mobility of such workers within the Community. There is no single definition of worker in Community law: it varies according to the area in which the definition is to be applied. For instance, the definition of worker used in the context of Article 48 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1612/68 does not necessarily coincide with the definition applied in relation to Article 51 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1408/71. In the context of Article 48 of the Treaty and Regulation No 1612/68, a person who, for a certain period of time, performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration must be considered to be a worker. On the other hand, a person has the status of employed person within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 where he is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, compulsorily or on an optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, irrespective of the existence of an employment relationship. A national of a Member State lawfully residing in the territory of another Member State comes within the scope ratione personae of the provisions of the Treaty on European citizenship and can rely on the rights laid down by the Treaty which Article 8(2) attaches to the status of citizen of the Union, including the right, laid down in Article 6, not to suffer discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application ratione materiae of the Treaty. Community law precludes a Member State from requiring nationals of other Member States authorised to reside in its territory to produce a formal residence permit issued by the national authorities in order to receive a child-raising allowance, whereas that Member State's own nationals are only required to be permanently or ordinarily resident in that Member State. For the purposes of the grant of the benefit in question, possession of a residence permit cannot be constitutive of the right to the benefit when, for the purposes of recognition of the right of residence, it has only declaratory and probative force.
	Link[s] omitted

Ciasse Nationale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salries -v- Thibault
13 May 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European
	Rules which precluded an employee who was absent for maternity reasons from taking part in performance assessments affecting future promotion rights were breach of Council Directive.
	Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment Art 2(3) Art 5(1)

Clean Car Autoservice Gesmbh -v- Landeshauptmann Von Wien C-350/96; [1998] EUECJ C-350/96
13 May 1998 ECJ	Employment, European
	An employer can make use of EU legislation allowing free movement of workers as much as can individual employees. Member state requiring an own national head of company was invalid.
	ECTreaty Art 48
	Link[s] omitted

Verein für Konsumenteninformation -v- Österreichische Kreditversicherungs AG (Rec 1998,p I-2949) (Judgment) C-364/96; [1998] EUECJ C-364/96
14 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Europa Article 7 of Directive 90/314 on package travel, package holidays and package tours is to be interpreted as covering, as security for the refund of money paid over, a situation in which the purchaser of a package holiday who has paid the travel organiser for the costs of his accommodation before travelling on his holiday is compelled, following the travel organiser's insolvency, to pay the hotelier for his accommodation again in order to be able to leave the hotel and return home.
	Link[s] omitted

Lucaccioni -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-203,II-627) T-165/95; [1998] EUECJ T-165/95
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2111) T-354/94; [1998] EUECJ T-354/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Moritz J Weig -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1235) T-317/94; [1998] EUECJ T-317/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Council -v- De Nil and Impens (Rec 1998,p I-2915) (Judgment) C-259/96; [1998] EUECJ C-259/96P
14 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Buchmann -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-813) T-295/94; [1998] EUECJ T-295/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Europa Carton -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-869) T-304/94; [1998] EUECJ T-304/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-2967) (Judgment) C-368/97; [1998] EUECJ C-368/97
14 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Cascades -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-925) T-308/94; [1998] EUECJ T-308/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Koninklijke KNP BT -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1007) T-309/94; [1998] EUECJ T-309/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mayr-Melnhof Kartongesellschaft -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1751) T-347/94; [1998] EUECJ T-347/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kartonfabriek de Eendracht -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1129) T-311/94; [1998] EUECJ T-311/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Windpark Groothusen -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-2873) (Judgment) C-48/96; [1998] EUECJ C-48/96P
14 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Fiskeby Board -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1331) T-319/94; [1998] EUECJ T-319/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

SCA Holding -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1373) T-327/94; [1998] EUECJ T-327/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Sarrió -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1439) T-334/94; [1998] EUECJ T-334/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Enso-Gutzeit -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1571) T-337/94; [1998] EUECJ T-337/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Finnboard -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1617) T-338/94; [1998] EUECJ T-338/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Metsä-Serla and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1727) T-339/94; [1998] EUECJ T-339/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Enso Española -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1875) T-348/94; [1998] EUECJ T-348/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Gruber + Weber -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1043) T-310/94; [1998] EUECJ T-310/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Metsa-Serla -v- Commission (Competition) French Text T-342/94; [1998] EUECJ T-342/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Article 15, paragraph 2 of Regulation No. 17 - Liability for payment of the fine.
	Link[s] omitted

Metsa-Serla -v- Commission (Competition) French Text T-340/94; [1998] EUECJ T-340/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Metsa-Serla -v- Commission (Competition) French Text T-341/94; [1998] EUECJ T-341/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Goldstein -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2175) T-262/97; [1998] EUECJ T-262/97
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Goycoolea -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-215,II-679) T-21/97; [1998] EUECJ T-21/97
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mo och Domsjö -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-1989) T-352/94; [1998] EUECJ T-352/94
14 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Drouot assurances -v- Consolidated metallurgical industries and others (Judgment) C-351/96; ECJ/Cfi Bulletin 14/98, 7; C-351/96; [1998] EUECJ C-351/96
19 May 1998 ECJ	International, European
	Where proceedings were brought in two member states, the second proceedings should not be automatically stayed where there was a difference in the actions such as an additional cause of action in the second claim. Lis alibi pendens is not appropriate in such a case. Cases which in fact involved different parties (ship owner and insurer) could be treated as the same for purposes of the convention only if the interests of the differing parties were genuinely identical.
	Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Netherlands (Judgment) C-3/96; [1998] ECR I-3031; [1998] EUECJ C-3/96
19 May 1998 ECJ	European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Europa The aim of the pre-litigation procedure provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to justify its position or, as the case may be, to comply of its own accord with the requirements of the Treaty. If that attempt to reach a settlement proves unsuccessful, the Member State is requested to comply with its obligations as set out in the reasoned opinion which concludes the pre-litigation procedure, within the period prescribed in that opinion. The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee intended by the Treaty not only to protect the rights of the Member State concerned but also to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter, the subject-matter being determined by the Commission's reasoned opinion. Where it is not disputed that the reasoned opinion and the procedure leading up to it were properly conducted, a Member State's right to a fair hearing is not infringed by the circumstance that the contentious procedure is opened by an application which takes no account of any new matters of fact or law put forward by the Member State concerned in its reply to the reasoned opinion. It is fully open to that State to raise those matters in the contentious procedure, to begin with in its first pleading in defence. Article 4(1) of Directive 74/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires Member States, if species mentioned in Annex I occur on their territory, to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for their conservation, an obligation which it is not possible to avoid by adopting other special conservation measures. Nor may the economic requirements mentioned in Article 2 of the directive be taken into account in this respect. As regards the Member States' margin of discretion in choosing the most suitable territories, that does not concern the appropriateness of classifying as special protection areas the territories which appear the most suitable according to ornithological criteria, but only the application of those criteria for identifying the most suitable territories for conservation of the species in question. Consequently, where it appears that a Member State has classified as special protection areas sites the number and total area of which are manifestly less than the number and total area of the sites considered to be the most suitable, it will be possible to find that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 4(1) of the directive; for assessing the extent to which the Member State has complied with that obligation, the Court may use as a basis of reference the Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community, 1989, which draws up an inventory of areas of great importance for the conservation of wild birds in the Community.
	Link[s] omitted

Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet -v- Landbrugsministeriet (Rec 1998,p I-2975) (Judgment) C-132/95
19 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Nour -v- Burgenländische Gebietskrankenkasse (Rec 1998,p I-3101) (Order) C-361/97
25 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Broome & Wellington -v- Commission T-267/97; [1998] EUECJ T-267/97
25 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ecord Consortium -v- Commission (Rec.1998,p.II-2205) (Order) T-60/98
26 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Bieber -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-231,II-723) T-205/96; [1998] EUECJ T-205/96
26 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Costacurta -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-225,II-705) T-177/96; [1998] EUECJ T-177/96
26 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ecord Consortium -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2205) T-60/98; [1998] EUECJ T-60/98
26 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-3289) (Judgment) C-213/97; [1998] EUECJ C-213/97
28 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Parliament -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-3231) (Judgment) C-22/96; [1998] EUECJ C-22/96
28 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Spain (Rec 1998,p I-3301) (Judgment) C-298/97; [1998] EUECJ C-298/97
28 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

New Holland Ford -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-3175) (Judgment) C-8/95; [1998] EUECJ C-8/95P
28 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Deere -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-3111) (Judgment) C-7/95; [1998] EUECJ C-7/95P
28 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Lozano Palacios (Rec 1998,p I-3273) (Judgment) C-62/97; [1998] EUECJ C-62/97P
28 May 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

W -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-239,II-745) T-78/96; [1998] EUECJ T-78/96
28 May 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Goodwin and Unstead (Judgment) C-3/97; [1998] EUECJ C-3/97
28 May 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	VAT was payable on supplies of counterfeit drugs even though the income generated by the trade was unlawful. Fiscal neutrality prevented differentiation between lawful and unlawful supplies The defendants had sold counterfeit perfumes and had had VAT charges imposed retrospectively. It was held proper to charge VAT on sales which were illegal. Fiscal neutrality was set aside only where the special characteristic of a product required it
	Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977 2
	Link[s] omitted

Keeling -v- Office de l'harmonisation dans le marché intérieur (Rec 1998,p II-2217) T-148/97; [1998] EUECJ T-148/97
8 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Chiciak and Fol (Rec 1998,p I-3315) (Judgment) C-129/97; [1998] EUECJ C-129/97
9 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Biedermann and others -v- Court of Auditors (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-273,II-831) T-173/95; [1998] EUECJ T-173/95
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Al E.A -v- Commission (Staff Regulations) French Text T-191/95; [1998] EUECJ T-191/95
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Officials - Pensions - Weighting - Change of capital - Retroactive effect - Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting.
	Link[s] omitted

Chesi and others -v- Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-265,II-817) T-172/95; [1998] EUECJ T-172/95
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Al and others and Becker and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-257,II-803) T-171/95; [1998] EUECJ T-171/95
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Unifrigo Gadus and CPL Imperial 2 -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2231) T-10/97; [1998] EUECJ T-10/97
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Hick -v- ESC (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-281,II-845) T-176/97; [1998] EUECJ T-176/97
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Unifrigo Gadus -v- Commission (Free Movement Of Goods) T-11/97; [1998] EUECJ T-11/97
9 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Post-clearance recovery of customs duties - Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
	Link[s] omitted

Chiciak (Agriculture) C-130/97; [1998] EUECJ C-130/97
9 Jun 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	ECJ Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Exclusive competence of the Commission - Scope of the protection of names comprising several terms.
	Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92
	Link[s] omitted

Cementir -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2261) T-116/95; [1998] EUECJ T-116/95
10 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Fischer -v- Finanzamt Donaueschingen (Rec 1998,p I-3369) (Judgment) C-283/95
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-3401) (Judgment) C-206/96; [1998] EUECJ C-206/96
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Transport) C-177/97; [1998] EUECJ C-177/97
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European, Transport
	ECJ Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Freedom to provide maritime transport services - Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country - Cargo-sharing arrangement.
	Link[s] omitted

H -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-3577) (Judgment) C-291/97; [1998] EUECJ C-291/97P
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Belgische Staat -v- Foodic and others (Rec 1998,p I-3527) (Judgment) C-41/97; [1998] EUECJ C-41/97
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kuusijärvi -v- Riksförsäkringsverket (Rec 1998,p I-3419) (Judgment) C-275/96; [1998] EUECJ C-275/96
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium and Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-3557) (Judgment) C-176/97; [1998] EUECJ C-176/97
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Skrikas -v- Parliament T-167/97; [1998] EUECJ T-167/97
11 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Fichtner -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-293,II-873) T-173/97; [1998] EUECJ T-173/97
11 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Partridge -v- Adjudication Officer (Rec 1998,p I-3467) (Judgment) C-297/96
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Société générale des grandes sources d'eaux minérales françaises -v- Bundesamt für Finanzen (Rec 1998,p I-3495) (Judgment) C-361/96
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ]

Commission -v- Greece (Rec 1998,p I-3343) (Judgment) C-232/95
11 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-2271) T-238/97; T-238/97; [1998] EUECJ T-238/97
16 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Racke -v- Hauptzollamt Mainz C-162/96; [1998] EUECJ C-162/96
16 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal Proceedings Against Johannes Martinus Lemmens C-226/97; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 7; [1998] ECR I-3711
16 Jun 1998 ECJ	Road Traffic, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Evidence called by prosecutor of breathalyser machine was admissible even though the regulations for the type of machine used had not been notified for this purpose as required to the European Commission. The failure created no obstacle to trade.
	Directive 83/189/EEC
	Link[s] omitted

Svenska Journalistforbundet (Supported by Sweden, Denmark and Netherlands, Interveners) -v- Council of Europe (Supp France and Uk) T-174/95; [1998] EUECJ T-174/95
17 Jun 1998 ECFI	Costs, European
	When European Council refused access to documents on grounds of public security a proper reason must be shown, and in its absence the decision was annulled. Wrongful publication of documents reflected in costs.
	Council Decision 93/731/EC on Public Access to Council documents
	Link[s] omitted

