-
2001 315-01 Kadi (pp1–24)
-
2001 315-01 Kadi (pp25–48)
-
C-159/90 SPUC v Grogan [1991] ECR I-04685
C-159/90 SPUC v Grogan [1991] ECR I-04685 Facts: The applicant was a company incorporated under Irish law whose purpose was to prevent the decriminalization of abortion and to affirm, defend and promote human life from the moment of conception. The defendants were officers of a student publication which offered information about the availability of legal…
-
C-256/11 Dereci [2011]
C-256/11 Dereci [2011] ECR I-00000 Facts: The applicant entered Austria illegally and married an Austrian national by whom he had three children who are also Austrian nationals and who were minors at the time. His application for residence was rejected, and he was subject to an expulsion order. The national authority had refused to apply,…
-
C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office
C-41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] Facts: Directive 64/221 allowed Member States to take measures restricting the movement of non-nationals on grounds such as public policy – without defining permissible range of public policy concerns. Held: By providing that measures taken on public policy grounds had to be based on the personal conduct of…
-
C-85/96 Martínez Sala
C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] Facts: The applicant was a Spanish national living in Germany. She held various posts of employment in Germany. During these posts, she was in receipt of social assistance under the Federal Social Welfare Law. Following expiration of the residence permits, the applicant applied for a child-raising allowance. She was refused on…
-
Case 1/58 Stork
In Case 1/58 FRIEDRICH STORK & Co., Kohlengroghandlung, of Bünde (Westphalia) represented by Mr Krengel, Mr Hollmann and Mr Stock, of Bielefeld, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Felicien Jansen, Huissier, 21 rue Aldringer, applicant, v HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, represented by its Legal Adviser,…
-
Case 104/79 Foglia v Novello (No 1)
In Case 104/79 Reference to the Court under [Article 267 TFEU] by the Pretura [District Court], Bra, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between PASQUALE FOGLIA, San Vittoria d'Alba, and MARIELLA NOVELLO, Magliano Alfieri, on the interpretation of [Articles 107 and 110 TFEU]
-
Case 106/77 Simmenthal
Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] Facts: The respondent company claimed within national courts that veterinary fees levied on imports of beef at the border were incompatible with (prior) Community law. Held: [Preliminary Reference] that these charges were incompatible with EU law, and that the ECJ, preliminary reference: Such charges were indeed contrary to the Treaty. The…
-
Case 106/77 Simmenthal
Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] Facts: The respondent company claimed within national courts that veterinary fees levied on imports of beef at the border were incompatible with (prior) Community law. Held: [Preliminary Reference] that these charges were incompatible with EU law, and that the ECJ, preliminary reference: Such charges were indeed contrary to the Treaty. The…
