According to the case-law of the Court, the pursuit of such an extrinsic objective cannot be relied upon to justify a measure by the nature and overall structure of the tax system (35).

For anyone who knows a little bit about the judicial system in Quebec, I would point out that the Superior Court hears civil and commercial cases where the amount at issue is over $70,000, administrative and family law cases, bankruptcy cases, jury trials and criminal trials, and appeals in summary conviction cases.

The summary record shall not mention the individual position of the members in the appeal committee's discussions.

By judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 7 September 2006 in case C-310/04 (6) Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 was annulled for breach of the principle of proportionality, in particular with reference to the circumstance that ‘the Council, the author of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004, [had] not shown before the Court that in adopting the new cotton support scheme established by that Regulation it actually exercised its discretion, involving the taking into consideration of all the relevant factors and circumstances of the case, i ...[+++]ncluding all the labour costs linked to cotton growing and the viability of the ginning undertakings, which it was necessary to take into account for assessing the profitability of that crop’ and that the Court had not been enabled ‘to ascertain whether the Community legislature [had been] able, without exceeding the bounds of the broad discretion it enjoys in the matter, to reach the conclusion that fixing the amount of the specific aid for cotton at 35 % of the total existing aid under the previous support scheme would suffice to guarantee the objective set out in recital 5 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 864/2004, namely to ensure the profitability and hence the continuation of that crop, an objective reflecting that laid down in paragraph 2 of Protocol 4’.

Remains concerned that the human rights dialogue with Iran has been interrupted since 2004 due to the absence of any positive progress in improving the human rights situation and a lack of cooperation from Iran; calls on the Iranian authorities to resume this dialogue with a view to supporting all civil society stakeholders who are committed to democracy, and to strengthen — through peaceful and non-violent means — existing processes that can foster democratic, institutional and constitutional reforms, ensure the sustainability of those reforms and consolidate the involvement of all Iranian human rights defenders and civil society repre ...[+++]sentatives in policy-making processes, reinforcing the role played by them in the general political discourse; is deeply concerned that respect for fundamental human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, continued to deteriorate in 2007; condemns the new morality campaign launched by the Iranian authorities since early April 2007, whereby thousands of men and women were arrested in moves to ‘counter immoral behaviour’; condemns the Iranian regime's increasing use of capital punishment;

25. The Commission will take account of any needs in connection with the existing instruments or work in progress on civil and criminal judicial cooperation, such as the work of the implementation of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, for the coordination of legal proceedings through EUROJUST, the mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters [15] or the mutual recognition of judgments on civil and commercial matters.