Съд
Дела, гледани от Съда
Дело C-91/74: Hauptzollamt Hamburg Ericus/Hamburger Import Kompagnie, Съдебно решение от 10 юни 1975 г.
При определяне на тарифната класификация по тарифни подпозиции 20.07 B II (A) 1 и 20.07 B II (B) 1 (aa) от Общата митническа тарифа, определящият фактор ли е, в случай когато фактурната цена се приема като основа за оценка, действителното нетно тегло на внесените стоки или минималното тегло на единица, договорено в договора за покупко-продажба, когато по такъв договор е обичайно в търговията да се доставя допълнително количество без допълнително заплащане?
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-44/75: Könecke/Комисия, Определение от 28 май 1975 г.
61975O0044 Order of the President of the Court of 28 May 1975. – Karl Könecke v Commission of the European Communities. – Case 44-75 R. European Court reports 1975 Page 00637 Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part Parties ++++ IN CASE 44/75 R FIRMA KARL KOENECKE, 28 BREMEN 44, ZUM SEBALDSBRUECKER BAHNHOF 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KARL KOENECKE, ASSISTED BY MESSRS . MODEST AND PARTNERS, ADVOCATES OF HAMBURG, APPLICANT, V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PETER KALBE, DEFENDANT, Grounds 1. THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES SEEKS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF REGULATIONS, AND ALTERNATIVELY AN ORDER TO THE COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE THE PLACING OF THE DISPUTED GOODS IN FREE CIRCULATION DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF THOSE REGULATIONS . THESE TWO APPLICATIONS CONSTITUTE RESPECTIVELY A REQUEST THAT 'APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED ACT BE SUSPENDED' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 185 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 83 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND A REQUEST FOR 'NECESSARY INTERIM MEASURES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 186 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 83 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE . 2. THE JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERIM MEASURES CANNOT – SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO SINGLE OUT THE APPLICANT FROM OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE LAW – CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF A GENERAL PROVISION AS AMOUNTING TO THAT OF A MEASURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 83 ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-70/74: Комисия/Съвет, Заключение от 28 май 1975 г.
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL REISCHL DELIVERED ON 28 MAY 1975 ( 1 ) Mr President, Members of the Court, In my opinion in a case brought by various trade unions of the European public service against the Council (Judgment of 18 March 1975 in Case 72/74 Union Syndicale-Service Public Européen v Council) I had the opportunity not so long ago of explaining the basis of a dispute between the Council on the one hand and the organizations of the personnel of the European Communites and the Commission on the other on the annual adjustment of salaries and pensions which are paid by the Communities. I can therefore be relatively brief in the introductory remarks on the case today between the Commission and the Council. The relevant authority for the matter in dispute is Article 65 of the Staff Regulations. According to this the Council has each year to review the remunerations of the officials and other servants of the Communities and in this — if I may for the moment limit myself to this part of the provision — particular account is taken of any increases in salaries in the public service of Member States. In applying this provision it has been the custom for many years — the Commission says since 1966 — to take account of the average increase in the purchasing power of salaries in the public service of the Member States. For this there was at first used only a so-called joint specific index, which was ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-133/73: Bruns/Комисия, Определение от 28 май 1975 г.
Няма информация/Предстои добавяне.
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-79/74: Küster/Парламент, Заключение от 28 май 1975 г.
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL REISCHL DELIVERED ON 28 MAY 1975 ( 1 ) Mr President, Members of the Court, By Vacancy Notice No 1059 the European Parliament on 12 March 1974 declared vacant an A 3 post in the Directorate General for Committees and Interparliamentary Delegations. In the notice it was stated that the President of the Parliament had decided to fill the post by promotion or transfer within the institution. As a requirement to be fulfilled it listed inter alia a thorough knowledge of English. Applications were to be lodged by 25 March 1974. The notice was published in the first instance only in English, similarly to another notice, (No 1058) in which a thorough knowledge of Danish was called for and which in the first instance was published only in Danish. Once he became aware of this fact, Mr Küster, the applicant in the present proceedings, submitted a complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations to the President of the Parliament on 1 April 1974 complaining of the way in which the vacancy was announced, in that the notice was not published in all the Community languages. He further submitted that the conditions as regards knowledge of languages amounted to reserving the post advertised to a Dane, or to a Briton, as the case might be, something which under Articles 27 and 45 of the Staff Regulations was not permissible. There followed at the beginning of April the publication of the vacancy notice in all the languages ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-5/75: Deuka/Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, Заключение от 28 май 1975 г.
