Case C-416/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Padova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, bread, import, interpretation of the law, marketing

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/17

Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 13, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?

4. must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
(replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
1994) be disapplied by the Italian courts?

5. must bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from
France) be allowed into free circulation without any
restriction, such as the previous packaging requirement
provided for in Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July
1967 (replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of
22 February 1994)?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Padova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in the
case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova

(Case C-416/00)

(2001/C 28/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
Padova — Sezione II (Padua Civil District Court — Second
Chamber) of 16 October 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Tommaso Morellato against Comune di Padova
on the following questions:

1. must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
(replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
1994), as interpreted by the Mayor of the Commune of
Padua in the contested order, in so far as it prohibits the
sale of bread baked from frozen or non-frozen part-baked
bread (lawfully manufactured in and imported from
France), if it has not previously been packaged by the
reseller, be regarded as incompatible with Articles 30 and
36 of the EC Treaty?

2. must Article 14(4) of Law No 580 of 4 July 1967
(replaced by Article 44(4) of Law No 146 of 22 February
1994) and the subsequent construction placed upon it by
the Mayor of the Commune of Padua be regarded as a
quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent
effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?

3.

if so, may the Italian State avail itself of the derogation
provided for by Article 36 of the Treaty for the purpose
of protecting the health and lives of humans?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
31 October 2000 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Werner
Salentinig, (2) Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salz-
burg, and (3) Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salz-
burg

(Case C-420/00)

(2001/C 28/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 31 October 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 14 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
(2)
in the appeal concerning Dr (1) Werner Salentinig,
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and (3) Grund-
verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg:

Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?