Grundig Italiana -v- Ministero delle Finanze (Rec 1998,p I-3775) (Judgment) C-68/96; [1998] EUECJ C-68/96
17 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

UEAPME -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-2335) T-135/96; T-135/96; [1998] EUECJ T-135/96
17 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-3839) (Judgment) C-214/97; [1998] EUECJ C-214/97
17 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton -v- The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance C-243/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin, 9; C-243/95; [1998] IRLR 466; [1998] EUECJ C-243/95
17 Jun 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European, European	Casemap
	Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they switched to full-time employment but their position on the incremental pay scale was adjusted in accordance with an instruction that each year’s job-sharing service was only reckonable as six months full-time service. The issue for the ECJ was whether the principle of finally equal pay was contravened, if employees who convert from job-sharing to full-time work regress on the incremental scale, and hence on their salary scale due to the application by the employer of the criteria of service calculated by time worked in a job and, if so, did the employer have to provide special set of classification for re-course to the criterion of service to find his actual time worked in awarding incremental credit. Held: Treatment of job sharers as having acquired seniority of half that of time served (having worked half time) was discriminatory. 98% of job sharing civil servant employees were women. Otherwise only if difference based on objective non-sex related factors.
	Council Directive 75/117/EEC Equal Pay Directive
	Link[s] omitted

Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton -v- The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance C-243/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin, 9; C-243/95; [1998] IRLR 466; [1998] EUECJ C-243/95
17 Jun 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they switched to full-time employment but their position on the incremental pay scale was adjusted in accordance with an instruction that each year’s job-sharing service was only reckonable as six months full-time service. The issue for the ECJ was whether the principle of finally equal pay was contravened, if employees who convert from job-sharing to full-time work regress on the incremental scale, and hence on their salary scale due to the application by the employer of the criteria of service calculated by time worked in a job and, if so, did the employer have to provide special set of classification for re-course to the criterion of service to find his actual time worked in awarding incremental credit. Held: Treatment of job sharers as having acquired seniority of half that of time served (having worked half time) was discriminatory. 98% of job sharing civil servant employees were women. Otherwise only if difference based on objective non-sex related factors.
	Council Directive 75/117/EEC Equal Pay Directive
	Link[s] omitted

Mecklenburg -v- Kreis Pinneberg (Rec 1998,p I-3809) (Judgment) C-321/96; [1998] EUECJ C-321/96
17 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-4005) (Judgment) C-183/97; [1998] EUECJ C-183/97
18 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Portugal (Rec 1998,p I-4017) (Judgment) C-208/97; [1998] EUECJ C-208/97
18 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Burgemeester en wethouders van Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude and others -v- Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland C-81/96; [1998] EUECJ C-81/96
18 Jun 1998 ECJ	European, Environment
	Europa Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Directive 85/337 - Project for which consent was obtained prior to the deadline for transposing the directive into national law - New consent procedure initiated after that deadline - Project subject to obligations relating to environmental impact assessment (Council Directive 85/337) Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment is to be interpreted as not permitting Member States to waive the obligations regarding environmental assessments in the case of projects listed in Annex I of the directive where - the projects have already been the subject of a consent granted prior to 3 July 1988, the date by which the directive was to have been transposed into national law, - the consent was not preceded by an environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the directive and no use was made of it, and a fresh consent procedure was formally initiated after 3 July 1988. It is true that the principle of compulsory environmental assessment in accordance with the directive does not apply where the consent procedure was initiated before 3 July 1988 and was still in progress on that date. The reason for that is to avoid making more cumbersome and time-consuming, as a result of the specific requirements imposed by the directive, procedures which are already complex at national level and which were formally initiated before that date. Those considerations do not apply, however, in the circumstances mentioned above, particularly as national legal remedies are available in respect of the new consent procedure.
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Italy (Rec 1998,p I-3851) (Judgment) C-35/96; [1998] EUECJ C-35/96
18 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- France (Rec 1998,p I-3903) (Judgment) C-43/96; [1998] EUECJ C-43/96
18 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Corsica Ferries France -v- Gruppo Antichi Ormeggiatori del porto di Genova and others (Rec 1998,p I-3949) (Judgment) C-266/96; [1998] EUECJ C-266/96_1; [1998] EUECJ C-266/96
18 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Dalmine -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2383) T-596/97; T-596/97; [1998] EUECJ T-596/97
24 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

British Airways and others and British Midland Airways -v- Commission T-371/94; [1998] EUECJ T-371/94
25 Jun 1998 ECFI Bellamy P	European, Transport
	ECFI 1 Far from enjoying the same rights to a fair hearing as those which individuals against whom a procedure has been instituted are recognised as having, concerned parties, within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, have only the right to be involved in the administrative procedure to the extent appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case. There may be two reasons for restricting the extent of the right to participate and to be informed which such parties enjoy. First, where a Member State notifies the Commission of planned aid and submits supporting documentation, and the relevant Commission departments subsequently hold a series of meetings with officials from the Member State in question, the amount of information in the Commission's possession may already be relatively extensive, leaving outstanding only a small number of doubts which information supplied by the parties concerned may dispel. In so far as they relate to the details of the planned aid, to the economic, financial and competitive position of the recipient undertaking and to its internal operations, the discussions between the Member State and the Commission will inevitably be more thorough than those conducted with the parties concerned. While providing such parties with general information on the essentials of the planned aid, therefore, the Commission may confine itself to concentrating its communication in the Official Journal on those aspects of the planned aid concerning which it still harbours doubts. Second, the Commission is required, under Article 214 of the Treaty, not to disclose to interested parties information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular information relating to the internal operations of the recipient undertaking. The limited nature of the rights of concerned parties to participate and to be informed, in so far as they relate solely to the administrative procedure, is not at variance with the Commission's duty under Article 190 of the Treaty to provide, in its final decision authorising planned aid, sufficient reasons which must address all the essential complaints which parties directly and individually concerned by that decision have made either on their own initiative or as a result of information supplied by the Commission. Thus, even on the assumption that the Commission may validly prefer to use other sources of information and thereby reduce the significance of the participation of concerned parties, it is not thereby released from its obligation to include an adequate statement of reasons in its decision. 2 There is nothing in the Treaty or in Community legislation requiring decisions on State aid adopted at the conclusion of the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty to comply with a fixed period. On the assumption that the Commission acted with excessive haste and did not give itself sufficient time to examine proposed aid, such conduct could not, by itself, justify annulment of the decision authorising that aid. To entail annulment, such conduct would have to involve a breach of specific rules governing procedure, the duty to provide reasons or the internal legality of the decision in question. Nor is there anything in the Treaty or in Community legislation which requires the Commission to seek assistance from external experts in order to draft a decision relating to State aid. 3 In view of the fact that interveners must, under Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, accept the case as they find it at the time of their intervention and that their submissions in an application to intervene are, under the fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, limited to supporting the submissions of one of the main parties, an intervener is not entitled to raise a plea in law that was not raised by the applicant. 4 The text of Article 93 of the Treaty does not require the Commission to forward to the other Member States observations which it has received from the Government of the State seeking authorisation to grant aid. On the contrary, it follows from the third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty that the other Member States may be involved in a specific case of aid only where that case has, at the request of the State concerned, been submitted to the Council. 5 The Commission enjoys a broad discretion in the application of Article 92(3) of the Treaty. Since that discretion involves complex economic and social appraisals, the Court must, in reviewing a decision adopted in that context, confine itself to verifying whether the Commission complied with the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons, whether the facts on which the contested finding was based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error in the assessment of those facts or misuse of powers. In that regard, in the context of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty, the legality of a Community measure falls to be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot depend on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy. In particular, the complex assessments made by the Commission must be examined solely on the basis of the information available to the Commission at the time when those assessments were made. 6 The statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the contested measure in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights and the Community judicature to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. The question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and all the legal rules governing the matter in question. While the Commission, in the statement of reasons for a decision, is not required to discuss all the issues of fact and law raised by interested parties during the administrative procedure, it must none the less take account of all the circumstances and all the relevant factors of the case in question. In regard to a decision authorising State aid, the persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations, are to be regarded as concerned parties within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty and considered, in that capacity, to be directly and individually concerned by that decision. Since the requirement of a statement of reasons must be assessed on the basis, in particular, of the interest which those to whom the measure is addressed or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty, may have in receiving explanations, it cannot be determined solely on the basis of the interest which the Member State to which that decision is addressed may have in obtaining information. Where a Member State has obtained from the Commission that which it was seeking, namely authorisation for its planned aid, its interest in having a reasoned decision addressed to it may be greatly reduced, in contrast to that of competitors of the beneficiary of the aid, in particular where it has received sufficient information during the negotiations with the Commission through, inter alia, exchange of correspondence with that institution before the authorising decision was taken. 7 Since, according to well-established case-law of the Court of Justice and a consistent administrative practice on the part of the Commission, investment in normal modernisation intended to maintain an undertaking's competitiveness should be carried out using the undertaking's own financial resources, and not through State aid, and investment intended for the renovation and technical modernisation of a production line, which has to be carried out periodically, cannot be regarded as designed to facilitate the development of certain economic activities within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission must, when replying to the observations of concerned parties regarding specific planned aid during the administrative procedure and relating to that case-law and administrative practice, provide precise indications as to whether the criteria established by that case-law and practice can be regarded as having been satisfied or whether it is appropriate, for specific reasons, to derogate from them. 8 The operative part and the statement of reasons of a decision, which must be reasoned under Article 190 of the Treaty, constitute an indivisible whole, with the result that it is for the college of Commissioners alone, in accordance with the principle of collegiate responsibility, to adopt both the one and the other, any alteration to the statement of reasons going beyond simple corrections of spelling or grammar being the exclusive province of that college. 9 In regard to State aid, while there can be no grounds for denying that the Commission is entitled to compare the restructuring measures envisaged by the recipient undertaking with those taken by other undertakings operating in the same economic sector, the fact remains that the restructuring of an undertaking must be targeted at its own specific problems and that the experiences of other undertakings, in different economic and political contexts and at other times, may be irrelevant. 10 The Commission was entitled to form the view that genuine restructuring of one of the three largest European airline companies, which was the recipient of State aid, would have the effect of facilitating the economic development of the European civil aviation sector. 11 Information as to the situation on the markets in question, in particular the position of the undertaking benefiting from the aid and of competing undertakings, constitutes an essential element in the reasoning of a decision relating to the compatibility of planned aid with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, both where the decision has been taken pursuant to Article 92(1) and where it has been taken pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty and Article 61(3)(c) of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area in regard to the question whether the aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. 12 Economic assessments pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, in respect of which the Commission enjoys a broad discretion, must be made in a Community context. The Commission is for that reason under an obligation to examine the impact of the aid on competition and intra-Community trade. In order to determine whether aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, it is necessary to consider, in particular, whether there is an imbalance between the charges imposed on the undertakings concerned on the one hand and the benefits derived from the aid in question on the other. The Commission is under an obligation, when examining the impact of State aid, to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition. The Commission may in principle make a decision authorising aid under Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty subject to conditions for ensuring that authorised aid does not alter trading conditions to an extent contrary to the general interest. The legal and practical utility of such conditions of authorisation lies in the fact that, if the recipient undertaking were to fail to observe them, it would be for the Member State concerned to ensure proper implementation of the authorisation decision and for the Commission to assess whether it was appropriate to demand that the aid be repaid. If the State were not to comply with the conditions imposed by the Commission in a decision approving aid, the Commission would be entitled, under the second subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, to refer the matter directly to the Court of Justice by way of derogation from Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty. Having regard to the way in which the conditions underlying a decision to authorise aid thus operate, the mere assertion that one of those conditions will not be complied with cannot cast doubt on the legality of that decision. In general, the legality of a Community act cannot depend on the possible existence of opportunities for circumvention or on retrospective considerations as to its efficacy. 13 Since the purpose of Article 155 of the Treaty is to provide a general definition of the Commission's powers, it cannot be argued that each time the Commission infringes a specific Treaty provision such infringement involves an infringement of the general provision of Article 155 of the Treaty.
	Link[s] omitted

Beside and Besselsen -v- Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer C-192/96; [1998] EUECJ C-192/96
25 Jun 1998 ECJ	European, Environment
	Europa The expression 'municipal/household waste' referred to under point AD 160 of the amber list in Annex III to Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Decision 94/721 adapting, pursuant to Article 42(3), Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation No 259/93, includes both waste which for the most part consists of waste mentioned on the green list in Annex II to that regulation, mixed with other categories of waste appearing on that list, and waste mentioned on the green list mixed with a small quantity of materials not referred to on that list. Such mixed waste does not come within the green list unless it has been collected separately or properly sorted. The information listed in Article 11(1) of the regulation, which must accompany shipments of waste intended for recovery appearing in Annex II, constitutes the minimum evidence which the competent authority may, in the absence of notification, require in order to establish that `green waste' is intended for recovery. In the case of shipments of waste which have not been notified to all the competent authorities concerned (illegal traffic), the Member State of destination may not unilaterally return waste to the Member State of dispatch without prior notification to the latter; the Member State of dispatch may not oppose its return where the Member State of destination produces a duly motivated request to that effect. The reference to the storage of materials in point R 13 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, which lists waste recovery operations, covers not only cases in which storage takes place in the undertaking in which the other operations mentioned in that annex must be carried out but also cases in which storage precedes transport to such an undertaking, regardless of whether the latter is established inside or outside the Community.
	Link[s] omitted

