Protokół zmian strony SprawaETSC10801
Dodane:
CategoryPrawoEuropejskieOrzecznictwo
Usunięte:
Dodane:
CategoryOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoEuropejskieOrzecznictwo
Usunięte:
Dodane:
CategoryOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoEuropejskieOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoCelne
Usunięte:
Dodane:
CategoryOrzecznictwo CategoryPrawoEuropejskie CategoryPrawoCelne
Usunięte:
[[CategoryOrzecznictwo Orzecznictwo]] [[CategoryPrawoEuropejskie Prawo europejskie]] [[CategoryPrawoCelne Prawo celne]]
Dodane:
**1.** By order of 8 February 2001, received at the Court on 7 March 2001, the House of Lords referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under {{pu przepis="art. 234 TWE"}} (CE) a question on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1) (Regulation No 2081/92), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1).
**11.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE) states:
**12.** Under {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}} (CE), {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE) does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**54.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC) prohibits all measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question (see, inter alia, with respect to national measures, Case C-209/98 Sydhavnens Sten & Grus [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 34).
**58.** Those rules thus have the specific effect of restricting patterns of exports of ham eligible for the PDO Prosciutto di Parma and thereby establishing a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade. They therefore introduce quantitative restrictions on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC) (see, to that effect, Case C-388/95 Belgium v Spain [2000] ECR I-3123, paragraphs 38 and 40 to 42).
**59.** Accordingly, where the use of the PDO Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC).
**62.** It should be noted that, in accordance with {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}} (EC), {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC) does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports which are justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**83.** The French Government submits that, pursuant to {{pu przepis="Art. 249 TWE"}} (EC), any individual may rely directly on a Community regulation in civil proceedings before a national court.
**85.** Asda and Hygrade submit that a measure which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities cannot be applied against an individual where, as in the main proceedings, he has no legal right to obtain a copy of the measure, whether in his own or another language. Notwithstanding the principle of the direct effect of regulations under {{pu przepis="Art. 249 TWE"}} (EC), a Community measure is capable of creating individual rights only if it is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. The scope and effect of a Community provision must be clear and foreseeable to individuals, otherwise the principle of legal certainty and the principle of transparency are breached. The rules laid down must enable the persons concerned to know the precise extent of the obligations imposed on them. Failure to publish a measure prevents the obligations laid down by that measure from being imposed on an individual. Furthermore, an obligation imposed by Community law must be easily accessible in the language of the Member State in which it is to be applied. In the absence of an official translation, a Community measure cannot block the rights of individuals in the context of either civil or criminal proceedings. If the Consorzio were authorised to obtain, before a national court, compliance with an unpublished specification, the principles of legal certainty and transparency would be breached. Consequently, the provisions relating to that specification cannot have direct effect.
**87.** In accordance with the second paragraph of {{pu przepis="Art. 249 TWE"}} (EC), a regulation, which is a measure of general application, is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
**89.** Nevertheless, the requirement of legal certainty means that Community rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them (see Case [[SprawaETSC20996 C-209/96 United Kingdom v Commission]] [1998] ECR I-5655, paragraph 35).
2. **Where the use of the protected designation of origin Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC), but may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with that provision.**
**11.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE) states:
**12.** Under {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}} (CE), {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE) does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**54.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC) prohibits all measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question (see, inter alia, with respect to national measures, Case C-209/98 Sydhavnens Sten & Grus [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 34).
**58.** Those rules thus have the specific effect of restricting patterns of exports of ham eligible for the PDO Prosciutto di Parma and thereby establishing a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade. They therefore introduce quantitative restrictions on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC) (see, to that effect, Case C-388/95 Belgium v Spain [2000] ECR I-3123, paragraphs 38 and 40 to 42).
**59.** Accordingly, where the use of the PDO Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC).
**62.** It should be noted that, in accordance with {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}} (EC), {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC) does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports which are justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**83.** The French Government submits that, pursuant to {{pu przepis="Art. 249 TWE"}} (EC), any individual may rely directly on a Community regulation in civil proceedings before a national court.
**85.** Asda and Hygrade submit that a measure which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities cannot be applied against an individual where, as in the main proceedings, he has no legal right to obtain a copy of the measure, whether in his own or another language. Notwithstanding the principle of the direct effect of regulations under {{pu przepis="Art. 249 TWE"}} (EC), a Community measure is capable of creating individual rights only if it is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. The scope and effect of a Community provision must be clear and foreseeable to individuals, otherwise the principle of legal certainty and the principle of transparency are breached. The rules laid down must enable the persons concerned to know the precise extent of the obligations imposed on them. Failure to publish a measure prevents the obligations laid down by that measure from being imposed on an individual. Furthermore, an obligation imposed by Community law must be easily accessible in the language of the Member State in which it is to be applied. In the absence of an official translation, a Community measure cannot block the rights of individuals in the context of either civil or criminal proceedings. If the Consorzio were authorised to obtain, before a national court, compliance with an unpublished specification, the principles of legal certainty and transparency would be breached. Consequently, the provisions relating to that specification cannot have direct effect.
