- Search
- document
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2005.
Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura and Real Federación Española de Fútbol.
C-265/03 • ECLI:EU:C:2005:213 • 62003CJ0265
- Total citations:
- •
- Citations to paragraphs:
- •
- Cited paragraphs:
Citations by paragraph
Historical distribution of citations
Citing cases
Total citations: 5 • 5 cases citing 3 paragraphs-
C-72/15 2017-03-28 • ECLI:EU:C:2017:236Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 March 2017.
PJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury and Others.
1 paragraph citing109 In that regard, contrary to the argument put forward by the United Kingdom Government, the Council and the Commission, the possibility for a litigant to rely on the provisions of that agreement cannot be automatically ruled out, even where no further implementing measures have been adopted (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 April 2005, Simutenkov, C‑265/03, EU:C:2005:213, paragraph 23), as also stated by the Advocate General in point 116 of his Opinion. -
C-464/14 2016-11-24 • ECLI:EU:C:2016:896Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2016.
SECIL - Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA v Fazenda Pública.
1 paragraph citing96 According to settled case-law, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Union with a non-member State must be regarded as having direct effect where, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of that agreement, the provision lays down a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or its effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 27 September 2001, Gloszczuk, C‑63/99, EU:C:2001:488, paragraph 30; of 8 May 2003, Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, C‑171/01, EU:C:2003:260, paragraph 54; of 12 April 2005, Simutenkov, C‑265/03, EU:C:2005:213, paragraph 21, and of 14 December 2006, Gattoussi, C‑97/05, EU:C:2006:780, paragraph 25). -
C-240/09 2011-03-08 • ECLI:EU:C:2011:125Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011.
Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky.
1 paragraph citing44 In that connection, a provision in an agreement concluded by the European Union with a non-member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (see, in particular, Case C‑265/03 Simutenkov [2005] ECR I‑2579, paragraph 21, and Case C‑372/06 Asda Stores [2007] ECR I‑11223, paragraph 82). -
C-372/06 2007-12-13 • ECLI:EU:C:2007:787Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007.
Asda Stores Ltd v Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
1 paragraph citing82 According to well-established case-law, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Communities with a non-member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure. It follows that, where an agreement establishes cooperation between the parties, certain of its provisions may, under the abovementioned conditions and having regard to the nature and purpose of the agreement, directly govern the legal position of individuals (see, to that effect, Case C‑265/03 Simutenkov [2005] ECR I‑2579, paragraphs 21 and 28). -
C-97/05 2006-12-14 • ECLI:EU:C:2006:780Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006.
Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim.
1 paragraph citing24 It should be pointed out that, as the question of the effect of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement within the legal systems of the parties thereto has not been addressed in the Agreement itself, it is for the Court to resolve that question in the same way as any other question of interpretation concerning the application of agreements within the Community (see inter alia, by way of analogy, Case C‑149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I‑8395, paragraph 34, and Case C‑265/03 Simutenkov [2005] ECR I‑2579, paragraph 20).
Cited cases (9)
-
C-149/96 1999-11-23 • ECLI:EU:C:1999:574Judgment of the Court of 23 November 1999.20 It must be pointed out that, as this question concerning the effect of the provisions of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement within the legal systems of the parties to that Agreement (‘the parties’) has not been resolved therein, it is for the Court to resolve that question in the same way as any other question of interpretation concerning the application of agreements within the Community (judgment in Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I‑8395, paragraph 34).
-
C-63/99 2001-09-27 • ECLI:EU:C:2001:488Judgment of the Court of 27 September 2001.21 In this regard, according to well-established case-law, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Communities with a non-member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (judgments in Case C-63/99 Gloszczuk [2001] ECR I-6369, paragraph 30, and in Case C-171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam [2003] ECR I-4301, paragraph 54).
-
C-171/01 2003-05-08 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:260Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003.21 In this regard, according to well-established case-law, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Communities with a non-member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (judgments in Case C-63/99 Gloszczuk [2001] ECR I-6369, paragraph 30, and in Case C-171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam [2003] ECR I-4301, paragraph 54).