Fichtner -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4135) (Order) C-312/97
25 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Godts -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-305,II-893) T-185/97; T-185/97; [1998] EUECJ T-185/97
25 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lilly Industries -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2571) T-120/96; T-120/96; [1998] EUECJ T-120/96
25 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp and others -v- Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer C-203/96; [1998] EUECJ C-203/96
25 Jun 1998 ECJ	European, Environment
	Europa Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156, and Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community cannot be interpreted as meaning that the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity are applicable to shipments of waste for recovery. That follows from the provisions of the directive and the regulation and from the preparatory texts. Furthermore, the difference in treatment between waste for recovery and waste for disposal reflects the intention of the Community legislature to encourage recovery of waste in the Community as whole, in particular by eliciting the best technologies, which means that waste of that type should be able to move freely between Member States for processing, thus excluding the application of the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity. Article 130t of the Treaty, which authorises Member States to adopt protective measures which are more stringent than those adopted pursuant to Article 130s, in so far as they are compatible with the Treaty, does not permit them to extend the application of those principles to waste for recovery when it is clear that those principles create a barrier to exports which is not justified either by an imperative measure relating to protection of the environment or by one of the derogations provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty. Article 90 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 86, precludes rules such as the Netherlands' Long-term Plan for the Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993, whereby a Member State requires undertakings to deliver their waste for recovery, such as oil filters, to a national undertaking on which it has conferred the exclusive right to incinerate dangerous waste unless the processing of their waste in another Member State is of a higher quality than that performed by that undertaking if, without any objective justification and without being necessary for the performance of a task in the general interest, those rules have the effect of favouring the national undertaking and increasing its dominant position.
	Link[s] omitted

Sofivo and others -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-2601) T-14/97; T-14/97; [1998] EUECJ T-14/97
25 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

British Midland Airways -v- Commission (State Aid) T-394/94; [1998] EUECJ T-394/94
25 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI State aid - Air transport - Airline company in a critical financial situation - Authorisation for an increase in capital.
	Link[s] omitted

Gouvernement des Antilles néerlandaises -v- Council (Rec.1998,p.I-4147) (Order) C-159/98
25 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Gouvernement des Antilles néerlandaises -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-4147) (Order) C-159/98
25 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Altmann and others and Stott -v- Commission T-177/94
25 Jun 1998 ECFI	European, Costs
	Taxation of costs.
	Link[s] omitted

British Shoe and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2619) T-73/97; [1998] EUECJ T-73/97
30 Jun 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Brown -v- Rentokil (Rec 1998,p I-4185) (Judgment) C-394/96
30 Jun 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Fischer -v- Finanzamt Donaueschingen C-283/95
2 Jul 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	In general VAT was recoverable on unlawful supplies, including unlawful gaming arrangements, but where the national legislation exempted lawful arrangements it could not be applied to unlawful versions.
	ECTreaty Art 177

Kapasakalis and others -v- Elliniko Dimossio (Rec 1998,p I-4239) (Judgment) C-225/95; [1998] EUECJ C-225/95
2 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Ouzounoff Popoff -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-311,II-905) T-236/97; T-236/97; [1998] EUECJ T-236/97
2 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Hill and Another -v- Revenue Commissioners and Another C-243/95
2 Jul 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European
	Rule under which job-share employees lost out on pay rates when converted into full time equivalents were discriminatory against women since more women had job-share arrangements
	ECTreaty 119 Council Directive 75/117/EEC

Commission of the European Communities -v- French Republic (Supported by United Kingdom Intervener) Case C-43/96
2 Jul 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	It was open to member states to refuse to allow claim VAT input reclaims on articles purchased for transport which constituted the very tool of the trade of a taxpayer. Driving instructors may not reclaim VAT on their transport.
	Council Directive 77/388/EEC - EC Treaty Art 169

Partridge -v- Adjudication Officer Case C-297/96; [1998] EUECJ C-297/96
2 Jul 1998 ECJ	Benefits, European
	Attendance allowance payable in England was properly withdrawn after claimant left England to live in France permanently. Attendance allowance is in special category under the regulations.
	Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991 - EC Treaty Art 177
	Link[s] omitted

Brown -v- Rentokil Ltd C-394/96
2 Jul 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European
	Dismissal for any illness associated with pregnancy is for sex related reason, and discriminatory, and unlawful irrespective of contractual right applied equally to men suffering illness.
	ECTreaty Art 177, Council Directive 76/207/EEC

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1154; [1998] EWCA Civ 1155
6 Jul 1998 CA	European, Agriculture
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Health; Scientific Committee for Tobacco and Health ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited; Gallaher Limited; Rothmans (Uk) Limited and British American Tobacco Investments Limited [1998] EWHC Admin 712
6 Jul 1998 Admn	European, Media, Health	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Goldstein -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2629) T-286/97; T-286/97; [1998] EUECJ T-286/97
6 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Telchini and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-327,II-947) T-116/96; T-116/96; [1998] EUECJ T-116/96
7 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Beton Express and others -v- Direction générale des douanes de la Réunion C-405/96
7 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Moncada -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-339,II-989) T-178/97; T-178/97; [1998] EUECJ T-178/97
7 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mongelli and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-319,II-925) T-238/95; T-238/95; [1998] EUECJ T-238/95
7 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Van den Bergh Foods -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2641) T-65/98; [2003] EUECJ T-65/98
7 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Cecom -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-2679) T-232/95; T-232/95; [1998] EUECJ T-232/95
8 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Branco -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2667) T-85/94
8 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Aquilino -v- Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-351,II-1017) T-130/96; T-130/96; [1998] EUECJ T-130/96
8 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

X -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-347,II-1003) T-200/95; [1998] EUECJ T-200/95
8 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Agostini -v- Ligue francophone de judo and disciplines associées and Ligue belge de judo (Rec.1998,p.I-4261) (Order) C-9/98; C-9/98
8 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-4291) (Judgment) C-343/97; [1998] EUECJ C-343/97
9 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Smanor and Ségaud -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4269) (Order) C-317/97
9 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-4281) (Judgment) C-323/97; [1998] EUECJ C-323/97
9 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Bettati -v- Safety Hi-Tech (Rec 1998,p I-4355) (Judgment) C-341/95; [1998] EUECJ C-341/95
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Hauer -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2713) T-119/95; T-119/95; [1998] EUECJ T-119/95
14 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Safety Hi-Tech -v- S & T (Rec 1998,p I-4301) (Judgment) C-284/95
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Goerres (Rec 1998,p I-4431) (Judgment) C-385/96; [1998] EUECJ C-385/96
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Aher-Waggon -v- Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Rec 1998,p I-4473) (Judgment) C-389/96; [1998] EUECJ C-389/96
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regeling -v- Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (Rec 1998,p I-4493) (Judgment) C-125/97
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Brems -v- Council (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-381,II-1085) T-219/97; T-219/97; [1998] EUECJ T-219/97
14 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lebedef -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-363,II-1047) T-192/96; T-192/96; [1998] EUECJ T-192/96
14 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Glasoltherm -v- Commission and others (Rec 1998,p I-4521) (Order) C-399/97
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lebedef -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-371,II-1071) T-42/97; T-42/97; [1998] EUECJ T-42/97
14 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commissioners of Customs & Excise -v- First National Bank of Chicago C-172/96; [1998] EUECJ C-172/96
14 Jul 1998 ECJ	European, VAT	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Bank dealt in foreign exchange, not charging a commission, but relying on the profit it made over a period between the prices at which respectively it bought and sold the currency. The Bank contended that the foreign exchange transactions were subject to VAT as supplies effected for a consideration and that the value of the consideration was the full value of the currency received in exchange for that provided by the Bank. The European Court held that the supply of foreign currency being legal tender was not the supply of tangible property, but of a service. The supply of foreign currencies in the way described was the provision of a service for consideration being the difference between what it paid and what it received for the currency. The currencies received by the Bank were not the remuneration it received. That consisted in what the Bank could keep for itself, calculated as the net result of all transactions over a given period of time. Trading in foreign currencies where no charge was made, but the company relied upon the spread did constitute provision of taxable supplies. Amount of consideration was the total spread of transactions over a period of time Europa Foreign exchange transactions, performed even without commission or direct fees, are supplies of services provided in return for consideration, that is to say supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. More particularly, transactions between parties for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency, both such amounts being deliverable on the same value date, and in respect of which transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally, electronically or in writing) the currencies involved, the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and sold, which party will purchase which currency and the value date, constitute supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive. 2 Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be construed as meaning that, in foreign exchange transactions in which no fees or commission are calculated with regard to certain specific transactions, the taxable amount is the overall result of the transactions of the supplier of the services over a given period of time. Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive provides that the taxable amount is, in respect of supplies of services, that which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser for such supplies. Determining the consideration comes down to determining what the bank in question receives for foreign exchange transactions, that is to say the remuneration on foreign exchange transactions which it can actually take for itself.
	Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977
	Link[s] omitted

Opel Austria -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-2739) T-115/94; T-115/94
15 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Prayon-Rupel -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2769) T-73/98
15 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

LPN and GEOTA -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2751) T-155/95; T-155/95; [1998] EUECJ T-155/95
15 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Federation Belge des chambres syndicales de medecins -v- Gouvernement flamand and others C-93/97; [1998] EUECJ C-93/97
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	Health Professions, European
	ECJ Directive 93/16/EEC - Specific training in general medical practice - Article 31
	Link[s] omitted

Scotch Whisky Association -v- Compagnie financière européenne de prises de participation and others C-136/96; [1998] EUECJ C-136/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	Commercial, European, European
	A drink being a blend of various whisky's and water but with minimum strength only greater than 30 per cent was not entitled to be called a whisky. Dilution destroyed the right to claim the title.
	Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89
	Link[s] omitted

Von Lowis -v- Commission (Law Governing The Institutions) T-204/96; [1998] EUECJ T-204/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Freelance conference interpreters - Lawfulness of levying Community tax on their remuneration.
	[ Bailii ]

Forcheri -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-421,II-1203) T-162/96; T-162/96; [1998] EUECJ T-162/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Y -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-405,II-1153) T-144/96; T-144/96; [1998] EUECJ T-144/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Jensen -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-411,II-1173) T-156/96; T-156/96; [1998] EUECJ T-156/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Commission -v- Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-4903) (Judgment) C-339/97; [1998] EUECJ C-339/97
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kyritzer Stärke -v- Hauptzollamt Potsdam (Rec 1998,p I-4729) (Judgment) C-287/96; [1998] EUECJ C-287/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Gut Springenheide and Tusky -v- Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt (Rec 1998,p I-4657) (Judgment) C-210/96; [1998] EUECJ C-210/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Von Löwis and Alvarez-Cotera -v- Commission T-202/96; T-202/96; [1998] EUECJ T-202/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Y -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-429,II-1235) T-219/96; T-219/96; [1998] EUECJ T-219/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Roque -v- His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (Judgment) C-171/96; [1998] EUECJ C-171/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Oelmühle Hamburg and Schmidt Söhne -v- Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Rec 1998,p I-4767) (Judgment) C-298/96; [1998] EUECJ C-298/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm and Goupil -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2805) T-199/96; T-199/96; [1998] EUECJ T-199/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co KG -v- Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1999] Ch 77; [1998] FSR 729; C-355/96; [1998] ECR I-4799; [1998] EUECJ C-355/96; [1998] ETMR 539; [1998] 2 CMLR 953; [1998] ECR I-4799; [1998] CEC 676; [1998] All ER (EC) 769; [1998] 3 WLR 1218
16 Jul 1998 ECJ Rodríguez Iglesias, P	Intellectual Property, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	National Trade Mark rules providing for exhaustion of rights in Trade Marks for goods sold outside area of registration were contrary to the EU first directive on trade marks. A company could prevent sale of 'grey goods' within the internal market. Articles 5 to 7 of the directive embody a 'complete harmonisation' of the rules relating to the rights conferred by a trade mark.v
	First Council Directive 89/104/EEC re approximation of laws relating to Trade Marks
	Link[s] omitted

Scotch Whisky Association -v- Compagnie financière européenne de prises de participation and others C-136/96; [1998] EUECJ C-136/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	Commercial, European, European
	A drink being a blend of various whisky's and water but with minimum strength only greater than 30 per cent was not entitled to be called a whisky. Dilution destroyed the right to claim the title.
	Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Ca'Pasta -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2925) T-274/97; T-274/97; [1998] EUECJ T-274/97
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Presle -v- Cedefop (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-387,II-1111) T-93/96; T-93/96; [1998] EUECJ T-93/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Gebhard -v- Parliament T-109/96; [1998] EUECJ T-109/96
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

