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 (Appeal — International coach and bus transport of passengers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, competition policy, international transport, transport network, transport regulations

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,

C 186/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

Thionville, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
premises of Borislav Erdeljan, 90 Route de Thionville —
Appeal against the unpublished order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
21 May 1999 in Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 Schiocchet v
Commission, seeking to have that order annulled and to have
the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance
granted, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Wolfcarius, assisted
by J.-L. Fagnart) — The Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 Novem-
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The appeal is dismissed.

Schiocchet SARL shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

2.

3.

accordingly, declare the application admissible and send
it back to the Court of First Instance for judgment (or for
a stay of proceedings pending delivery of the judgment
of the Court of Justice in Case C-310/99 Italy v Com-
mission);

order the Commission to pay the full costs incurred by
the appellants in respect of matters adjunct to proceedings
before the Court of First Instance and the present appeal
proceedings, reserving the costs of the main proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested order is vitiated by the following errors in law:

— infringement and misapplication of Articles 111 and 114

of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;

— infringement and misapplication of the provisions of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with
regard to calculating procedural time-limits in the event
of publication of the contested act;

— failure to give reasons in relation to the legal arguments
for the application of the rules on time-limits invoked by
the appellant;

— in the alternative, error of law and failure to state reasons

with regard to the matter of excusable error.

Appeal brought on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria), estab-
lished in Rome, Confederazione Generale Italiana del
Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI
(Confcommercio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria
Italiana (ABI), established in Rome, Associazione Naziona-
le fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan
(Italy), and Banco di Napoli SpA, established in Naples
(Italy) against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the
Second Chamber, Extended

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of that court of 1 March 2001 in the case of
Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
Krefeld

(Case C-141/01 P)

(2001/C 186/07)

(Case C-152/01)

(2001/C 186/08)

An appeal against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the
Second Chamber extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-126/00
between Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Con-
findustria) and Others and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and the other
abovementioned companies.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 19 January 2001;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 1 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
on the following questions:

1. Must Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1495/80 (1) of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1224/80 (2) on the valuation of goods for
customs purposes as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 220/85 (3) be interpreted as meaning that payments
of interest are distinct from the price of the goods if at
the material time, namely the acceptance of the customs
declaration, only the invoice for the net price of the goods