-
C-162/00 2002-01-29 • ECLI:EU:C:2002:57Judgment of the Court of 29 January 2002.23 Such a rule of equal treatment lays down a precise obligation as to results and, by its nature, can be relied on by an individual before a national court as a basis for requesting that court to disapply discriminatory provisions without any further implementing measures being required to that end (judgments in Case C-162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer [2002] ECR I-1049, paragraph 22, and in Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, cited above, paragraph 58).
-
C-438/00 2003-05-08 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:255Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2003.24 That interpretation cannot be brought into question by the words ‘[s]ubject to the laws, conditions and procedures applicable in each Member State’, which feature at the beginning of Article 23(1) of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement, or by Article 48 of that Agreement. Those provisions cannot be construed as allowing the Member States to subject application of the principle of non-discrimination set out in Article 23(1) of that agreement to discretionary limitations, which would have the effect of rendering that provision meaningless and thus depriving it of any practical effect (Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer, cited above, paragraphs 23 and 24, and Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund [2003] ECR I‑4135, paragraph 29).
-
C-18/90 1991-01-31 • ECLI:EU:C:1991:36Judgment of the Court of 31 January 1991.25 Nor does Article 27 of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement preclude Article 23(1) thereof from having direct effect. The fact that Article 27 provides that Article 23 is to be implemented on the basis of recommendations by the Cooperation Council does not make the applicability of Article 23, in its implementation or effects, subject to the adoption of any subsequent measure. The role which Article 27 confers on that council is to facilitate compliance with the prohibition of discrimination but cannot be regarded as limiting the immediate application of that prohibition (see, in that regard, Case C-18/90 Kziber [1991] ECR I-199, paragraph 19, and Case C-262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 66).
-
C-262/96 1999-05-04 • ECLI:EU:C:1999:228Judgment of the Court of 4 May 1999.25 Nor does Article 27 of the Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement preclude Article 23(1) thereof from having direct effect. The fact that Article 27 provides that Article 23 is to be implemented on the basis of recommendations by the Cooperation Council does not make the applicability of Article 23, in its implementation or effects, subject to the adoption of any subsequent measure. The role which Article 27 confers on that council is to facilitate compliance with the prohibition of discrimination but cannot be regarded as limiting the immediate application of that prohibition (see, in that regard, Case C-18/90 Kziber [1991] ECR I-199, paragraph 19, and Case C-262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 66).
-
C-113/97 1998-01-15 • ECLI:EU:C:1998:13Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 January 1998.28 The fact that the Agreement is thus limited to establishing a partnership between the parties, without providing for an association or future accession of the Russian Federation to the Communities, is not such as to prevent certain of its provisions from having direct effect. It is clear from the Court’s case-law that when an agreement establishes cooperation between the parties, some of the provisions of that agreement may, under the conditions set out in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, directly govern the legal position of individuals (Kziber, cited above, paragraph 21, Case C-113/97 Babahenini [1998] ECR I-183, paragraph 17, and Case C-162/96 Racke [1998] ECR I-3655, paragraphs 34 to 36).
-
C-162/96 1998-06-16 • ECLI:EU:C:1998:293Judgment of the Court of 16 June 1998.28 The fact that the Agreement is thus limited to establishing a partnership between the parties, without providing for an association or future accession of the Russian Federation to the Communities, is not such as to prevent certain of its provisions from having direct effect. It is clear from the Court’s case-law that when an agreement establishes cooperation between the parties, some of the provisions of that agreement may, under the conditions set out in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, directly govern the legal position of individuals (Kziber, cited above, paragraph 21, Case C-113/97 Babahenini [1998] ECR I-183, paragraph 17, and Case C-162/96 Racke [1998] ECR I-3655, paragraphs 34 to 36).
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2023
Breakdown of citations by paragraph
Use the chart to exploreParagraph :
case(s) citing this paragraph found:
Please select a paragraph to display the citing cases.
Citations count per year
Use the chart to exploreCiting cases in :
found.Please select a year to display the citing cases.
Breakdown of citations by paragraph
Use the chart to exploreParagraph :
case(s) citing this paragraph found:
Please select a paragraph to display the citing cases.
Citations count per year
Use the chart to exploreCiting cases in :
found.Please select a year to display the citing cases.
List of citing cases
Displaying citing cases
Loading...