Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep Antwerpen, by orders of that Court of 28 June 2001, in the cases of Belgian State v, respectively, (1) E. Van Calster and (2) F. Cleeren (Case C-261/01) and NV Openbaar Slachthuis (Case C-262/01)
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, tax system

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep Antwerpen, by orders of that Court of 28 June
in the cases of Belgian State v, respectively,
2001,
(1) E. Van Calster and (2) F. Cleeren (Case C-261/01) and
NV Openbaar Slachthuis (Case C-262/01)

(Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01)

(2001/C 303/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Hof van Beroep
Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) of 28 June 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of Belgian State v, respectively, (1) E. Van
Calster and (2) F. Cleeren (Case C-261/01) and NV Openbaar
Slachthuis (Case C-262/01), on the following questions:

5.

6.

If the answer to question 4 is in the negative, does
Community law then permit the persons owing the
contributions, as the beneficiaries of the aid, to raise a
plea of lack of competence with regard to the Com-
mission’s act whereby authorisation was given to
implement the aid measures from which they benefit?

If it is accepted that the respondents, as persons owing
the contributions and/or as beneficiaries of the aid, are
directly and individually concerned by the Commission’s
act and may therefore lawfully raise a plea of lack of
competence, has the Commission exceeded the limits of
its competence in adopting its decision of 30 July 1996
and infringed Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the
EC Treaty?

1.

In the circumstances outlined above is a system of aid
measures compatible with Community law, in particular
with Article 88(3) (formerly Article 93(3)) of the EC
Treaty, which, after its notification, is considered by the
Commission on 30 July 1996 to be compatible with the
common market and under which the Member State
imposes in the general interest, with retroactive effect,
contributions or charges:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Düsseldorf by order of that court of 18 May 2001 in
the case of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der
Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungs-
krankenkassen,4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftli-
chen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestellten-
krankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen,
7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against
Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co

— to finance an animal health and production fund,

in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of

— on natural and legal persons whose characteristics
are set out
the
abovementioned law of 23 March 1998, as amended
by the Arbitragehof (Court of Arbitration) in its
judgment of 9 February 2000 in Cases Nos 1414,
1450, 1452, 1453, and 1454,

— because of the activities described in those articles
which took place in the period from 1988 until
21 May 1996 in which those aid measures had not
yet been approved?

(Case C-264/01)

(2001/C 303/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Düsseldorf of 18 May 2001, received at the Court Registry on
5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. AOK
Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-
band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der
Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
against Ichthyol-Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermani & Co. on the
following questions:

2.

3.

(Solely in Case C-262/01) Has the Commission, by
approving the aid measures established by the law of
23 March 1998, also approved their retroactive effect?

1.

Is the Commission’s Decision of 30 July 1996 merely in
the nature of an individual authorisation to a Member
State to implement the planned aid measures?

4. Are the persons owing the contributions directly and
individually concerned by the Commission’s act within
the meaning of Article 230 (formerly Article 173) of the
EC Treaty?

Is Article 81(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that the
leading associations of statutory sickness funds of a
Member State are to be regarded as associations of
undertakings or, where a leading association is also
a direct provider of statutory sickness insurance, as
undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC
when they jointly determine the applicable level of
uniform fixed amounts for medicinal products in the
Member State, where such amounts constitute the highest
price at which the statutory sickness funds, who are
required to provide benefits in kind to insured persons,
will purchase and pay for medicinal products and thereby
limit their liability to insured persons?