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL TRABUCCHI DELIVERED ON 28 MAY 1975 ( 1 ) Mr President, Members of the Court, 1. The questions which require to be resolved in these proceedings are reminiscent of the almost identical ones referred in Case 78/74, which was the subject of your judgment of 18 March last. In fact, in this case, too, the problem is to establish whether regulations which have, to the disadvantage of the plaintiff in the main action, amended the arrangements applicable to denaturing premiums for common wheat, were in breach of the second sentence of Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 172/67/EEC of the Council of 27 June 1967, as amended by Regulation No 644/68/EEC of 29 May 1968. A subsidiary question is whether the regulations concerned apply also to denaturing operations which were the subject of due notice to the intervention agency before entry into force of the new arrangements, even though the denaturing was, in fact, carried out subsequently. Regulation No 2859/73 of the Commission of 19 October 1973 reduced during the marketing year, and with effect from 1 November 1973, the denaturing premium which had been fixed for the 1973/74 marketing year by Regulation No 1897/73/EEC. Subsequently, Regulation No 175/74 of the Commission of 23 January 1974, which again supervened during the marketing year, fixed the amount of the denaturing premium at zero with effect from 10 February 1974. The first task is to establish whether these two provisions were adopted in breach of the provision in ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-2/75: Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel/Mackprang, Съдебно решение от 27 май 1975 г.
61975J0002 Judgment of the Court of 27 May 1975. – Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel v C. Mackprang. – Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof – Germany. – Case 2-75. European Court reports 1975 Page 00607 Greek special edition Page 00187 Portuguese special edition Page 00213 Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part Keywords ++++ AGRICULTURE – COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS – CEREALS – INTERVENTION – PURCHASES – LIMITATION THEREOF – AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ( DECISION NO 69/138 OF THE COMMISSION OF 8 MAY 1969 ) Summary AMOUNTING AS IT DOES TO A JUSTIFIED PRECAUTION AGAINST ACTIVITIES OF A SPECULATIVE NATURE, DECISION 69/138 OF THE COMMISSION OF 8 MAY 1969 AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO LIMIT INTERVENTION ON CERTAIN CEREALS ( OJ 112, P . 1 ) IS VALID IN THE CASE OF CEREALS HARVESTED IN OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH ON EITHER 2 MAY 1969 OR 8 MAY 1969 WERE IN TRANSIT TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN OFFER IN PROPER FORM WAS NOT MADE TO THE INTERVENTION AGENCY UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE . Parties IN CASE 2/75 REFERENCE TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF IN A CASE PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN EINFUHR – UND VORRATSSTELLE FUER GETREIDE UND FUTTERMITTEL, FRANKFURT/MAIN AND FIRMA C . MACKPRANG, HAMBURG Subject of the case ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Търсене
Въведете само основните думи/цифри от израза, който търсите. Избягвайте съюзи и предлози като "и", "или", "от", "на", "по", "за" и др.
Пример 1: Ако търсите практика за израза "погасяване на наказателна отговорност по давност", въведете само "погасяване наказателна отговорност давност".
Пример 2: Ако търсите конкретен съдебен акт, напр. "Съдебно решение, 26/03/2026, Aurnois, C-239/24", въведете само номера и годината на делото: "239/24".
Обикновено, търсеният от Вас акт ще бъде сред бързите резултати, появяващи се непосредствено под полето за търсене.
Модул "СЕС"
Отговорът на въпроса, който искате да прочетете е част от съдържанието с добавена стойност на "Българското прецедентно право" – Модул "СЕС", което е достъпно само за абонати.
За да достъпите пълния текст на съдебните актове е необходимо да се абонирате за Модул "НПК".
** Осреднена цена за годишен абонамент с функционалност "Стандарт" за модули "ГПК"/"НПК".
В случай, че не сте сигурни какви ползи ще Ви донесе абонамента, можете да заявите напълно безплатен и неограничен пробен достъп за 7 дни*
*Пробният достъп е еднократен и предназначен само за нови потребители, които нямат профил в системата. Активирането му подлежи на предварително одобрение от редакторите ни.
Отзиви от нашите клиенти
Поздравления за полагания труд на целия екип на "Българско прецедентно право", който винаги съумява да предостави актуална информация по иначе променливата съдебна практика! Всичко написано е ясно, точно и разбираемо!
Продължавайте в същия дух и винаги се стремете към още по-голямо усъвършенстване!
Успех!
– Бети Дерменджиева, адвокат
Много полезно, държите винаги информиран за най-новите решения на ВКС! Лично аз съм се абонирала и получавам на електронната си поща цялата нова практика на върховната ни съдебна инстанция. Препоръчвам "Българско прецедентно право" на всички колеги!
– Десислава Филипова, адвокат
Всеки трябва да го има. Е, не всеки, само който истински упражнява професията.
– Валентина Иванова
Поздравления за екипа! Винаги представяте най - новата и интересна съдебна практика! Изключително полезни сте и ви следя с интерес!
– Христина Русева, адвокат
Dictum - Pro Bono
Получавайте най-важното от съдебната практика във Вашата електронна пощенска кутия.