EU Law Cases http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/645/Default.aspx en-GB registration@casecheck.co.uk Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:58:07 GMT Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:58:07 GMT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0 A Member State is not obliged, when checking to ensure that the minimum wage is being paid to workers posted from another Member State, to take all allowances and supplements into account. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11870/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11870/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11870 Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11870 The costs of medical treatment of a person holding forms E111 and E112 who, for urgent medical reasons, has to be admitted to hospital in a non-Member State must be borne, in accordance with its rules, by the social security institution of the Member State of stay on behalf of the institution of the Member State of affiliation http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11869/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11869/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11869 Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11869 According to Advocate General Poiares Maduro a group relief scheme which does not allow a parent company to deduct the losses of its subsidiaries established abroad under any circumstances is incompatible with Community law. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11871/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11871/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11871 Thu, 07 Apr 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11871 Without being the owner of a trade mark, a third party may use it in order to indicate the intended purpose of a product which it markets. Such use must, however, satisfy the criterion of necessity and fulfil the condition of ‘honest practices in industrial and commercial matters’. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11757/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11757/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11757 Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11757 Assistance covering maintenance costs of students falls within the scope of application of the EC Treaty for the purposes of prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11758/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11758/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11758 Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11758 Distance contracts for car hire are not covered by the right to a full refund in the event of cancellation by the consumer. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11759/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11759/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11759 Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11759 The VAT (Input Tax)(Persons Supplied) Order 1991 permitting employers to deduct VAT on sums reimbursed to employees for vehicle fuel they buy is incompatible with EC law. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11760/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11760/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=11760 Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11760 Gloster J held that an arbitration award could be enforced against Lithuania. Although Lithuania had not lost immunity under ss2 or 3 of the State Immunity Act 1978, it had lost immunity under s9. http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12747/Default.aspx http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12747/Default.aspx#Comments http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=12747 Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMT 0 http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12747