**87.** In accordance with the second paragraph of {{pu przepis="Art. 249 TWE"}} (EC), a regulation, which is a measure of general application, is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
**89.** Nevertheless, the requirement of legal certainty means that Community rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them (see Case [[SprawaETSC20996 C-209/96 United Kingdom v Commission]] [1998] ECR I-5655, paragraph 35).
2. **Where the use of the protected designation of origin Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (EC), but may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with that provision.**
Usunięte:
**11.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} states:
**12.** Under {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}}, {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**54.** Article 29 EC prohibits all measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade, in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question (see, inter alia, with respect to national measures, Case C-209/98 Sydhavnens Sten & Grus [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 34).
**58.** Those rules thus have the specific effect of restricting patterns of exports of ham eligible for the PDO Prosciutto di Parma and thereby establishing a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade. They therefore introduce quantitative restrictions on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC (see, to that effect, Case C-388/95 Belgium v Spain [2000] ECR I-3123, paragraphs 38 and 40 to 42).
**59.** Accordingly, where the use of the PDO Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC.
**62.** It should be noted that, in accordance with Article 30 EC, Article 29 EC does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports which are justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**83.** The French Government submits that, pursuant to Article 249 EC, any individual may rely directly on a Community regulation in civil proceedings before a national court.
**85.** Asda and Hygrade submit that a measure which has not been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities cannot be applied against an individual where, as in the main proceedings, he has no legal right to obtain a copy of the measure, whether in his own or another language. Notwithstanding the principle of the direct effect of regulations under Article 249 EC, a Community measure is capable of creating individual rights only if it is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. The scope and effect of a Community provision must be clear and foreseeable to individuals, otherwise the principle of legal certainty and the principle of transparency are breached. The rules laid down must enable the persons concerned to know the precise extent of the obligations imposed on them. Failure to publish a measure prevents the obligations laid down by that measure from being imposed on an individual. Furthermore, an obligation imposed by Community law must be easily accessible in the language of the Member State in which it is to be applied. In the absence of an official translation, a Community measure cannot block the rights of individuals in the context of either civil or criminal proceedings. If the Consorzio were authorised to obtain, before a national court, compliance with an unpublished specification, the principles of legal certainty and transparency would be breached. Consequently, the provisions relating to that specification cannot have direct effect.
**87.** In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 249 EC, a regulation, which is a measure of general application, is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
**89.** Nevertheless, the requirement of legal certainty means that Community rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them (see Case C-209/96 United Kingdom v Commission [1998] ECR I-5655, paragraph 35).
2. **Where the use of the protected designation of origin Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with that provision.**
Dodane:
REFERENCE to the Court under {{pu przepis="art. 234 TWE"}} (CE) by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
- after the mark has been applied, Parma ham may be marketed boned and in pieces of varying shape and weight or sliced and suitably packaged;
- if it is not possible to keep the mark on the product, the mark is to be indelibly stamped so that it cannot be removed from the packaging, under the supervision of the competent body and in accordance with the method determined by the implementing regulation;
- in that case, the packaging operations are to be carried out in the typical production area as referred to in Article 2.
**11.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} states:
**12.** Under {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}}, {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**37.** The second point is whether imposing such a condition on the use of the PDO Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE).
**38.** The third point is whether, if that is so, the condition in question may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE).
- after the mark has been applied, Parma ham may be marketed boned and in pieces of varying shape and weight or sliced and suitably packaged;
- if it is not possible to keep the mark on the product, the mark is to be indelibly stamped so that it cannot be removed from the packaging, under the supervision of the competent body and in accordance with the method determined by the implementing regulation;
- in that case, the packaging operations are to be carried out in the typical production area as referred to in Article 2.
**11.** {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} states:
**12.** Under {{pu przepis="Art. 30 TWE"}}, {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**37.** The second point is whether imposing such a condition on the use of the PDO Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE).
**38.** The third point is whether, if that is so, the condition in question may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with {{pu przepis="Art. 29 TWE"}} (CE).
Usunięte:
- after the mark has been applied, Parma ham may be marketed boned and in pieces of varying shape and weight or sliced and suitably packaged;
- if it is not possible to keep the mark on the product, the mark is to be indelibly stamped so that it cannot be removed from the packaging, under the supervision of the competent body and in accordance with the method determined by the implementing regulation;
- in that case, the packaging operations are to be carried out in the typical production area as referred to in Article 2.
**11.** Article 29 EC states:
**12.** Under Article 30 EC, Article 29 EC does not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on exports justified inter alia on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property.
**37.** The second point is whether imposing such a condition on the use of the PDO Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC.
**38.** The third point is whether, if that is so, the condition in question may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with Article 29 EC.
Dodane:
**1.** By order of 8 February 2001, received at the Court on 7 March 2001, the House of Lords referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under {{pu przepis="art. 234 TWE"}} a question on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1) (Regulation No 2081/92), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1).
Usunięte:
Dodane:
**1.** By order of 8 February 2001, received at the Court on 7 March 2001, the House of Lords referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 TWE a question on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1) (Regulation No 2081/92), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1).