AGS Assedic Pas-de-Calais -v- Dumon and Froment C-235/95; [1998] EUECJ C-235/95
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

N -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4871) (Order) C-252/97
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regione Toscana -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2889) T-81/97; [1998] EUECJ T-81/97
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Imperial Chemical Industries -v- Colmer C-264/96; [1999] 1 WLR 108; [1998] ECR I-4695; [1998] STC 874; [1998] EUECJ C-264/96
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European, Corporation Tax	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A member state was not allowed to impose a tax regime which discriminated against the subsidiaries of a company based in that state where they were based in other member states, but discrimination was allowed where the subsidiaries were based outside EU. United Kingdom legislation restricting fiscal reliefs or advantages to cases where the relevant companies are resident in the United Kingdom may be inconsistent with the EC Treaty. ICI remained bound by domestic legislation upon its ordinary meaning notwithstanding that in certain circumstances such a construction would be incompatible with European Community rights. Europa In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 177, it is solely for the national courts before which proceedings are pending, and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to be given, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling to enable them to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court. A request for a preliminary ruling from a national court may be rejected only if it is manifest that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the true facts or the subject-matter of the main proceedings. Article 52 of the Treaty precludes legislation of a Member State which, in the case of companies established in that State belonging to a consortium through which they control a holding company, by means of which they exercise their right to freedom of establishment in order to set up subsidiaries in other Member States, makes a particular form of tax relief subject to the requirement that the holding company's business consist wholly or mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries that are established in the Member State concerned. Such legislation, which makes a tax advantage in the form of consortium relief available solely to companies which control, wholly or mainly, subsidiaries whose seat is in the national territory, applies the test of the subsidiaries' seat to establish differential tax treatment of consortium companies established in that Member State and is not justified in terms of a need to ensure the cohesion of the national tax system arising from the fact that the revenue lost through the granting of tax relief on losses incurred by resident subsidiaries cannot be offset by taxing the profits of non-resident subsidiaries, since there is no direct link between the consortium relief granted for losses incurred by a resident subsidiary and the taxation of profits made by non-resident subsidiaries. When deciding an issue concerning a situation which lies outside the scope of Community law, the national court is not required, under Community law, either to interpret its legislation in a way conforming with Community law or to disapply that legislation. Where a particular provision must be disapplied in a situation covered by Community law, but that same provision could remain applicable to a situation not so covered, it is for the competent body of the State concerned to remove that legal uncertainty in so far as it might affect rights deriving from Community rules.
	EC Treaty 52
	Link[s] omitted

Proderec -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2847) T-72/97; [1998] EUECJ T-72/97
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Portugal C-285/97; [1998] EUECJ C-285/97
16 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kia Motors Nederland and Broekman Motorships -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2907) T-195/97; T-195/97; [1998] EUECJ T-195/97
16 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Hubert -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-435,II-1255) T-28/97; T-28/97; [1998] EUECJ T-28/97
17 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Thai Bicycle Industry -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-2991) T-118/96; T-118/96; [1998] EUECJ T-118/96
17 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Sateba -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4913) (Order) C-422/97
17 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

ITT Promedia -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-2937) T-111/96; T-111/96; [1998] EUECJ T-111/96
17 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regeling -v- Bestuur Van De Bedrijfsverenging Voor De Metaalnijverheid C-125/97; [1998] EUECJ C-125/97
20 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	An employee who had received partial payment of wages since before start of period of wages guaranteed on employers insolvency, was entitled to treat part earned after start as payment of wages earned before period and could claim his entire losses
	Link[s] omitted

Meoro Avilés -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-443,II-1289) T-61/96; [1998] EUECJ T-61/96
20 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mellett -v- Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-449,II-1305) T-66/96; [1998] EUECJ T-66/96
21 Jul 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Gibbs Mew Plc -v- Graham Gemmell and Gibbs Mew Plc and Centric Pub Company Ltd -v- Graham Gemmell [1998] EWCA Civ 1262; [1998] EuLR 588; [1999] 1 EGLR 43
22 Jul 1998 CA Peter Gibson LJ, Mantell LJ, Schiemann LJ	Commercial, European, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The brewery sought possession of a public house, tied by type. The lessee claimed damages for breach of Art. 81 and a declaration that the Block Exemption was inapplicable to his lease. His appeal from the judge's order in favour of the brewery was dismissed. The Court agreed with the majority in Greenalls. "There is no express requirement in [the Block Exemption] that the specification required must be by brand or denomination. Article 7 (1) (a) refers to beers supplied under the agreement as of a type; the tenant may be precluded from selling beers of that type supplied by other undertakings. Thus, the comparison between the agreement beers and those which he may not sell is by reference to the type of beer. The same comparison is apparent in Article 7 (1) (b), and there appears to be an assumption that the agreement will identify beers by type. Article 7 (2) defining drinks of the same type by reference to "their composition appearance and taste", is consistent with the interpretation of Gibbs Mew. Article 8 (2) (b) requires the tenant to have the right to obtain from other undertakings non-beer drinks "of the same type" as those supplied under the agreement but which bear different trademarks. "Type" there cannot mean brand or denomination. The regulation, in short, does not point to the specification having to be by brand or denomination but is consistent with it having to be by type. The present case differs from Delimitis in that in the lease itself are specified the types of beer and other drinks. The landlord cannot unilaterally enlarge the scope of the tie beyond those types. The landlord can change the brands or denominations on the price list, but unless it has freedom to do that, no brand or denomination could be added to or removed from the price list without a variation of the lease itself, requiring the tenants consent. That consideration seems to me to add practical force to the considerations based on the language of [the Block Exemption] which persuaded the majority in the Greenalls case." Though the tenant had had the benefit of protection under the 1954 Act, by hus conduct he had surrenedered his tenancy and taken an unprotected tenancy at will.
	Link[s] omitted

Safety H-Tech Srl -v- S & T Srl C-284/95; [1998] EUECJ C-284/95
22 Jul 1998 ECJ	Environment, European
	Use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons was properly banned for all purposes including fire fighting ones, and no sufficient reason for any exemption had been shown.
	Council regulation EC 3093/94 Substance depleting the Ozone Layer
	Link[s] omitted

Alexopoulou -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4943) (Order) C-155/98
23 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Alexopoulou -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-4935) (Order) C-155/98
23 Jul 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

H J Banks & Co Ltd -v- Coal Authority and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1998] EWCA Civ 1342
30 Jul 1998 CA	Commercial, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Application to amend details of reference to the European Court.
	Link[s] omitted

Ingmar GB Limited -v- Eaton Leonard Technologies Inc [1998] EWCA Civ 1366
31 Jul 1998 CA Peter Gibson, Aldous, Potter LJJ	Commercial, Agency, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Case referred to ECJ.
	Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents 17 - Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993
	Link[s] omitted

H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd -v- The Coal Authority And The Secretary of State For Trade And Industry [1998] EWCA Civ 1363
31 Jul 1998 CA	European, Commercial
	The appellant resisted payment under licences under which it had operated open cast mining, on the basis that the agreements were discriminatory under the ECSC Treaty.
	Link[s] omitted

Brookes & 334 Others -v- Borough Care Services & Cls Care Services Ltd [1998] IRLR 636; [1998] UKEAT 210_98_0408; [1998] ICR 1198
4 Aug 1998 EAT	Employment, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where a transfer of a business had been arranged by way of a transfer of shares rather than of the business and particularly in order to avoid the Regulations, the transfer of shares took effect as a transfer of the undertaking and so the regulations caught the transaction, even though the Directive made no mention of such a transfer.
	Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)
	Link[s] omitted

Eppe -v- Commission (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-455,II-1347) (Order) T-77/98
4 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ]

Eppe -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-455,II-1347) T-77/98; [1998] EUECJ T-77/98
4 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Sabbatucci -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p II-3043,IA-459,II-1353) T-42/98; T-42/98
12 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Emesa Sugar -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-3055) T-43/98; [2001] EUECJ T-43/98; T-43/98
14 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Emesa Sugar -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3079) T-44/98; [2001] EUECJ T-44/98; T-44/98
14 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Gevaert -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-465,II-1363) T-160/97; T-160/97; [1998] EUECJ T-160/97
19 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Collins -v- Committee of Regions T-132/97; [1998] EUECJ T-132/97
20 Aug 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal Proceedings Against Goerres
21 Aug 1998 ECJ	Consumer, European
	Though national regulations could allow placement of label identifying foodstuffs by the product, it was insufficient compliance with European Directive. The ultimate consumer (not just purchaser) needed to be informed about the product.
	ECTreaty Art 177

EC Commission -v- French Republic C-43/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 27
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	It was open to a member state to disallow reclaim of VAT on a motor vehicle even though it was the very tool of the owners trade. State had right to retain regulations predating the Council Directive disallowing such allowances.
	Sixth VAT Directive Art 17(6)

Jensen -v- Landbrugsministeriet - Ef - Direktorat C-132/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 14/98; [1998] EUECJ C-132/95
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	Agriculture, European
	Where a farmer had a claim for subsidy from a member state and at the same time the farmer owed money to the state the state had a right to set-off the one against the other before making payment of the subsidy, if did not undermine EC market organisation
	Link[s] omitted

EC Commission -v- Hellenic Republic Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 14; C-232/95; [1998] EUECJ C-232/95
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	Environment, European
	The court emphasised the need for the member states to implement the Directive to reduce pollution from the listed substances. States should also state how they intended to test the implementation and also the time scale for implementation
	Council Directive 76/464/EEC
	Link[s] omitted

Hermes International -v- FHT Marketing C-53/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98; [1998] EUECJ C-53/96
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	Intellectual Property, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where interim orders had been granted following seizure of goods under TRIPS agreement, the court gave guidance on what characteristics where required for it to be considered provisional measures under TRIPS and so imposed time limits. ECJ Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - TRIPS Agreement - Article 177 of the Treaty - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement - Provisional measures
	Council Decision 94/800/EC Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
	Link[s] omitted

Kapasakalis, Skiathitis and Kougiagkas -v- Greek State C-227/95; C-255/95; C-226/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 18/98, 3; [1998] EUECJ C-226/95; [1998] EUECJ C-227/95
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Where a national of a state sought recognition for a qualification obtained entirely within that state, the provisions about recognition of diplomas across member state boundaries did not apply. No freedom of movement of workers issue involved.
	Council Directive 89/48/EEC
	[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

Fischer -v- Finanzamt Donaueschingen C-283/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 16; [1998] EUECJ C-283/95
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	Taxpayer ran several gaming clubs under a license authorising roulette type games. He was assessed to VAT, calculated on probability basis. Fiscal neutrality prevented unlawful gaming being treated differently. Gaming was VAT exempt, also unlawful gaming.
	Link[s] omitted

Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo and Bazzochi -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3105) T-269/97; [1998] EUECJ T-269/97
9 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Societe Generale Des Grandes Sources D'Eaux Minerales Francaises -v- Bundesant Fur Finanzen C-361/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 7; [1998] EUECJ C-361/96
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	Where original VAT invoice was lost a duplicate should be accepted for refund claim even though from other member state where there was no doubt about the transaction, and the loss was not the fault of the taxpayer, and no risk of double reclaim of VAT duty.
	Link[s] omitted

Burgemeester En Wethouders Van Haarlemmerlied En Spaarnwoude -v- Gedeputerde Staten Van Noord-Holland C-81/96; Wcj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 28
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	Environment, European, Planning
	Where a development which might have significant environmental impact was proposed it was necessary to ensure that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out. It was not open to member states to exempt some types of development.
	Council Directive 90/313/EEC Freedom of Access to information on the environment.

