EC Treaty. The Parties warrant that they have disclosed and provided on a confidential basis according to their Best Knowledge to the above mentioned law firms all pertinent facts and relevant market information as available to them for the self-assessment.
EC Treaty. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Parties conclude the following Agreement on prevention and workers health protection through the good handling and use of crystalline silica and products containing it.
EC Treaty. Competition Competence Report 6 / 2005.
EC Treaty. Main argument of the UK was “that provision permits the adoption only of directives which have a genuine and objective link to the "health and safety" of workers. That does not apply to measures concerning, in particular, weekly working time, paid annual leave and rest periods, whose connection with the health and safety of workers is too tenuous. That interpretation is borne out by the expression "working environment" used in Article 118a, which implies that directives based on that provision must be concerned only with physical conditions and risks at the workplace.” (§ 13) The ECJ hold however another view: “There is nothing in the wording of Article 118a to indicate that the concepts of "working environment", "safety" and "health" as used in that provision should, in the absence of other indications, be interpreted restrictively, and not as embracing all factors, physical or otherwise, capable of affecting the health and safety of the worker in his working environment, including in particular certain aspects of the organization of working time. On the contrary, the words "especially in the working environment" militate in favour of a broad interpretation of the powers which Article 118a confers upon the Council for the protection of the health and safety of workers. Moreover, such an interpretation of the words "safety" and "health" derives support in particular from the preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Orga- nization to which all the Member States belong. Health is there defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being that does not consist only in the absence of illness or infirmity.” (§15) Further on in the judgement, the ECJ also argues that article 118a (and the interpre- tation given to it in this judgement) is not only the appropriate basis for the working time directive, but also for the FWD, its individual directives as well as directives which, whilst not based on Directive 89/391, clearly focus upon a specific health or safety problem in a specific situation. Thereby to note is that the ECJ also referred to the abovementioned paragraph 15 in SIMAP (Case C-303/98) and Xxxxxx (C-151/02) on on-call work.
EC Treaty. 90 Paragraph 17 of the Report for the hearing refers that SEVIC Systems AG is the parent company of Security Vision. The Report has not been published, but is available at the Court on request. 91 ECJ, case C-411/03, SEVIC Systems AG, Rec. 2005, I-10805 (par. 28). 92 The distinction which the ECJ used to make between seat transfers and mergers is somewhat curious. Daily Mail brought along that Member States have the exclusive power to decide about life and death of companies. In a certain way, the point of life and death also applies to mergers, since a merger results in the winding up of the transferring company. I doubt, therefore, whether the ECJ would enforce outbound mergers (contrary to SEVIC which regarded an inbound merger).
5.3 M xxxxx Directive and Exit Taxes Under the Court’s case-law, particularly before the Cartesio-ruling, there was doubt whether exit taxes, levied on the transfer of the tax residence of companies (generally: the central management), shall be in line with the freedom of establishment. Does the freedom of establishment grant companies the right to transfer their real seat and statutory seat abroad? And if national law, the SE Regulation or Article 43 EC grants that right, does the freedom of establishment preclude exit taxation? In the Cartesio-case, the European Commission and the Netherlands Government submitted that the Articles 43 EC and 48 EC apply and that there has been a restriction on the right of establishment.93 94 By contrast, even after the De Lasteyrie-ruling, the Netherlands Finance Ministry continues to take the view that (corporate) exit taxes levied from companies which transfer their tax residence abroad do not infringe upon the freedom of establishment.95 The Ministry apparently thinks that Article 43 EC does not apply to seat transfers. Only recently civil servants of the Finance Ministry have cautiously expressed the opinion that, on the basis of paragraphs 111-113 of the Cartesio- ruling, it cannot be excluded that the ECJ considers the freedom of establishment applicable to seat transfers from incorporation states. In that case the proportionality of immediate exit taxation would be at stake.96 With regard to mergers the ECJ is clear. The ECJ ruled in the SEVIC case that the freedom of establishment applies to cross-border mergers. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that exit taxes levied on mergers not only have to be in line with the Merger Directive, but also with the freedom of establishment. ...
EC Treaty. SUM Doc 94-final on respirable crystalline silica, June 2003. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Parties conclude the following Agreement on prevention and workers health protection through the good handling and use of crystalline silica and products containing it.
