Judgment of the Court of 31 May 2001 in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxembourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse nationale des prestations familiales (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxembourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances — Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension but not resident in the Member State responsible for the pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept of "worker" and "social advantage")
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, disability insurance, family benefit, interpretation of the law, maternity benefit, social security

C 200/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

M. Patakia and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Lean-
za, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a declaration
that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the activity of
transport consultant, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 2001, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by subjecting, in the context of Law No 264
Disciplina dell’attività di consulenza per la circolazione dei
mezzi di trasporto (Law No 264 on the activity of transport
consultancy), of 8 August 1991, the pursuit of the activity
transport consultant to possession of an administrative
of
authorisation, failing which liability to penalties is incurred,
and by making its issue subject to the condition that nationals
of other Member States reside in Italy and lodge a security, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese SpA, established in Bolog-
na, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio
del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), Società Fondiaria
Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena (Italy),
represented by V. Cerulli Irelli, G. Pittalis and G. Fanzini,
avvocati — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-39/98
Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-4207,
as amended by an order of 29 January 1999 (not published in
the European Court Reports), seeking to have the first order
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Council of
the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı´ez Parra) —
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and C. W.A. Tim-
mermans
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:

(Rapporteur),

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI — Società
Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese
SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and
Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR) to pay
the costs.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 31 May 2001

in Case C-41/99 P: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della
SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA and
Others v Council of the European Union (1)

(Appeal — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 — Aid to
beet sugar producers — Abolition — Marketing year
2001/02 — Action for annulment — Natural or legal
persons — Inadmissible)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 May 2001

in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxem-
bourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse
nationale des prestations familiales (1)

(Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxem-
bourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances —
Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension
but not resident in the Member State responsible for the
pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept
of ‘worker’ and ‘social advantage’)

(2001/C 200/42)

(2001/C 200/43)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: French)

(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-41/99: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI —
Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in

In Case C-43/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil supérieur

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/25

(Social

sociales

(Luxembourg)

des assurances
Insurance
Appeals Board) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Ghislain Leclere and Alina
Deaconescu and Caisse nationale des prestations familiales —
on, first, the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 42 EC),
Articles 1(u), 10a, 73 and 77 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 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
(OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and, second, the
validity of Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a of and Annexes II and IIa to,
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
lation No 118/97 — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and A. La Pergola (Presidents
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Jacobs,
Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 May 2001, in
which it has ruled:

Judges; F.G.

1.

Examination of the first question referred to the Court has
disclosed no factor of such a kind as to call into question the
validity of Article 1(u)(i) of and Annex II to 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, in so far as they permit
the imposition of a residence condition for the grant of
Luxembourg antenatal and childbirth allowances.

2. Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 118/97, is invalid in so far as
the Luxembourg maternity allowance appears in point
I.
Luxembourg (b) thereof.

the family allowances which, pursuant

3. An allowance such as the Luxembourg child-raising allowance
is not one of
to
Article 77 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 118/97, are to be paid to persons
receiving pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work
or occupational disease, irrespective of the Member State in
whose territory they are residing.

4. A person receiving an invalidity pension cannot derive from
Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 118/97, a right to family benefits
other than the family allowances referred to in Article 77 of
that regulation.

5. A person receiving an invalidity pension who resides in a
Member State other than the State providing his pension is not
a worker within the meaning of Article 7 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
movement for workers within the Community and does not
enjoy rights attaching to that status unless they derive from his
previous professional activity.

(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 26 October 2000

in Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Proceedings brought out of time — Inadmissibility)

(2001/C 200/44)

(Language of the case: German)

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

for

annulment

In Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi,
assisted by M. Schütte) v Commission of
the European
Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and D. Triantafyllou) —
application
of Commission Decision
1999/779/EC of 3 February 1999 on an Austrian state aid
granted in the form of an exemption from beverage tax of
wine and other fermented beverages sold directly on the place
of production to the consumer (OJ 1999 L 305, p. 27) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n
and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 26 October
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

The Republic of Austria is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.