Mary Brown -v- Rentokil Ltd C-394/96; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 18/98, 1; [1998] EUECJ C-394/96
9 Sep 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European
	An employee had been dismissed after being absent for sickness during her pregnancy. It was held to be a pregnancy related dismissal where the illness arose from the pregnancy. This applied despite a contractual provision to the contrary.
	Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment etc
	Link[s] omitted

Ministero delle Finanze -v- Spac (Rec 1998,p I-4997) (Judgment) C-260/96; [1998] EUECJ C-260/96
15 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Hagleitner -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-489,II-1467) T-94/96; [1998] EUECJ T-94/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Breda Fucine Meridionali -v- Commission (State Aid) French Text T-127/96; [1998] EUECJ T-127/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI State aid - Article 93, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty - Communication opening procedure - Aid not explicitly mentioned - Assistance to businesses located in disadvantaged areas - Restructuring - Recovery of aid - Limitation Period.
	Link[s] omitted

Ansaldo Energia (Principles Of Community Law) C-281/96; [1998] EUECJ C-281/96
15 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law - Interest.
	Link[s] omitted

Haas and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-475,II-1395) T-3/96; T-3/96; [1998] EUECJ T-3/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

BFM -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3437) T-126/96; T-126/96; [1998] EUECJ T-126/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mediocurso -v- Commission (Social Policy) T-181/96; [1998] EUECJ T-181/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI European Social Fund - Approval decision - Reduction of financial assistance - Prior hearing of beneficiary - Consultation of Member State - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment.
	Link[s] omitted

European Night Services -v- Commission (Competition) T-384/94; [1998] EUECJ T-384/94
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Bailii ]

European Night Services -v- Commission (Competition) T-375/94; [1998] EUECJ T-375/94
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Competition - Transport by rail - Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel - Restrictions on competition - Directive 91/440/EEC - Appreciable effect on trade - Supply of necessary services - 'Essential facilities' - Statement of reasons - Admissibility.
	Link[s] omitted

Gestevisión Telecinco -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3407) T-95/96; [1998] EUECJ T-95/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

De Persio -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-483,II-1413) T-23/96; T-23/96; [1998] EUECJ T-23/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Michailidis and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3115) T-100/94; T-100/94; [1998] EUECJ T-100/94
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Branco -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3567) T-142/97; T-142/97; [1998] EUECJ T-142/97
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ansaldo Energia (Principles Of Community Law) C-280/96; [1998] EUECJ C-280/96
15 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law - Interest.
	Link[s] omitted

Ryanair -v- Commission T-140/95; T-140/95; [1998] EUECJ T-140/95
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European, Transport
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

European Night Services -v- Commission (Competition) T-388/94; [1998] EUECJ T-388/94
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Competition - Transport by rail - Agreements on overnight rail services through the Channel Tunnel - Restrictions on competition - Directive 91/440/EEC - Appreciable effect on trade - Supply of necessary services - 'Essential facilities - Statement of reasons - Admissibility.
	Link[s] omitted

Mediocurso -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3477) T-180/96; [1998] EUECJ T-180/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	ECFI Mediocurso - Estabelecimento de ensino particular, Lda v Commission of the European Communities. European Social Fund - Approval decision - Reduction of financial assistance - Prior hearing of beneficiary - Consultation of the Member State - Protection of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment.
	Link[s] omitted

Molkerei Großbraunshain and Bene Nahrungsmittel -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3533) T-109/97; T-109/97; [1998] EUECJ T-109/97
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Oleifici Italiani and Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3377) T-54/96; [1998] EUECJ T-54/96
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

BP Chemicals -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3235) T-11/95; T-11/95; [1998] EUECJ T-11/95
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

European Night Services and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3141) T-374/94; T-374/94; [1998] EUECJ T-374/94
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ansaldo Energia and others -v- Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and others (Rec 1998,p I-5025) (Judgment) C-279/96; [1998] EUECJ C-279/96
15 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-5055) (Judgment) C-431/97; [1998] EUECJ C-431/97
15 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3301) T-136/95; T-136/95; [1998] EUECJ T-136/95
15 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica -v- Ministero delle Finanze (Rec 1998,p I-4951) (Judgment) C-231/96; [1998] EUECJ C-231/96
15 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Waterleiding Maatschappij 'Noord-West Brabant' -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3713) T-188/95; T-188/95; [1998] EUECJ T-188/95
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

IECC -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3597) T-28/95; T-28/95; [1998] EUECJ T-28/95
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Rasmussen -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-507,II-1533) T-234/97; T-234/97; [1998] EUECJ T-234/97
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

IECC -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3645) T-133/95; T-133/95; [1998] EUECJ T-133/95
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Rasmussen -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-495,II-1495) T-193/96; T-193/96; [1998] EUECJ T-193/96
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

IECC -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3605) T-110/95; T-110/95; [1998] EUECJ T-110/95
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Jouhki -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-503,II-1513) T-215/97; T-215/97; [1998] EUECJ T-215/97
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Iecc -v- Commission (Competition) T-204/95; [1998] EUECJ T-204/95
16 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Harpegnies (Rec 1998,p I-5121) (Judgment) C-400/96; [1998] EUECJ C-400/96
17 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Primex Produkte Import-Export and others -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3773) T-50/96; T-50/96; [1998] EUECJ T-50/96
17 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kainuun Liikenne and Pohjolan Liikenne (Rec 1998,p I-5141) (Judgment) C-412/96; [1998] EUECJ C-412/96
17 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-5063) (Judgment) C-323/96; [1998] EUECJ C-323/96
17 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pagliarani -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-515,II-1555) T-40/98; T-40/98; [1998] EUECJ T-40/98
17 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pontillo -v- Donatab (Rec 1998,p I-5091) (Judgment) C-372/96; [1998] EUECJ C-372/96
17 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pagliarani -v- Commission (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-515,II-1555) (Order) T-40/98
17 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Branco -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3761) T-271/94; T-271/94
17 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Progoulis -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-521,II-1569) T-237/97; T-237/97; [1998] EUECJ T-237/97
21 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører, acting on behalf of Egmont Film and others -v- Laserdisken (Rec 1998,p I-5171) (Judgment) C-61/97; [1998] EUECJ C-61/97
22 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Coote -v- Granada Hospitality Ltd C-185/97; [1998] IRLR 656; [1999] ICR 100; [1998] ECR I-5199; [1998] EUECJ C-185/97
22 Sep 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation. Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after employment has been terminated by employers against who claim for sex discrimination had been successful. Victimisation included failure to provide proper reference to former employee. The provision of references for employees by an employer is covered by the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of sex laid down by Council Directive (76/207/EEC). In that connection, it is irrelevant whether the references were in fact refused during the period of employment or after its termination or whether the employer decided on the refusal before or after the termination of the period of employment. (2) Directive (76/207/EEC) does not, however, require member states to introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable employees to bring legal proceedings against former employers who have refused to provide references for them, where that refusal constitutes retaliation for legal proceedings brought by the employee against the employer with a view to enforcing compliance with the requirement of equal treatment for men and women. "The principle of effective judicial control laid down in article 6 of the Directive would be deprived of an essential part of its effectiveness if the protection which it provides did not cover measures which, as in the main proceedings in this case, an employer might take as a reaction to legal proceedings brought by an employee with the aim of enforcing compliance with the principle of equal treatment. Fear of such measures, where no legal remedy is available against them, might deter workers who considered themselves the victims of discrimination from pursuing their claims by judicial process, and would consequently be liable seriously to jeopardise implementation of the aim pursued by the Directive."
	Council Directive 76/207/EEC Equal Treatment of workers
	Link[s] omitted

Stinco and Panfilo -v- INPS (Rec 1998,p I-5225) (Judgment) C-132/96; [1998] EUECJ C-132/96
24 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Dethlefs and others -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3819) T-112/95; T-112/95; [1998] EUECJ T-112/95
24 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Skatteministeriet -v- Sportgoods (Rec 1998,p I-5285) (Judgment) C-413/96; [1998] EUECJ C-413/96
24 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Brinkmann Tabakfabriken -v- Skatteministeriet (Rec 1998,p I-5255) (Judgment) C-319/96; [1998] EUECJ C-319/96
24 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- France (Rec 1998,p I-5325) (Judgment) C-35/97; [1998] EUECJ C-35/97
24 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Tögel -v- Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse (Rec 1998,p I-5357) (Judgment) C-76/97; [1998] EUECJ C-76/97
24 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

EvoBus Austria -v- Niederösterreichische Verkehrsorganisation (Rec 1998,p I-5411) (Judgment) C-111/97; [1998] EUECJ C-111/97
24 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Pharos -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5441) (Order) C-151/98
28 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha -v- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer C-39/97; [1999] RPC 117; [1998] ECR I-5507; [1998] EUECJ C-39/97
29 Sep 1998 ECJ	European, Intellectual Property	Casemap 1 Citers
	In a complaint of trade mark infringement, and when comparing the mark and sign, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods/services and vice versa. Europa On a proper construction of Article 4(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be taken into account when determining whether the similarity between the goods or services covered by the two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the likelihood of confusion. The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. That global assessment implies some interdependence between the relevant factors, and in particular a similarity between the trade marks and between the goods and services covered by those marks. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa. However, since the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the risk of confusion, trade marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with less distinctive character. Accordingly, for the purposes of Article 4(1)(b), registration of a trade mark may have to be refused, despite a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services covered, where the marks are very similar and the earlier mark, in particular its reputation, is highly distinctive. Even if such an interpretation may make the registration procedure much lengthier, it is, in any event, for reasons of legal certainty and proper administration, necessary to ensure that trade marks whose use could successfully be challenged before the courts are not registered. For the purposes of applying Article 4(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, even where one trade mark is identical to another with a highly distinctive character, it is still necessary to adduce evidence of similarity between the goods or services covered. In contrast to Article 4(4)(a), which expressly refers to the situation in which the goods or services are not similar, Article 4(1)(b) provides that the likelihood of confusion presupposes that the goods or services covered are identical or similar. In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their end users and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. There is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks where the public can be mistaken as to the origin of the goods or services in question. Article 2 of the directive provides that a trade mark must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, while the tenth recital in the preamble to the directive states that the function of the protection conferred by the mark is primarily to guarantee the indication of origin. The essential function of the trade mark is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the marked product to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the product or service from others which have another origin. Furthermore, for the trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish, it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have originated under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality. Accordingly, there may be a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) even where the public perception is that the goods or services have different places of production. By contrast, there can be no such likelihood where it does not appear that the public could believe that the goods or services come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.
	Council Directive 89/104
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading and others C-263/97; [1997] Eu LR 195; [1998] EUECJ C-263/97
29 Sep 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef - Export refunds -Beef of British origin repatriated to the United Kingdom as a result of the announcements and decisions made in relation to 'mad cow disease' - Force majeure. Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Refunds paid in advance - Goods exported and repatriated, on account of force majeure, to the Member State of export - Repayment of refunds paid in advance - Obligation incumbent on the exporter - Beef from the United Kingdom hit by the export ban imposed by Decision 96/239 - Regulation No 3665/87 not permitting exporters to retain refunds paid in advance - Breach of the principles of force majeure, protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity - None - Validity of Regulation No 773/96 (Council Regulation No 565/80; Commission Regulation No 3665/87, Arts 5(1), 23 and 33, and Commission Regulation No 773/96; Commission Decision 96/239). Articles 23 and 33 of Regulation No 3665/87 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, in the version thereof resulting from Regulation No 1615/90, must be interpreted as meaning that where, as a result of, in particular, force majeure, goods do not reach their country of destination but are repatriated to the Member State of export, the exporter is obliged to repay any export refunds paid in advance. In such a situation, the formalities for release of the product for consumption in the country of destination have not been completed, so that it cannot be regarded, for the purposes of payment of the differentiated refund, as having been imported within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87. By prohibiting, in particular, exporters of beef from the United Kingdom from retaining all or part of any export refunds paid in advance in circumstances where (1 exports of beef from the United Kingdom to third countries have been prohibited by Decision 96/239 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, (2 bans on the importation of beef from the United Kingdom have also been imposed by a number of third countries, (3 exporters of beef were in the process of carrying goods to third countries on the date on which Decision 96/239 was adopted, (4 those exporters were forced to repatriate the beef to the United Kingdom, (5 the exporters had received, in accordance with Regulation No 565/80 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products and Regulation No 3665/87, advance payments of export refunds in respect of the export transactions in issue, and (6 the exporters suffered loss as a result of their inability to sell their beef on the export markets in question, Regulation No 3665/87 does not contravene the general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of force majeure, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity. Furthermore, and since none of those principles require exporters, in the circumstances described, to be authorised to retain all or part of any refunds, the fact that Regulation No 773/96 laying down special measures derogating from Regulations No 3665/87, No 3719/88 and No 1964/82 in the beef and veal sector does not provide for such retention does not render it invalid
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Germany (Rec 1998,p I-5449) (Judgment) C-191/95; [1998] EUECJ C-191/95
29 Sep 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Busacca and others -v- Court of Auditors (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-565,II-1699) T-164/97; T-164/97; [1998] EUECJ T-164/97
30 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mighell -v- Reading and Another and Evans -v- Motor Insurers Bureau and White -v- White and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 1465; [1999] 1 LLR 30
30 Sep 1998 CA Hobhouse LJ	European, Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Passengers were injured in motor vehicles. The drivers were uninsured, and the MIB had declined to make payment. The doctrine of direct effect did not apply where the allegation was that the Motor Insurers Bureau arrangement did not comply with a European Directive. It was not clear whether the Bureau was an emanation of state, but government had had a choice of institutions through which to implement the Directive. As to the nature of the MIB: "Its members are private law insurance companies who have chosen for the time being to write motor insurance business. It is true that they have a statutory position in that it is compulsory for the user of a motor vehicle on the road to take out a policy with a company which is a member of the Bureau. (Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988). But the Motor Insurers' Bureau scheme has been in existence from a time earlier than the United Kingdom's membership of the European Communities (or Union) and agreements between the Bureau and the Secretary of State relating to uninsured drivers and untraced drivers have long formed part of that scheme."
	Link[s] omitted

