Case C-316/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July 2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundeskanzler
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, foodstuff, genetically modified organism, interpretation of the law, labelling

C 303/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd,
2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics
Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd,
5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-308/01)

(2001/C 303/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals of 24 July 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd,
3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct
Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle
Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise,
on the following questions:

3.

4.

5.

Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
be held to affect trade between Member States only if it
has, or is capable of having, an appreciable effect on trade
between Member States? If so, what are the criteria for
determining whether or not a measure has such an effect?

Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
be held to affect trade between Member States if as a
result of that aid (1) traders in one Member State reduce
the volumes of the goods they import from other Member
States; or (2) a trader who rents domestic appliances to
customers in one Member State has a number of its rental
contracts discontinued and disposes of those appliances
in another Member State; or (3) insurance companies in
one Member State, which provide insurance connected
with the sales of domestic appliances, are placed at a
competitive disadvantage with companies which sell
direct
insurance some of which are subsidiaries of
companies in other Member States?

If, in the light of the answers to Questions 3 and 4, the
higher rate of insurance premium tax constitutes a state
aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, is Article 88
EC to be interpreted so that, where the Commission is
not informed of any plans to grant such aid, the legislative
measures introducing the aid should be dis-applied and
any tax paid under those measures should be repaid?

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

1.

2.

of

added

tax:
uniform basis
to be interpreted so that

Is Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
assessment
value
(77/388/EEC) (1)
the prior
authorisation of the Council was required before the
introduction of a higher rate of tax on insurance pre-
miums, which tax was designed to nullify the exemption
for insurance services in Article 13 of the Directive; which
was at a rate identical to the standard rate of value added
tax; which was administered in the same way as value
added tax; which was intended with value added tax to
form part of an inseparable whole; and where there was
no tax evasion or tax avoidance?

of

tax:

added

uniform basis

Is Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
assessment
value
(77/388/EEC) to be interpreted so as to prevent a Member
State from introducing a tax on insurance premiums
which is calculated by reference to the services supplied;
which is proportional to the price of the services supplied;
which is charged at the final stage of sale to the consumer;
which is passed on to the final consumer in a manner
characteristic of value added tax so that the burden of tax
rests on the final consumer; which applies to the whole
territory of the United kingdom; but which does not
apply generally to all transactions relating to goods and
services?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July
2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundes-
kanzler

(Case C-316/01)

(2001/C 303/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Wien (Independent Administrative Chamber, Vien-
na) of 25 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on
13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Eva
Glawischnig v Bundeskanzler on the following questions:

1.

Can the name of the manufacturer of foodstuffs and their
product description, in respect of which a complaint has
been made in the context of the monitoring by the

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/9

administrative authorities of instances of incorrect label-
ling, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 (1)
of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication
of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from
genetically modified organisms of particulars other than
those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC (2), constitute
‘information relating to the environment’ within the
of Council Directive
2(a)
meaning
90/313/EEC (3) of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access
to information on the environment?

of Article

2.

3.

2. Does information contained in administrative documents
revealing the frequency with which administrative penal-
ties have been imposed for infringement of Regulation
(EC) No 1139/98 constitute ‘information relating to the
environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of
Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
freedom of access to information on the environment?

3. Does information contained in administrative documents
revealing the manufacturers and products to which
administrative penalties for infringement of Regulation
(EC) No 1139/98 relate constitute ‘information relating
to the environment’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of
Council Directive 90/131/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
freedom of access to information on the environment?

Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
the Association between the European Economic
of
Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers
employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers
engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through
a Member State of the Community without belonging to
the legitimate labour force of that Member State?

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey
to be interpreted as meaning that

(a)

(b)

a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction on
the freedom to provide services which is contrary to
the Additional Protocol and, if so, that

a new restriction on the freedom to provide services
also exists where a Member State of the Community,
from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,
restricts the access of Turkish workers to the
employment market and thereby impedes the free-
dom to provide services of businessmen employing
the workers?

(1) OJ 1998 L 159, p. 4.
(2) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 20 June 2001 in the case
of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer and
4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-317/01)

(2001/C 303/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
(Federal Social Court) of 20 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of 1. Eran Abatay, 2. Abdulgam Balikci, 3. Ismail Birer
and 4. Rafik Günes v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour
Office) on the following questions:

1.

Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
of
the Association between the European Economic
Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting
a Member State of the Community from introducing
national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-
ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down
new restrictions on access to the employment market for
Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on
introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first
legally resident and employed?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Roma by order of that court of
27 February 2001 in the case of Informatica e Telecomu-
nicazioni I & T SpA against Direzione Regionale delle
Entrate per il Lazio

(Case C-318/01)

(2001/C 303/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Provinciale di Roma of 27 February 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 14 August 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Informatica e Telecomunica-
zioni I & T SpA against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per
il Lazio on the following question:

Is a legislative measure imposing a charge on the net assets of
a company having effects equivalent to an indirect charge on
transfers compatible with Community law and in particular
with Directive 69/335/EEC?