Case C-271/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001, in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Structural Funds, aid recipient, balance of payments assistance, fraud, interpretation of the law, redemption

C 275/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

Lawyers who are nationals of other EC Member States
and who work in Italy are also required under Article 13
of the Law of 9 February 1982 to comply with the tariff
for legal fees and thus also with the rule prohibiting
differentiation of amounts below a specified minimum
level.

No 729/70 (2) and Article 23 of Regulation No 4523/88 (3),
under which the Member State can and must take the measures
necessary to prevent and take action against irregularities and
recover amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence,
applicable in this context as well?

(1) OJ 1997 L 53 p. 30.
(2) OJ 1970 L 94 p. 13.
(3) OJ 1988 L 374 p. 1.

(2) Are Articles 633(1)(2) and 636(1) of the Italian Code of
Civil Procedure, under which a lawyer is authorised to
have his fees determined by the Council of the order to
which he belongs through the adoption of an opinion
binding on his client and on the court (in enforcement
proceedings), allowing him to obtain entitlement based
on that unilateral determination of
the professional
fee pursuant to the abovementioned minimum tariffs,
contrary to free competition on the ground that they
prevent the free fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as
provided for under Article 81(1)(a) EC, by reserving such
determination to a body consisting exclusively of lawyers?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Schleswig by order of 5 July 2001 in proceedings involv-
ing the imposition of a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt
Steffensen

(Case C-276/01)

(2001/C 275/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 5 July 2001 by the
Amtsgericht Schleswig (Local Court, Schleswig), which was
for a
received at
preliminary ruling, in proceedings involving the imposition of
a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt Steffensen, on the following
questions:

the Court Registry on 13 July 2001,

1.

foodstuffs (1)

Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June
to be
1989 on the official control of
construed as conferring on the manufacturer of a product
a directly applicable right to apply for a second opinion
in the case where public authorities have taken from a
retail outlet a sample of the manufacturer’s product for
purposes of analysis and that sample has failed to satisfy
certain criteria imposed by the legislation on foodstuffs?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

is Article 7(1) of that directive to be construed as giving
rise to a Community-law prohibition on the use of
findings based on samples removed by public authorities
where it has not been made possible for the manufacturer
of the product which is the subject of criticism in those
findings to apply for a second opinion?

(1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001,
in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS)
and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)

(Case C-271/01)

(2001/C 275/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Council of State), Sixth Section, of 8 May 2001, received at
the Court Registry on 9 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) against CO.P.P.I., Società
Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi
(IBIESSE) on the following question:

Does Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 (1) of
15 February 1977 — which provides that the Commission,
after consulting the Fund Committee on the financial aspects,
may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 22, to suspend, reduce or discontinue aid from the
Fund, and to recover sums paid, if, inter alia, prior to expiry of
the period laid down therein, the beneficiary sells equipment
or buildings having received aid from the Fund without prior
authorization from the Commission — constitute a standard
procedure which excludes the Member State’s competence to
adopt such measures to discontinue aid and recover sums
paid, or are the principles laid down in Article 8 of Regulation