Chvatal and others -v- Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-527,II-1579) T-154/96; T-154/96; [1998] EUECJ T-154/96
30 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Coldiretti and others -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3841) T-149/96; T-149/96; [1998] EUECJ T-149/96
30 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Losch -v- Court of Justice (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-543,II-1633) T-13/97; T-13/97; [1998] EUECJ T-13/97
30 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Adine-Blanc -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-557,II-1683) T-43/97; T-43/97; [1998] EUECJ T-43/97
30 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ryan -v- Court of Auditors (Rec 1998,p II-3885) T-121/97; T-121/97; [1998] EUECJ T-121/97
30 Sep 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Netherlands -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5581) (Judgment) C-27/94; [1998] EUECJ C-27/94
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Langnese-Iglo -v- Commission C-279/95; [1998] EUECJ C-279/95P
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	By virtue of Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. As regards matters of evidence, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence adduced before it, save where the sense of that evidence has been distorted. Having regard to the legal nature of comfort letters, the sending of such a letter, in which the Commission has reserved the right to re-open the procedure in the event of there being any appreciable change affecting certain matters of law or of fact on which its assessment had been based, cannot entail the consequence that the Commission, when actually re-opening the procedure, would no longer be entitled to take account of a factual situation which existed before the comfort letter was sent but was brought to its notice only later, particularly in connection with a complaint lodged at a later stage. Since Article 3 of Regulation No 17 is to be applied according to the nature of the infringement found, although the Commission may by decision require undertakings and associations of undertakings to bring to an end an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty deriving from an exclusive purchasing agreement, it may not prohibit the conclusion of any such agreements in the future.
	Link[s] omitted

Librandi (Rec 1998,p I-5955) (Judgment) C-38/97; [1998] EUECJ C-38/97
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

United Kingdom -v- Commission (Judgment) C-209/96; [1998] EUECJ C-209/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	In the context of intervention measures in the beef and veal sector, and in particular of the system of buying-in by tendering procedures, Article 9(1) of Regulation No 859/89 provides that tenderers must undertake to comply with all the relevant provisions and Article 9(2) that interested parties may submit one tender only per category in response to each invitation to tender. Since the need to ensure legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them, the wording of Article 9(2) cannot provide any support for the interpretation that, on account of the difference in meaning between the words `interested party' and `tenderers', the latter may submit one tender only in response to an invitation to tender where they are part of a single group. Such an interpretation would thus be tantamount to applying retroactively Article 11 of Regulation No 2456/93, which introduces into the Community legislation provisions on the relationship between tenderers. That being the case, although the rule that tenders must be independent, an essential requirement for the validity and effectiveness of any tender procedure, which underlies Articles 9(6) (confidentiality of tenders), 12(2) (prohibition on the transfer of rights and obligations arising from the tender procedure), 9(4)(c) (tenderers' obligation to lodge a security) and 15 (tenderers' obligation to receive payment personally) of Regulation No 859/89 and Article 6(6) of Regulation No 805/68 (equality of access for all persons concerned), does not prevent several companies belonging to one group from taking part at the same time in one tender procedure, it does preclude those same companies from agreeing on the terms and conditions of the tenders which they each submit, if the tender procedure is not to be distorted. Article 8(1) of Regulation No 729/70, which constitutes a specific expression in the agricultural area of the obligations imposed on Member States by Article 5 of the Treaty, defines the principles according to which the Community and the Member States must ensure the implementation of Community decisions on agricultural intervention financed by the EAGGF and combat fraud and irregularities in relation to those operations. It imposes on the Member States the general obligation to take the measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the transactions financed by the EAGGF are actually carried out and are executed correctly, even if the specific Community act does not expressly provide for the adoption of particular supervisory measures, particularly when there is evidence such as to give rise to serious suspicions that a prohibition laid down by the Community act in question has been circumvented. Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 permit the Commission to charge to the EAGGF only sums paid in accordance with the rules laid down in the various sectors of agricultural production, leaving the Member States to bear the burden of any other sum paid, and in particular any amounts which the national authorities wrongly believed themselves authorised to pay in the context of the common organisation of the markets. Although it is therefore for the Commission to prove an infringement of the Community rules, the Member State concerned must demonstrate that the Commission committed an error as to the financial consequences to be attributed to it. Where it has established that a Member State infringed several Community rules in the field of agriculture and that harm was probably caused to the Community budget, the Commission cannot be required to do more, since it cannot carry out systematic checks and analysis of the current state of a given market depends on information gathered by the Member States. The extent of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, depends on the nature of the measure in question and on the context in which it was adopted. A decision concerning the clearance of accounts in respect of expenditure financed by the EAGGF by which the charging to the EAGGF of part of the expenditure declared is refused does not require detailed reasons if the government concerned was closely involved in the process by which the decision came about and is therefore aware of the reason for which the Commission considers that it must not charge the sums in dispute to the EAGGF.
	Link[s] omitted

France -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5699) (Judgment) C-232/96; [1998] EUECJ C-232/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

International Express Carriers Conference -v- Commission of the European Communities (Supported by Uk, Deutsche Post Ag, the Post Office and La Poste Interveners) T-133/95 T-204/95
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	Administrative, European
	The Commission was wrong to approve of interception of mail by postal authorities to get around attempts to abuse international agreements for international mail by taking advantage of cheaper rates of foreign operators. Interception was excessive.
	Universal Postal Union Convention art 25

Italy -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5863) (Judgment) C-242/96; [1998] EUECJ C-242/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ireland -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5801) (Judgment) C-238/96; [1998] EUECJ C-238/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Natural van Dam and Danser Container Line -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-3921) T-155/97; T-155/97; [1998] EUECJ T-155/97
1 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Denmark -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-5759) (Judgment) C-233/96; [1998] EUECJ C-233/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Italy (Rec 1998,p I-5935) (Judgment) C-285/96; [1998] EUECJ C-285/96
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Spain (Rec 1998,p I-5991) (Judgment) C-71/97; [1998] EUECJ C-71/97
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Burstein -v- Freistaat Bayern (Rec 1998,p I-6005) (Judgment) C-127/97; [1998] EUECJ C-127/97
1 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec.1998,p.I-6039) (Judgment) C-79/98
6 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6039) (Judgment) C-79/98; [1998] EUECJ C-79/98
6 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kuchlenz-Winter -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-6047) (Order) C-228/97
8 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Optident Ltd and Another -v- Secretary of State and Industry and Another
9 Oct 1998 QBD	European, Health
	Where a product was recognised in one EU country as being a medicine, but was treated here as a cosmetic, the right approach was to treat it as a medicine until the decision that it was such was set aside. The two regimes are mutually exclusive.

Campoli -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-577,II-1731) T-235/97; [1998] EUECJ T-235/97
12 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Martínez del Peral Cagigal -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-581,II-1741) T-224/97; [1998] EUECJ T-224/97
14 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- France (Rec 1998,p I-6091) (Judgment) C-284/97; [1998] EUECJ C-284/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Italy (Rec 1998,p I-6099) (Judgment) C-324/97; [1998] EUECJ C-324/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Industrie des poudres sphériques -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-3939) T-2/95; T-2/95; [1998] EUECJ T-2/95
15 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Greece (Rec 1998,p I-6127) (Judgment) C-386/97; [1998] EUECJ C-386/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Greece (Rec 1998,p I-6115) (Judgment) C-385/97; [1998] EUECJ C-385/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6107) (Judgment) C-326/97; [1998] EUECJ C-326/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6081) (Judgment) C-283/97; [1998] EUECJ C-283/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Belgium (Rec 1998,p I-6069) (Judgment) C-268/97; [1998] EUECJ C-268/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Portugal C-229/97; [1998] EUECJ C-229/97
15 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

V -v- Commission T-40/95
16 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Vicente-Nuñez -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-591,II-1779) T-100/96; T-100/96; [1998] EUECJ T-100/96
21 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Procédures contre Jokela and Pitkäranta (Rec 1998,p I-6267) (Judgment) C-9/97; [1998] EUECJ C-9/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kellinghusen -v- Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel and Ketelsen -v- Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Husum (Judgment) C-36/97; [1998] EUECJ C-36/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Wolfs -v- Office national des pensions (Rec 1998,p I-6173) (Judgment) C-154/96; [1998] EUECJ C-154/96
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kellinghusen -v- Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft Kiel (Agriculture) C-37/97; [1998] EUECJ C-37/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	ECJ On the interpretation and validity, in Case C-36/97, of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), and, in Case C-37/97, of Article 30a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 49).
	Link[s] omitted

Ministero delle Finanze -v- IN CO GE '90 and others (Rec 1998,p I-6307) (Judgment) C-10/97; [1998] EUECJ C-10/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- France (Rec 1998,p I-6197) (Judgment) C-184/96; [1998] EUECJ C-184/96
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-6393) (Judgment) C-26/98; [1998] EUECJ C-26/98
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Office national des pensions -v- Conti (Rec 1998,p I-6365) (Judgment) C-143/97; [1998] EUECJ C-143/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

The Howden Court Hotel (Taxation) C-94/97; [1998] EUECJ C-94/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, VAT
	ECJ VAT - Article 26 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Scheme for travel agents and tour operators - Hotel undertakings - Accommodation and travel package - Basis of calculation of the margin.
	Link[s] omitted

In.Co.Ge. 90 (Principles Of Community Law) C-22/97; [1998] EUECJ C-22/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Recovery of sums paid but not due - Treatment of a national charge incompatible with Community law.
	Link[s] omitted

Jokela (Agriculture) C-118/97; [1998] EUECJ C-118/97
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	ECJ Definition of 'national court or tribunal' - Agriculture - Compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps - Conditions for granting the allowance.
	Link[s] omitted

Commissioners of Customs and Excise -v- Madgett and Baldwin (trading as Howden Court Hotel) C-308/96; [1998] STC 1189; [1998] EUECJ C-308/96
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, VAT	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court considered the criteria for determining whether the provision to guests by a hotelier of travel services (and in particular transport to and from the hotel and excursions) constituted supply which was ancillary to the supply of accommodation. Held: " . . . traders such as hoteliers who provide services habitually associated with travel frequently make use of services bought in from third parties which take up a small proportion of the package price compared to the accommodation and are among the tasks traditionally entrusted to such traders. Those bought-in services do not therefore constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied by the trader. In such circumstances the services bought in from third parties remain purely ancillary in relation to the in-house services, and the trader should not be taxed under art 26 of the Sixth Directive. Where, however, a hotelier habitually offers his customers, in addition to accommodation, services which go beyond the tasks traditionally entrusted to hoteliers, and which cannot be carried out without a substantial effect on the package price charged, such as travel to the hotel from distant pick-up points, such services are not to be equated with purely ancillary services."
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Germany (Rec 1998,p I-6135) (Judgment) C-301/95; [1998] EUECJ C-301/95
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Ireland (Rec.1998,p.I-6393) (Judgment) C-26/98
22 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ]

Regione Puglia -v- Commission and Spain (Rec 1998,p II-4051) T-609/97; [1998] EUECJ T-609/97
23 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya and Autopistas Concesionaria Española -v- Departament d'Economía i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Rec 1998,p I-6491) (Judgment) C-31/97; [1998] EUECJ C-31/97
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Abruzzi Gas -v- Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano (Rec 1998,p I-6553) (Judgment) C-152/97; [1998] EUECJ C-152/97
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Reunion Europeenne Sa and Others -v- Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor Bv and Another C-51/97; [1998] ECR I-6511; [1998] EUECJ C-51/97
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	Transport, European, Jurisdiction	Casemap 1 Citers
	French consignees of a shipment of peaches sued in France the Australian issuers of the bill of laiding under which the goods were carried (a contract claim) and the Dutch carriers and master of the ship in which they were carried (tort claims). Held: There was no jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because none of the defendants were domiciled in France. After referring to Kalfelis: "It follows that two claims in one action for compensation directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict cannot be regarded as connected." Europa An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considers to be the actual maritime carrier, does not fall within the scope of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, since the bill of lading in question does not disclose any contractual relationship freely entered into between the consignee and the defendant. Such an action is, however, a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, of that Convention, since that concept covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and are not related to matters of contract within the meaning of Article 5, point 1. As regards determining the `place where the harmful event occurred' within the meaning of Article 5, point 3, the place where the consignee, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine that place. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned concept may cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, the place where the damage arose can, in the circumstances described, only be the place where the maritime carrier was to deliver the goods. Article 6, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot, on the basis of that provision, be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection. The objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a court in a Contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards one of the defendants not domiciled in a Contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a Contracting State, before that same court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it.
	Brussels Convention on Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-6593) (Judgment) C-364/97; [1998] EUECJ C-364/97
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Margaret Boyle and Others -v- Equal Opportunities Commission C-411/96; [1998] EUECJ C-411/96
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	It was not discriminatory to offer additional pay over and above statutory entitlements to workers taking maternity leave on condition that they return to work for at least a month after the birth or repay the additional sums allowed
	ECTreaty Art 177 - Council Directive 75/117/EC
	Link[s] omitted

