Order of the Court of 20 October 2000 in Case C-242/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Augsburg): Johann Vogler v Landwirtschaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social security — Freedom of establishment — Determination of the applicable legislation — Self-employed activities in more than one Member State — Articles 13(1) and 14a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation of only one Member State applicable)
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community migration, EU national, interpretation of the law, pay, self-employment, social security

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-94/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria)): ARGE Gewässerschutz
v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft (1)

2.

(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Pro-
cedure for the award of public procurement contracts —
Equal treatment of tenderers — Discrimination on grounds
of nationality — Freedom to provide services)

(2001/C 108/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-94/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesverga-
beamt (Federal Procurement Office), Austria for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
ARGE Gewässerschutz and Bundesministerium für Land- und
Forstwirtschaft — on the interpretation of Council Directive
92/50/EC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992
L 209, p. 1), and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
which it has ruled:

1.

The mere fact that the contracting authority allows bodies
receiving subsidies of any kind, whether from that contracting
authority or from other authorities, which enable them to
submit tenders at prices appreciably lower than those of the

other, unsubsidised, tenderers, to take part in a procedure for
the award of a public service contract does not amount to a
breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts.

The mere fact that a contracting authority allows such bodies to
take part in a procedure for the award of a public service
contract does not constitute either covert discrimination or a
restriction contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 49 EC).

(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 20 October 2000

in Case C-242/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sozialgericht Augsburg): Johann Vogler v Landwirt-
schaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social security
— Freedom of establishment — Determination of the
applicable legislation — Self-employed activities in more
than one Member State — Articles 13(1) and 14a(2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Legislation of only one
Member State applicable)

(2001/C 108/02)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-242/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sozialgericht

C 108/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

Augsburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings pending before that court between Johann Vogler and
Landwirtschaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben, on the validity
and interpretation of Articles 13(1) and 14a(2) and on the
interpretation of Articles 13(2)(b), 14a(3) and 14c of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons,
to self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, in the version thereof amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by
Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ
1999 L 38, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has made an order on 20 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:

Consideration of the first question referred has not disclosed any
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 13(1) in
conjunction with Article 14a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
to self-employed persons and to
schemes to employed persons,
members of their families moving within the Community, in the
version thereof amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation
(EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999. It follows from those
provisions that a person who simultaneously operates, in a self-
employed capacity, an agricultural undertaking in Germany and, in
the same capacity, a hotel in Austria, where he resides, is subject only
to the social security legislation of the latter State.

(1) OJ C 246, 28.8.1999.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of
that court of 6 July 2000 in Case C-480/00 Azienda
Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other party
to the proceedings being Caseificio Nazionale Novarese
s.c.a.r.l.; Case C-490/00 Cesare and Michele Filippi s.s. v
AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning; Case C-491/00 Cooperativa Latte Associati della
Lessinia a.r.l. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
the Budget and Planning

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in Case C-480/00 Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v
Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
(AIMA), the other party to the proceedings being Caseificio
Nazionale Novarese s.c.a.r.l.; Case C-490/00 Cesare and Miche-
le Filippi s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
the Budget and Planning; Case C-491/00 Cooperativa Latte
Associati della Lessinia a.r.l. v AIMA and the Ministry of the
Treasury, the Budget and Planning 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 cases of administrative or
judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?

If not:

(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
provide that derogations may be made from the periods
prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
provisions ?

(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
as meaning that the application of the system introduced
by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
which that State is guaranteed?

(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
exclude individual notification to those producers?

(5) May Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 and
Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 563/93 be interpreted
as leaving the Member States free to determine privileged
categories of producers who must be compensated in
priority to others?

(Cases C-480/00, C-490/00 and C-491/00)

(2001/C 108/03)

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of 6 July 2000 of the