Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-444/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): R. J. de Laat v Bestuur van het Landelĳk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Frontier worker — "Partially unemployed" — Meaning)
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, residence, short-time working, unemployment

C 186/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; A. Saggio,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it
has ruled:

A commitment assumed by an insurance company to carry out, in
return for remuneration at market rates, the business activities of
another insurance company, which is its 100 % subsidiary and which
would continue to conclude insurance contracts in its own name, does
not constitute an insurance transaction within the meaning of
Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.

Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996
amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of com-
pound feedingstuffs and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the
circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,
74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing
Directive 77/101/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under those directives;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 March 2001

in Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
to transpose Directives 96/24/EC and 96/25/EC)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-444/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): R. J. de
Laat v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzek-
eringen (1)

(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Frontier worker — ‘Partially unemployed’
— Meaning)

(2001/C 186/03)

(2001/C 186/04)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

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

In Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
G. Kanellopoulos and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996 amending Directive
79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ
1996 L 125, p. 33) and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the
circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,
74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing Direc-
tive 77/101/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 35), the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those
directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La

In Case C-444/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Roermond, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between R. J. de
Laat and Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzeker-
ingen — on the interpretation of Article 71(1)(a) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
1983 L 230, p. 6), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
A. La Pergola, President of

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/3

D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March
2001, in which it has ruled:

1.

2.

In order to determine whether a frontier worker is to be regarded
as partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the
meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 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,
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, uniform Community criteria
must be applied. That assessment may not be made on the
basis of criteria drawn from national law.

If, in a Member State other than that in whose territory he
resides, a worker remains in employment with the same
undertaking, but part-time, while remaining available for work
on a full-time basis, he is partially unemployed and the related
benefits are to be provided by the competent institution of that
State. On the other hand, if a frontier worker no longer has any
link with that State and is wholly unemployed, those benefits
are to be provided by the institution of the place of residence at
its own expense. It is for the national court to determine on the
basis of those criteria, in the case pending before it, the category
to which the worker in question belongs.

(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-85/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
by Vincent
the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria):

Offermanns and Esther Offermanns (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
benefits’ — National legislation providing for payment of
advances on maintenance payments due by a worker to his
minor child — Condition concerning the child’s nationality)

(2001/C 186/05)

(Language of the case: German)

ings pending before that court by Vincent Offermanns and
Esther Offermanns — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and
4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 6 and
52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC
and 43 EC), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward
(Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
ruled:

A benefit such as the advances on maintenance payments provided
for by the Austrian Bundesgesetz über die Gewährung von Vorschüss-
en auf den Unterhalt von Kindern (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz)
(Federal Austrian Law on the Grant of Advances on Maintenance for
constitutes a family benefit within the meaning of
Children)
Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, as amended and, updated by Council
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996. Consequently,
persons residing in the territory of a Member State to which the
provisions of that regulation apply are entitled, in accordance with
Article 3 of that regulation, to receive such a benefit under the
legislation of that Member State on the same conditions as that
State’s nationals.

(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 16 November 2000

in Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — International coach and bus transport of passen-
gers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2001/C 186/06)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-85/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-

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

In Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL, having its registered
office in Beuvillers, France, represented by P. Barbier, avocat,