Case C-19/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Pisa — Sezione Lavoro — by order of that court of 19 December 2000 in the case of INPS v Alberto Barsotti and Others
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, interpretation of the law, pay, severance pay, wage earner

C 79/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of that court of 30 November 2000 in the
case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz

(Case C-17/01)

(2001/C 79/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 30 November 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 15 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Finanzamt Sulingen against Walter Sudholz on
the following questions:

1.

Is Article 2 of the Council Decision 2000/186/EC (1) of
28 February 2000 authorising the Federal Republic of
Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6
the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the
and 17 of
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment invalid because the procedure
prior to the adoption of the decision did not meet the
criteria laid down in Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC?

2.

the

Is
first paragraph of Article 3 of Decision
2000/186/EC, under which the decision is to have
retroactive effect from 1 April 1999, valid?

3. Does Article 2 of Decision 2000/186/EC meet

the
substantive requirements to be applied to such an author-
isation, and do any objections to the validity of that
provision arise as a consequence?

(1) OJ L 59 of 4.3.2000, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Pisa — Sezione Lavoro — by order of that court of
19 December 2000 in the case of INPS v Alberto Barsotti
and Others

(Case C-19/01)

(2001/C 79/32)

‘Whether Directive 80/987/EEC (1) and the judgments relating
to it
(judgments in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 of
13 November 1991 and Case C-373/95 of 10 July 1997) may
be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the ceiling imposed,
it is lawful to prohibit aggregation of the compensation
awarded by the Guarantee Fund and part of the wages paid by
the employer in the last three months only as regards the
amount exceeding that represented by the level of the indennita
di mobilità (job-seeker’s allowance) provided for, ratione
temporis, in respect of the same period, in view of the fact that
the said advances appear, like the job seeker’s allowance and
up to the same amount, to be intended to cover the primary
needs of the dismissed worker.’

(1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23 (Council directive of 20 October 1980).

Action brought on 18 January 2001 by Kingdom of Spain
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-22/01)

(2001/C 79/33)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 18 January 2001 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
(2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zone: IX,
X, CECAF 34.1.1’ contained in Annex Id to Council
Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 (1) of 15 December 2000
fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-
munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are
required; and

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-81/00 (2) except in so far as concerns the
TAC for anchovy fixed by the Council in Zone VIII which for
2001 is of 33 000 metric tonnes.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Labour Division of
the Tribunale di Pisa (District Court, Pisa) of 19 December
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of INPS v Alberto
Barsotti and Others, on the following question:

(1) OJ 2000 L 334, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 4.