Fecsa (Taxation) C-32/97; [1998] EUECJ C-32/97
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	European, Stamp Duty
	ECJ Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment of debenture loans.
	Link[s] omitted

Nonwoven (Rec 1998,p I-6469) (Judgment) C-4/97; [1998] EUECJ C-4/97
27 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Goldstein -v- Commission (Rec.1998,p.II-4063) (Order) T-100/98
28 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Goldstein -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4063) T-100/98; T-100/98; [1998] EUECJ T-100/98
28 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Spain (Rec 1998,p I-6717) (Judgment) C-114/97; [1998] EUECJ C-114/97
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

de Castro Freitas and Escallier -v- Ministre des Classes moyennes and du Tourisme C-193/97; [1998] EUECJ C-193/97
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Greece (Rec 1998,p I-6601) (Judgment) C-185/96; [1998] EUECJ C-185/96
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Criminal proceedings against Awoyemi (Rec 1998,p I-6781) (Judgment) C-230/97; [1998] EUECJ C-230/97
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Luxembourg (Rec 1998,p I-6813) (Judgment) C-410/97; [1998] EUECJ C-410/97
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Wilson and Others -v- St Helens Borough Council; Meade and Another -v- British Fuels Ltd Times, 30 October 1998; Gazette, 25 November 1998; [1998] UKHL 37; [1999] 2 AC 52; [1998] 4 All ER 609; [1998] 3 WLR 1070
29 Oct 1998 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton	Employment, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The House faced two questions regarding the protection given by the Regulations: "whether the dismissed employee can compel the transferee to employ him or whether he is given the right to enforce as against the transferee such remedies under national law as he could have enforced against the transferor." and "whether, if despite dismissal they were entitled to retain the benefit of their previous terms, the employees either by initially agreeing terms with their new employers, or by continuing to work for the new employers or by accepting the statement of terms and conditions subsequently varied any entitlement to the previous terms and conditions." Held: A dismissal on a transfer of undertaking was actually a dismissal and not a nullity. The TUPE regulations added rights to take action for a dismissal, they did not change the underlying law against specific performance in employment law. Lord Slynn said: "the existing rights of employees are to be safeguarded if there is a transfer. That means no more and no less than that the employee can look to the transferee to perform those obligations which the employee could have enforced against the transferor. The employer, be he transferor or transferee, cannot use the transfer as a justification for dismissal, but if he does dismiss it is a question for national law as to what those rights are. As I have already said, in English law there would as a general rule be no order for specific performance. The claim would be for damages for wrongful dismissal or for statutory rights including, it is true, reinstatement or re-engagement where applicable . . The Directive is to "approximate" the laws of the Member States. Its purpose is to "safeguard" rights on a transfer. The "rights" of an employee must depend on national rules of the law of contract or of legislation. There is no Community law of contract common to Member States, nor is there a common system or remedies. The object and purpose of the Directive is to ensure in all member states that on a transfer an employee has against the transferee the rights and remedies which he would have had against the original employer." and "where there is a transfer of an undertaking and the transferee actually takes on the employee the contract of employment is automatically transferred so that, in the absence of a permissible variation, the terms of the initial contract go with the employee, who though he may refuse to go, cannot as a matter of public policy waive the rights which the Directive and the Regulations confer on him. Where the transferee does not take on the employees who are dismissed on transfer the dismissal is not a nullity though the contractual rights formerly available against the transferor remain intact against the transferee. For the latter purpose, an employee dismissed prior to the transfer contrary to Article 4(1), i.e. on the basis of the transfer, is to be treated as still in the employment of the transferor at the date of transfer"
	Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794) - Acquired Rights Directive (77/187/EEC)
	Link[s] omitted

De Castro Freitas C-194/97; [1998] EUECJ C-194/97
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	ECJ Freedom of establishment - Directive 64/427/EEC - Activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and processing industries - Conditions for taking up an occupation.
	Directive 64/427/EEC
	Link[s] omitted

TEAM -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4073) T-13/96; T-13/96; [1998] EUECJ T-13/96
29 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Zaninotto -v- Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi - Ufficio di Conegliano - Ministero delle risorse agricole, alimentari e forestali (Rec 1998,p I-6629) (Judgment) C-375/96; [1998] EUECJ C-375/96
29 Oct 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kaysersberg -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4105) T-290/94; T-290/94
30 Oct 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd -v- The Environment Agency [1998] EWHC Ch 286
9 Nov 1998 ChD	Environment, Licensing, European
	Whether materials were a waste, requiring waste management licenses and procedures, was determined by whether any further process of reclamation or recycling was required. Materials used without further processing were not waste materials under the Act.
	Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (1994/1056)
	Link[s] omitted

Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden -v- BFI Holding (Rec 1998,p I-6821) (Judgment) C-360/96; [1998] EUECJ C-360/96
10 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft and others -v- Hartmann C-162/98
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Council -v- Hankart (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-597,II-1809) T-91/96
12 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Victoria Film (Rec 1998,p I-7023) (Judgment) C-134/97; [1998] EUECJ C-134/97
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Europièces -v- Sanders and Automative Industries Holding Company (Judgment) C-399/96; [1998] EUECJ C-399/96
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Carrasco Benítez -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-601,II-1819) T-294/97; T-294/97; [1998] EUECJ T-294/97
12 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Germany (Rec 1998,p I-6871) (Judgment) C-102/96; [1998] EUECJ C-102/96
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Spain -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-6993) (Judgment) C-415/96; [1998] EUECJ C-415/96
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Institute of the Motor Industry (Rec 1998,p I-7053) (Judgment) C-149/97; [1998] EUECJ C-149/97
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Italy -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-6937) (Judgment) C-352/96; [1998] EUECJ C-352/96
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft and others -v- Hartmann (Rec.1998,p.I-7083) (Order) C-162/98
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Erstein (Rec 1998,p I-6907) (Judgment) C-269/96; [1998] EUECJ C-269/96
12 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Antilles néerlandaises -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4123) T-163/97; T-163/97; [1998] EUECJ T-163/97
16 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Antillean Rice Mills -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-4117) T-41/97; T-41/97
16 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Antilles néerlandaises -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-4131) T-310/97; T-310/97
16 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Van Uden Maritime -v- Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and others (Judgment) [1999] 2 WLR 1181; C-391/95; [1998] ECR I-7091; [1998] EUECJ C-391/95
17 Nov 1998 ECJ	Arbitration, European	Casemap
	Applications under the Brussels Convention for Interim Measures were capable of being heard by courts notwithstanding a clause referring disputes under the contract in issue exclusively to arbitration. Even in the case of Article 24 of the Brussels Convention it has been made clear that the granting of provisional or protective measures on the basis of Article 24 is conditional on, inter alia, the existence of a real connecting link between the subject matter of the measures sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the contracting state of the court before which those measures are sought. Jurisdiction existed because, despite the existence of an arbitration, the subject matter of provisional measures was not arbitration: " … it must be noted…that provisional measures are not in principle ancillary to arbitration proceedings but are ordered in parallel to such proceedings and are intended as measures of support. They concern not arbitration as such but the protection of a wide variety of rights. Their place in the scope of the Convention is thus determined not by their own nature but by the nature of the rights which they serve to protect …"
	Link[s] omitted

Aprile -v- Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Rec 1998,p I-7141) (Judgment) C-228/96; [1998] EUECJ C-228/96
17 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Fabert-Goossens -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-607,II-1841) T-217/96; T-217/96; [1998] EUECJ T-217/96
17 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-613,II-1855) T-131/97; T-131/97; [1998] EUECJ T-131/97
17 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Kruidvat -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7183) (Judgment) C-70/97; [1998] EUECJ C-70/97P
17 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Portugal"-v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7379) (Judgment) C-159/96; [1998] EUECJ C-159/96
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Toller -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7623) (Order) C-149/98
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Toller -v- Commission (Rec.1998,p.I-7623) (Order) C-149/98
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Institute of the Motor Industry -v- Customs and Excise Commissioners
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	VAT, European
	A trade union could be any organisation of employees, workers, employers, independent professionals or traders which took upon itself representation of its members interests as against third parties, and any such is VAT exempt.
	Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC Art 13(A)(1)(1)

Champion Stationery Mfg and others -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-4137) T-147/97; T-147/97; [1998] EUECJ T-147/97
19 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Parliament -v- Gaspari (Rec 1998,p I-7597) (Judgment) C-316/97; [1998] EUECJ C-316/97P
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Handels Og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark (Acting On Behalf of Pedersen) -v- Faellesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (Acting On Behalf of Kvickly Skive) C-66/96; [1998] EUECJ C-66/96
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	Discrimination, European
	It was discriminatory to refuse payment of maternity benefits where a worker suffered a pathological illness connected to a pregnancy with an allowance of benefits where someone ordinarily sick would receive full pay.
	Council Directive 75/117/EEC on Equal Pay for Men and Women
	Link[s] omitted

Parliament -v- Gutiérrez de Quijano y Lloréns (Rec 1998,p I-7421) (Judgment) C-252/96; [1998] EUECJ C-252/96P
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Nilsson and others (Rec 1998,p I-7477) (Judgment) C-162/97; [1998] EUECJ C-162/97
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

France -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p I-7555) (Judgment) C-235/97; [1998] EUECJ C-235/97
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Société financière d'investissements -v- Belgian State (Rec 1998,p I-7447) (Judgment) C-85/97; [1998] EUECJ C-85/97
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

United Kingdom -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-7235) (Judgment) C-150/94; [1998] EUECJ C-150/94
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Spain -v- Council (Rec 1998,p I-7309) (Judgment) C-284/94; [1998] EUECJ C-284/94
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Akman -v- Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises (Rec 1998,p I-7519) (Judgment) C-210/97; [1998] EUECJ C-210/97
19 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Royscto Leasing Ltd and Another -v- Commissioners of Customs & Excise; Allied Domecq Plc -v- Same; T C Harrison Group Ltd -v- Same
23 Nov 1998 CA	European
	The court has the power to with draw a reference of a case to the European Court of Justice. This should only normally be done, however, where it had become clear that the reference would no longer serve any useful purpose.

Steffens -v- Council and Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4175) T-222/97; T-222/97; [1998] EUECJ T-222/97
25 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Manfredi -v- Regione Puglia (Rec 1998,p I-7685) (Judgment) C-308/97; [1998] EUECJ C-308/97
25 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Courage Limited -v- Crehan [1998] EWHC Ch 281
25 Nov 1998 ChD	Contract, Commercial, European	1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Spain (Rec 1998,p I-7661) (Judgment) C-214/96; [1998] EUECJ C-214/96
25 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Oscar Bronner -v- Mediaprint (Judgment) C-7/97; [1998] ECR 1-7791; [1998] EUECJ C-7/97
26 Nov 1998 ECJ Jacobs AG	European	Casemap 1 Citers
	A major newspaper proprietor had refused to allow a small competitor access to its efficient distribution service. Held: That amounted to an abuse of a dominant position: "First, it is apparent that the right to choose one's trading partners and freely to dispose of one's property are generally recognised principles in the laws of the Member States, in some cases with constitutional status. Incursions on those rights require careful justification. Secondly, the justification in terms of competition policy for interfering with a dominant undertaking's freedom to contract often requires a careful balancing of conflicting considerations. Thirdly, in assessing this issue it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of Article 86 is to prevent distortion of competition – and in particular to safeguard the interests of consumers – rather than to protect the position of particular competitors. In assessing such conflicting interests particular care is required where the goods or services or facilities to which access is demanded represent the fruit of substantial investment. That may be true in particular in relation to refusal to license intellectual property rights. Where such exclusive rights are granted for a limited period, that in itself involves a balancing of the interest in free competition with that of providing an incentive for research and development and for creativity. It is therefore with good reason that the Court has held that the refusal to license does not of itself, in the absence of other factors, constitute an abuse. To accept Bronner's contention would be to lead the Community and national authorities and courts into detailed regulation of the Community markets, entailing the fixing of prices and conditions for supply in large sectors of the economy. Intervention on that scale would not only be unworkable but would also be anti-competitive in the longer term and indeed would scarcely be compatible with a free market economy." Jacobs AG: "… it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the principal purpose of Article [82] is to prevent distortion of competition -and in particular to safeguard the interests of consumers - rather than to protect the position of particular competitors. It may therefore, for example, be unsatisfactory, in a case in which a competitor demands access to a raw material in order to be able to compete with the dominant undertaking on a downstream market in a final product, to focus solely on the latter's upstream market power and conclude its conduct in reserving to itself the downstream market is automatically an abuse. Such conduct will not have an adverse impact on customers unless the dominant undertaking's final product is sufficiently insulated from competition to give it market power."
	Link[s] omitted

Covita -v- Elliniko Dimosio (Rec 1998,p I-7711) (Judgment) C-370/96; [1998] EUECJ C-370/96
26 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Birden -v- Stadtgemeinde Bremen (Rec 1998,p I-7747) (Judgment) C-1/97; [1998] EUECJ C-1/97
26 Nov 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

