Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01: 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)
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, free competition, interpretation of the law, lawyer, provision of services, wage determination

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?

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