Case C-437/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht München by order of that court of 11 February 2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, allowances and expenses, interpretation of the law, work contract, workplace

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 28 November 2000

Community law does not preclude legislation of a Member State
laying down that, in tax matters, an action for recovery of a sum
paid but not due based on a finding by a national or Community
court that a national rule is not compatible with a superior rule of
national law or with a Community rule of law may only relate to the
period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the
judgment establishing such incompatibility.

in Case C-88/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune): Roquette
Frères SA v Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-
Calais (1)

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

(Recovery of sums paid but not due — National procedural
rules — Capital duty levied in respect of a merger)

(2001/C 61/01)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-88/99: reference to the Court under Article1 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Béthune, (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Roquette
Frères SA and Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais
— to ascertain whether Community law prohibits national tax
legislation which provides that an action for recovery of a sum
paid but not due, based on a judicial decision declaring a rule
of law incompatible with a higher-ranking rule, may relate
only to the period following 1 January of the fourth year
preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompati-
bility — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 28 November 2000, in which it has ruled:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht München by order of that court of 11 February
2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica
s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division

(Case C-437/00)

(2001/C 61/02)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
München (Higher Labour Court, Munich) of 11 February 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 27 November 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica
s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division on the following questions
concerning the interpretation of
the EC Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Brussels
Convention’; OJ 1990 C 189, p. 2):

C 61/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

1.

2.

In a dispute between an Italian national and a company
established under Italian law having its registered office
in Italy arising from a contract of employment concluded
between them which designates Turin as the place of
work, is Munich the place where the employee habitually
carries out his work under the second half-sentence of
Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention where, from the
outset, the contract of employment is temporarily placed
on non-active status at the request of the employee and,
during that period, the employee carries out work, with
the consent of the Italian employer, but on the basis of a
separate contract of employment, for a company estab-
lished under German law at its registered office in Munich,
for the duration of which the Italian employer assumes
the obligation to provide accommodation in Munich or
to bear the costs of such accommodation and to bear the
costs of two journeys home each year from Munich to
the employee’s native country?

If the first question is answered in the negative, may the
employee, in a legal dispute with her Italian employer
arising from the contract of employment, rely, with
reference to the payment of rental costs and travel costs
for the two journeys home each year, on the argument
that the court having jurisdiction is that for the place of
performance of the obligation in question, pursuant to
the first half-sentence of Article 5(1) of the Brussels
Convention?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November
2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros
Kolpak

(Case C-438/00)

(2001/C 61/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court) Hamm, Germany, of 15 November
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 Novem-
ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher
Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak on the following question:

Is it contrary to Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of the other part — Final Act — if a sports
association applies to a professional sportsman of Slovak
nationality a rule it has adopted under which clubs may play
in championship and cup matches only a limited number of
players who come from third countries not belonging to the
European Communities?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by
judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the
case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against
Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy

(Case C-451/00)

(2001/C 61/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
strativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, of 28 June and
6 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on 8 December
2000, for a the preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda
Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli
interventi nel mereato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for
Agricultural Policy on the following questions:

(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible, in the case of Community
law proceedings and the subsequent compliance of the
Member State to derogate from the time-limits prescribed
for the allocation of quotas and the operation of adjust-
ments and levies?

If not,

(2) Are those provisions of Community law valid, in the light
of Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do
not provide for derogation from the periods prescribed
for allocation and adjustments in the abovementioned
case of Community law proceedings?

(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 is

meant (OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court
of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V.
against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren

(Case C-453/00)

(2001/C 61/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
and Industry) of 1 November 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 11 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Kühne Heitz N.V. v Produktschap voor Pluimvee
en Eieren on the following question: