Case C-453/00: 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
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, case-law (EU), interpretation of the law

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:

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/3

Under Community law, in particular under the principle of
Community solidarity contained in Article 10 EC, and in the
circumstances described in the grounds of this decision (1), is
an administrative body required to reopen a decision which
has become final in order to ensure the full operation of
Community law, as it is to be interpreted in the light of a
subsequent preliminary ruling?

(1) In this case the appellant exhausted the legal remedies available to
(although the College did not seek a preliminary ruling under (the
the time) and the College gave an
present) Article 234 at
interpretation of European law on a specific point which proved
subsequently to differ from the Court’s interpretation in a later
judgment.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
di Milano by order of that court of 25 October 2000 in
the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto Scientifico delle
Venezie SpA against Duphar International Research BV,
and Consorzio Produttori Principi Attivi Generici —
CPA, intervener

(Case C-454/00)

(2001/C 61/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan) of 25 October 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2000, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto
Scientifico delle Venezie SpA, having its registered office in
Padua, Italy, against Duphar International Research BV, having
its registered office in the Netherlands, and Consorzio Produt-
tori Principi Attivi Generici — CPA,
intervener, on the
following question:

Must Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 (1) be interpreted as
meaning that the scope of protection of the supplementary
certificate extends only to manufacture of the raw material
from which is prepared the product which constitutes the
medicinal product covered by the marketing authorisation?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/of 18 June 1992 concerning
the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for med-
icinal products (OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1).

Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-463/00)

(2001/C 61/07)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (2), together
with Article 1, of Law 5/1995 (1), and the implementing
decrees enacted under Article 4 thereof (Royal Decrees
No 3/1996 of 15 January 1996 concerning Repsol, No
8/1997 of 10 January 1997 concerning Telefo´ nica de
Espan˜ a, No 40/1998 of 16 January 1998 concerning
Argentaria, No 562/1998 of 2 April 1998 concerning
Tabacalera and No 929/1998 of 14 May 1998 concerning
Endesa), in so far as they implement a system of prior
administrative authorisation

— which is not justified by overriding public interest

requirements,

— without laying down objective criteria which are

consistent and have been made public, and

— without complying with the principle of pro-

portionality,

are incompatible with Article 43 EC (ex Article 52) and
Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b).

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The abovementioned provisions of Law 5/1995 and its
implementing decrees enable the Spanish authorities to subject
to prior administrative authorisation certain decisions (liqui-
dation, hiving off, merger, change of the company’s object,
sale of assets and sale of more than 10 % of the shares) (Article
3) taken by certain categories of companies in which the
State’s shareholding is in excess of 25 % of the share capital
and thereby results in it effectively controlling the company
(Article 1), provided that such decisions lead either to the
State’s shareholding being reduced by at least 10 % of the
capital so that
its holding is less than 50 %, or to its
shareholding being reduced by at least 15 % of the capital by
any means (Article 2). Those facts have not at any time been
disputed by the Spanish Government.