Examples of using Cassis de in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
This rule was established in the Cassis de Dijon judgment.
The legal case'Cassis de Dijon' made legal history in the Community and was based on a food product.
In its much-quoted judgment in Case 120/78,'Cassis de Dijon', ECR 1979, p.
Why can the doctrine of the Cassis de Dijon case not also be the underlying assumption for banks?
There is very important case-law in this area, based on the famous Cassis de Dijon case.
The comprehensive free movement of goods à la Cassis de Dijon will, however, almost be impossible to achieve in future.
The situation was changed for the better by ajudgment of the European Court of Justice in 1979, in the Cassis de Dijon case.
Then the thinking developed in the context of the free movement of goods- Cassis de Dijon case-law, mutual recognition, rules of the country of origin- can be immediately applied.
The situation was fortunately changed following thejudgment of the European Court of Justice in 1979, in the Cassis de Dijon case.
The Cassis de Dijon principle of mutual recognition, a pillar of the European economic order, will hardly find its way into the free trade agreement in undiluted form.
We are giving free rein to the Court of Justice,which is the inventor of this concept in its judgments in the'Cassis de Dijon' and'Säger' cases.
Notes====References==* Kai Purnhagen The Virtue of Cassis de Dijon 25 Years Later- It is Not Dead, it just Smells Funny, in: Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation, hrsg.
The general adoption of the principle of mutual recognition,based on the well-known Court of Justice case-law in the Cassis de Dijon case(Article 100b);
In view of the precedent set by the"Cassis de Dijon' judgment, does the Commission agree that the proposed ticket allocation is a fundamental breach of internal market legislation?
Accordingly, the assessment of trade rules in the light of these articles has given rise to numerous judgments by the Court of Justice,in particular in the Cassis de Dijon case(12) and subsequently.
The turning-point came in 1979 with the Court of Justice's ruling in the Cassis de Dijon case, which opened up the way for a very pragmatic solution to the problem of securing the free movement of goods.
First, the SMPS conceives national regulations as dynamic instru ments of competition,a heritage from the crucial'Cassis de Dijon' ruling of the European Court of Justice.
The ruling in the Cassis de Dijon case was one of the key moments in the development of the internal market, giving precedence to the principle of mutual recognition over blanket harmonisation.
This phrase raises the question of the view of consumer protection as an inevitable requirement to impede the free movement of goods,within the meaning of the judgement on Dassonville, Cassis de Dijon etc.
Its new strategyis based on the Court of Justice's ruling in the'Cassis de Dijon' case, to the effect that a product released for consumption in one Member State must be allowed to enter the others too.
Since the Cassis de Dijon judgment in 1979 on the principle of free movement of goods, traders can import into their country any product coming from another country within the Community, provided that it was lawfully manufactured and marketed there and that there is no overriding reason relating, for example, to the protection of health or the environment to prevent its importation into the country of consumption.
Despite the fact that the European Court of Justice established the mutual recognition principle in the Cassis de Dijon ruling nearly 30 years ago, the reality does not always reflect this: hence the importance of this legislation and the need for it.
In the well-known Cassis de Dijon case(1979), the Court ruled that the Treaty does not permit Member State laws which prevent the marketing of a product lawfully produced and marketed in another Member State.
Thus I intend to shed light on the question to what extent the approximation of laws was influenced by important European events,like the 1966 crisis of the'empty chair' or the Cassis de Dijon judgment of 1979, and which political goals the Commission pursued with the approximation of laws.
This decision was supplemented by the path-breaking Court of Justice decision based on the 1979 Cassis de Dijon ruling and states that:"In the absence of common rules relating to the production and marketing of(a good), it is for the Member States to regulate all matters relating to the production and marketing of(a good) on their own territory.
According to the Cassis de Dijon judgement, such obstacles"must be accepted insofar as those provisions may be recognised as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer"'147.
If Community law has been infringed, that will most probably be due to contravention of the European rules of competition, mainly Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty,rather than an infringement of the law in relation to the Cassis de Dijon affair mentioned by the Member, which covers the elimination of quota restrictions on imports between the Member States pursuant to Article 30 of the Treaty.
In its landmark ruling in the Cassis de Dijon case in 1979, concerning the sale in Germany of cassis manufactured in France, the Court confirmed the basic right of free movement of goods and held that, in principle, any good legally manufactured and marketed in one Member State should be able to be sold in another.
In fact, the second banking directiveis no more than the pure application of the doctrine of Cassis de Dijon in the sense that it applies the principle of reciprocal recognition, but the idea of having notification within the terms of free provision of services was to have reciprocal information for the supervisory authorities in the respective Member States.
Since the Cassis de Dijon case in 1979, based on the principle of free movement of goods, European consumers may buy in their own country any food product from a country in the Community provided that it is lawfully produced and marketed in that country and that there are no serious grounds related, for example, to the protection of health or the environment for preventing its importation into the country of consumption.