Case C-233/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against Dario Lo Bue
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer price, inflation, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, national law, third-party insurance

C 245/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

1. Are goods which have been cleared for Community
transit removed from customs supervision if the transit
document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-
ment?

2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
particular Article 15 thereof; or

2.

3.

If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:
Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed
from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to
ensure their identification was opened and the goods
were partially unloaded, without the consignment first
being duly produced for customs, even though the
operation was arranged with the persons in question by
customs investigation officers operating incognito and
observed in every detail by those officers?

If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the
affirmative:
Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs
investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
munity transit?

(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by
Susanne Müller

(Case C-229/01)

(2001/C 245/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller
on the following questions:

Does

— Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version
prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March

— Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof

preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
gible manner?

(1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
Dario Lo Bue

(Case C-233/01)

(2001/C 245/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:

(1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
party liability in connection with the use of motor
vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
consumer price index?

(2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
coefficients for determining the premium and differential
premium rate systems under which the premium payable
depends on the claims record?

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/5

(3) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
inflation, also requires insurance undertakings,
if the
client so requests, to draw up policies the terms of which
incorporate a bonus-malus arrangement
(positive or
negative adjustment of the premium on the basis of the
claims record) subject to an excess in an amount set
between the minimum and the maximum level permitted
by law?

(4) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
inflation, provides that, on expiry of the period during
which premium rates were frozen, the insured person
may withdraw from the contract if, on the date for annual
renewal of the policy, an increase is applied to the
premium (not provided for under a customised arrange-
ment) higher than the scheduled rate of inflation decided
by the Government?

(1) OJ L 228 of 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case
of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord

(Case C-234/O1)

(2001/C 245/09)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance
Court), Berlin, of 28 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt (District Tax
Office) Neukölln-Nord on the following question:

taxable

Is there an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 43 EC) where, under Paragraph 50a(4), first sentence,
point (1) and second sentence, of the Einkommensteuergesetz
(Law on Income Tax) as in force in 1996 (’EStG 1996’), a
Netherlands national who earns in the Federal Republic of
Germany
approximately
DEM 5 000 from self-employed activity in the calendar year is
subject to deduction of tax at source by the person liable to
pay his fees at the rate of 25 % his (gross) revenue of
approximately DEM 6 000 plus solidarity surcharge, where it
is not possible, by means of an application for a refund or an
application for a tax assessment, for him to recover, in whole
or in part, the taxes paid?

income

net

of

Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-235/01)

(2001/C 245/10)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 June
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Bernard Mongin and Roberto Amorosi, acting
as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and
administrative provisions necessary for compliance with
Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
seafarers (1), or in any event by not forwarding those
provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
provides that a directive is binding on each Member State to
which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, involves
an obligation on Member States to respect the periods for
transposition laid down in directives. That period expired on
1 July 1999 without the Italian Republic having issued the
provisions necessary for compliance with the directive cited in
the forms of order sought by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.

Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic
of Germany against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-239/01)

(2001/C 245/11)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and J. Sedemund,
acting as Agents.