Case C-266/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d'Assurances against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Finance)
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, civil law, commercial law, contract, insurance company, interpretation of the law

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of
Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assuran-
ces against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of
Finance)

(Case C-266/01)

(2001/C 275/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 May
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Préservatrice
Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assurances v the State of the
Netherlands (Ministry of Finance) on the following questions:

1.

Is a claim lodged by the State under a private-law contract
of suretyship which it has concluded in fulfilment of a
condition determined by it pursuant to Article 6(1) of the
1975 TIR Convention, and therefore in exercise of its
public powers, to be regarded as a civil or commercial
matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of
Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters?

2. Must proceedings which are brought by the State and
which have as their subject-matter a private-law contract
of suretyship be regarded as a customs matter within the
meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
and Commercial Matters, on the ground that pleas may
be put forward by the defendant which necessitate an
investigation into, and a ruling on, the existence and
content of the customs debts to which that contract
relates?

territory (Thuringia) which, under the direction of the
manager of the holding, has been produced from its cows
installed in leased facilities in the accession territory
(Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)?

2. Or is the milk quantity thus acquired to be imputed to
the provisionally allocated reference quantity of
the
lessor farmer who is himself partly producing and the
provisionally allocated milk reference quantity withdrawn
in favour of Thuringia where, as in this case, federal land
borders divide the part of the holding to which the
reference quantity was allocated from the part of the
holding in which the milk is produced and, in contradis-
tinction to the situation in the Ballmann case, cited above,
the holding or part of the holding to which the milk
reference quantity was provisionally allocated is maintai-
ned only, as it were, as the holding’s head office and
produces and delivers only a proportion of less than
5 % of the milk reference quantity (dairy herd/milk
production)?

3.

Is it material to the reply to these questions that the
holding producing the milk was formerly in the territory
of the GDR but that this territory was transferred to
Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) by state treaty between
the two länder of the Federal Republic of Germany known
as Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 73.
(3) ECR I-25 [1991].

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Weimar by order of that court of 23 May 2001
in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v
Freistaat Thüringen

References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
L’Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora
Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of
Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)

(Case C-268/01)

(2001/C 275/09)

(Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01)

(2001/C 275/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court), Weimar, of 23 May 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v
Freistaat Thüringen on the following questions:

1.

interpreted, by

Is Article 9(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
(amended by Regulation (EC) No 1256/99 (2)), or other
provisions concerning guaranteed quantities of milk, to
be
to Case C-341/89
reference
Ballmann (3), as meaning that in the case of a holding or
part of a holding in the territory of the former GDR a
milk quantity is also to be imputed to the reference
quantity provisionally allocated to it in the accession

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 20 June 2001 by the
Tribunale di L’Aquila (District Court, L’Aquila), which were
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for preliminary
rulings in the cases of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli and
Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile on the following
questions:

(1)

Is the provision of binding minimum tariffs contrary to
free competition on the ground that it prevents the free
fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as provided for under
Article 81(1)(a) EC, and does it also have the effect
of reinforcing the compartmentalisation of markets at
national level, thereby hindering the economic integration
intended by the Treaty?