N -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-621,II-1879) T-97/94; T-97/94; [1998] EUECJ T-97/94
30 Nov 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Ecotrade -v- Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola (Judgment) C-200/97; [1998] EUECJ C-200/97
1 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal Proceedings Against Bickel and Franz C-274/96; C-274/96; [1998] EUECJ C-274/96
1 Dec 1998 ECJ	Criminal Practice, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where a court had specific rules allowing a case against its own citizens to be heard in their own language, the same facility must be offered to an accused visiting from another member state.
	ECTreaty Art 177
	Link[s] omitted

Levez -v- T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd C-326/96; [1999] All ER (EC) 1; [1998] EUECJ C-326/96; [1999] CEC 3; [1998] ECR I-7835; [1999] 2 CMLR 363; [1999] ICR 521; [1999] IRLR 36
1 Dec 1998 ECJ Advocate General Leger	Discrimination, European	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Regulations debarred a claim after a certain time even where the delay had been because of a deliberate concealment of information by an employer. Held: Availability of other means of redress was not sufficient to displace this rule. Advocate General Leger: "an action brought under the Equal Pay Act and an action brought under Article [141] of the Treaty are not merely similar, as the United Kingdom Government maintains: their scope is identical, that is to say, they amount to one and the same form of action." Europa Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Article 119 of the EC Treaty - Directive 75/117/EEC - Remedies for breach of the prohibition on discrimination - Pay arrears - Domestic legislation placing a two-year limit on awards for the period prior to the institution of proceedings - Similar domestic actions.
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Ambry (Rec 1998,p I-7875) (Judgment) C-410/96; [1998] EUECJ C-410/96
1 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

KappAhl (Rec 1998,p I-8069) (Judgment) C-233/97; [1998] EUECJ C-233/97
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Criminal proceedings against Bluhme (Rec 1998,p I-8033) (Judgment) C-67/97; [1998] EUECJ C-67/97
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Commission -v- Iraco (Rec 1998,p I-7943) (Judgment) C-337/96; [1998] EUECJ C-337/96
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Schoonbroodt -v- Belgian State C-247/97; [1998] EUECJ C-247/97
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Clees (Rec 1998,p I-8127) (Judgment) C-259/97
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Belgocodex (Rec 1998,p I-8153) (Judgment) C-381/97; [1998] EUECJ C-381/97
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act 1968 (Acting by the Medicine Control Agency) Ex P Generics (Uk) Ltd (Er Squibb & Sons Ltd, Intervening Etc C-368/96; [1998] EUECJ C-368/96
3 Dec 1998 ECJ	Licensing, European
	When assessing a medicinal product for licensing under the abridged procedure the Authority must consider its essential similarity with a product licensed for ten years, of the same constitution both as to structure and proportions and with bio-equivalence.
	ECTreaty art 177
	Link[s] omitted

Consorzio Del Prosciutio Di Parma -v- Asda Stores Ltd and Another [1998] EWCA Civ 1878; [1998] EWCA Civ 1879
4 Dec 1998 CA	Commercial, European, Intellectual Property	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A rule regarding the designation of origin of goods, disallowing the use of an origin name, must be readily ascertainable in the detail of the regulation, in order to be directly applicable. Designations for Parma Ham, were not readily discoverable, and had no such direct effect.
	EC Regulation 2081/92
	Link[s] omitted

Sadam Zuccherifici and others -v- Council (Rec.1998,p.II-4207) (Order) T-39/98
8 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI and others -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-4207) T-39/98; T-39/98; [1998] EUECJ T-39/98
8 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Associazione nazionale bieticoltori and others -v- Council (Rec 1998,p II-4191) T-38/98; T-38/98; [1998] EUECJ T-38/98
8 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

ANB and others -v- Council (Rec.1998,p.II-4191) (Order) T-38/98
8 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Glob-Sped (Rec 1998,p I-8357) (Judgment) C-328/97; [1998] EUECJ C-328/97
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Voeten and Beckers (Rec 1998,p I-8293) (Judgment) C-279/97; [1998] EUECJ C-279/97
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Francisco Hernández Vidal SA -v- Prudencia Gómez Pérez, María Gómez Pérez and Contratas y Limpiezas SL; Mercedes Gómez Montaña v Claro Sol SA and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles (Renfe) C-127/96; [1999] IRLR 132; C-229/96; C-74/97; [1998] EUECJ C-127/96; [1998] EUECJ C-229/96; [1998] EUECJ C-74/97
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European, Employment	Casemap 1 Citers
	Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the Directive applies to a situation in which an undertaking which used to entrust the cleaning of its premises to another undertaking decides to terminate its contract with that other undertaking and in future to carry out the cleaning work itself, provided that the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings. The term `economic entity' refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets enabling an economic activity which pursues a specific objective to be exercised. The mere fact that the maintenance work carried out first by the cleaning firm and then by the undertaking owning the premises is similar does not justify the conclusion that a transfer of such an entity has occurred.
	Link[s] omitted

Hidalgo and Others -v- Asociación de Servicios Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva; Horst Ziemann -v- Ziemann Sicherheit GmbH and Horst Bohn Sicherheitsdienst C-173/96; C-247/96; [1999] IRLR 136; [1998] EUECJ C-173/96; [1998] EUECJ C-247/96
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Europa Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be interpreted as meaning that the Directive applies to a situation in which a public body which has contracted out its home-help service for persons in need or awarded a contract for maintaining surveillance of some of its premises to a first undertaking decides, upon expiry of or after termination of that contract, to contract out the service or award the contract to a second undertaking, provided that the operation is accompanied by the transfer of an economic entity between the two undertakings. The term `economic entity' refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets enabling an economic activity which pursues a specific objective to be exercised. The mere fact that the service successively provided by the old and the new undertaking to which the service is contracted out or the contract is awarded is similar does not justify the conclusion that a transfer of such an entity has occurred.
	Link[s] omitted

Bruner -v- Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Rec 1998,p I-8333) (Judgment) C-290/97; [1998] EUECJ C-290/97
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European, Agriculture
	Europa Poultry cuts made up of two hind quarters of a fowl still attached to one another by the skin of the back constitute `quarters' (code 0207 41 11 000) within the meaning of the nomenclature of agricultural products for export refunds established by Regulation No 3846/87. First, because of their composition, the products in question correspond exactly to the definition of hind quarters in accordance with the general rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, with one difference, namely that, because of the way in which they are cut, the two quarters are not wholly separated; secondly, that fact does not affect the product's essential characteristic - within the meaning of general rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature - of being constituted of two hind quarters of chicken.
	Link[s] omitted

Schröder and Thamann -v- Commission C-221/97; [1998] EUECJ C-221/97P
10 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Scottish Soft Fruit Growers -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p II-4219) T-22/98; T-22/98; [1998] EUECJ T-22/98
11 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Scottish Soft Fruit Growers -v- Commission (Rec.1998,p.II-4219) (Order) T-22/98
11 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

de Compte -v- Parliament (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-629,II-1903) (Order) T-25/98
15 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

de Compte -v- Parliament T-25/98; [1998] EUECJ T-25/98
15 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Bang-Hansen -v- Commission (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-625,II-1889) T-233/97; T-233/97; [1998] EUECJ T-233/97
15 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Rentzos -v- Parliament (Rec 1998,p FP-IA-635,II-1923) T-93/98; [1998] EUECJ T-93/98
16 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Vorderbrüggen (Rec 1998,p I-8385) (Judgment) C-374/96; [1998] EUECJ C-374/96
16 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited [1998] EWHC Admin 1139; [1998] EWHC Admin 1140
16 Dec 1998 Admn	European, Media, Health
	Link[s] omitted

Rentzos -v- Parliament (Rec.1998,p.FP-IA-635,II-1923) (Order) T-93/98
16 Dec 1998 ECFI	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lustig (Judgment) C-244/97; [1998] EUECJ C-244/97
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Demand C-186/96; [1998] EUECJ C-186/96
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Emesa Sugar -v- Council and others (Rec 1998,p I-8787) (Order) C-363/98; [1998] EUECJ C-363/98
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Emesa Sugar -v- Commission and others (Rec 1998,p I-8815) (Order) C-364/98
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Commission -v- Ireland (Rec 1998,p I-8565) (Judgment) C-353/96; [1998] EUECJ C-353/96
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Connemara Machine Turf (Rec 1998,p I-8761) (Judgment) C-306/97; [1998] EUECJ C-306/97
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Grajera Rodríguez (Rec 1998,p I-8645) (Judgment) C-153/97; [1998] EUECJ C-153/97
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Lauge and others (Rec 1998,p I-8737) (Judgment) C-250/97; [1998] EUECJ C-250/97
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

IP (Rec 1998,p I-8597) (Judgment) C-2/97; [1998] EUECJ C-2/97
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Embassy Limousines & Services -v- Parliament Européen T-203/96; [1999] 1 CMLR 667; [1998] EUECJ T-203/96; [1998] ECR II-4239
17 Dec 1998 ECFI	European	Casemap 1 Citers
	ECJ 1 Procedure - Reference to the Court of Justice on the basis of an arbitration clause - Condition - Existence of a valid contract - Contract governed by Directive 92/50 requiring a written agreement - Requirement not fulfilled - Application inadmissible (EC Treaty, Art. 181; Council Decision 88/591; Council Directive 92/50, Art. 1) 2 European Community public procurement contracts - Conclusion of a contract following an invitation to tender - Discretion of the institutions - Judicial review - Limits 3 Community law - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - European Community public procurement contracts - Tenderer encouraged, before the contract is awarded, to make irreversible investments - Community's non-contractual liability thereby incurred 4 European Community public procurement contracts- Tendering procedure - Obligation to comply with the principles of the equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency and to adopt a coherent line of conduct 5 European Community public procurement contracts - Tendering procedure - Expenses incurred by a tenderer - Right to compensation - None 6 The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, on the basis of the combined provisions of Decision 88/591, as amended, and Article 181 of the Treaty, to hear actions brought before it by natural or legal persons pursuant to an arbitration clause presupposes that the contract containing the clause is a valid contract. An application made on the basis of an arbitration clause provided for in a framework contract forming part of an invitation to tender for the award of a contract by a Community institution is therefore inadmissible, where the framework contract has never been signed, in so far as such a contract is governed by Directive 92/50, which defines the contracts concerned as contracts concluded in writing. In that last regard, the existence of a valid contract cannot be inferred from the fact that a committee on procurements and contracts - an advisory body within the institution at issue - has given an opinion in favour of awarding the contract to the applicant, notwithstanding the importance generally accorded, in practice, to such an opinion in connection with an invitation to tender. 7 The institutions have a broad discretion in assessing the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender, and the Court's review should be limited to checking that there has been no serious and manifest error. 8 The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations extends to any individual who is in a situation in which it is apparent that the Community administration has led him to entertain justified expectations. Although it is true, in that regard, that traders must bear the economic risks inherent in their activities and that, in connection with a tendering procedure for a public procurement contract, those economic risks include, inter alia, the costs connected with the preparation of the bid, there may be a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations capable of giving rise to liability on the part of the Community where, before the contract in question is awarded to the successful tenderer, a tenderer is encouraged by the contracting institution to make irreversible investments in advance and thereby to go beyond the risks inherent in the business under consideration, consisting in making a bid. 9 In procedures for concluding public procurement contracts, the contracting institution must comply, at each stage of a tendering procedure, not only with the principle of the equal treatment of tenderers, but also with the principle of transparency. Therefore, a person who is closely involved in a tendering procedure and who has even been judged to be the successful tenderer, must receive, without any delay, precise information concerning the conduct of the entire procedure. Furthermore, the institution is obliged to show a coherent and consistent attitude towards its tenderers. Any interventions by various administrative and political bodies within that institution cannot therefore justify the failure to comply with its obligations to the tenderers. 10 It is clear from the General Terms and Conditions applicable to the Communities' public procurement contracts that the contracting institution is not liable for any compensation with respect to tenderers whose tenders have not been accepted. It follows that the charges and expenses incurred by a tenderer in connection with his participation in a tendering procedure cannot in principle constitute damage capable of being remedied by the award of damages.
	Link[s] omitted

Skatteministeriet -v- Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan C-236/97; [1998] EUECJ C-236/97
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Emesa Sugar -v- Commission and others (Rec.1998,p.I-8815) (Order) C-364/98
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Emesa Sugar -v- Council and others (Rec.1998,p.I-8787) (Order) C-363/98
17 Dec 1998 ECJ	European
	Link[s] omitted

Baustahlgewebe -v- Commission (Judgment) C-185/95; [1998] EUECJ C-185/95P
17 Dec 1998 ECJ Advocate General Leger	European, Commercial, Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The imposition of penalties following the breach of competition law is a criminal rather than civil procedure.
	Link[s] omitted

Marks and Spencer Plc -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1998] EWHC 1143 (Admin); [1999] STC 205; [1999] Eu LR 450; [1999] 1 CMLR 1152; [1999] BTC 5073; [1999] BVC 107
21 Dec 1998 Admn Moses J	VAT, European	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted