Judgment of the Court 5 February 2002 in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of "family benefits" — Payment of advances on maintenance payments — Condition that the minor child must be resident within the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, family benefit, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, maintenance obligation, social security

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/5

legislation which,

1. Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and
81 EC) do not preclude national
in the
context of a summary procedure for the recovery of debts relating
to the fees of an architect, a member of a professional
association, requires the court seised of the dispute to follow the
opinion of that association in relation to the settlement of those
fees in so far as that opinion ceases to be binding where the
debtor initiates proceedings inter partes.

2. Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty do not preclude national
legislation which provides that the members of a profession may
set at their discretion the fees for certain services which they
perform.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

8 January 2002

in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Com-
pany (1)

(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to
include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the
list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —
Prohibition on placing that substance on the market —
Rejection of the application for inclusion)

(2002/C 84/08)

(Language of the case: English)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

initially
In Case C-248/99 P, French Republic (agents:
R. Abraham and J.-F. Dobelle and K. Rispal-Bellanger and
C. Vasak, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues): Appeal against
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities
(Second Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in
Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
the proceedings being: Monsanto Company, registered in
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (United
States of America), (agents: C. Stanbrook, QC, and D. Holland,
barrister), and Commission of the European Communities
(agents: J.-L. Dewost, R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou) the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on
8 January 2002, in which it:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97
Monsanto v Commission;

2. Dismisses the application for annulment of Decision C(97)
148 final of the Commission of 14 January 1997 concerning
the definition of a position, in accordance with Article 175 of
the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine somatotrophin in
Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90;

3. Orders Monsanto Company to bear its own costs and to
pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European
Communities both before the Court of First Instance and the
Court of Justice;

4. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred both
before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

5 February 2002

in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
benefits’ — Payment of advances on maintenance payments
— Condition that the minor child must be resident within
the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)

(2002/C 84/09)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-255/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court concerning the
minor Anna Humer, on the interpretation of Articles 3, 4(1)(h),
73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 3(1)
and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
p. 475), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, F. Macken
and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet,
Judges, Advocate General:
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which it has ruled:

C 84/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

a) A benefit such as the advance on maintenance payments
provided for by the O¨ sterreichische Bundesgesetz über die
Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern
(Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant
of Advances for the Maintenance of Children), adopted in
1985, is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996.

b) A person, one or other of whose parents is an employed person
or is out of work, comes within the scope ratione personae of
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a member of the
family of a worker within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
Regulation No 1408/71, read in the light of Article 1(f)(i)
thereof.

c) Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be
construed as meaning that, where a minor child resides with the
parent who has custody in a Member State other than the
Member State providing the benefit, and where the other parent,
who is under an obligation to pay maintenance, works or is
unemployed in the Member State providing the benefit, that
child is entitled to receive a family benefit such as the advance
on maintenance payments provided for by the Unterhaltsvor-
schussgesetz.

(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 6 December 2001

in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG,
Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH &
Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin — Simplified registration
procedure — Protection of the designation ‘Spreewälder
Gurken’)

(2002/C 84/10)

(Language of the case: German)

for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich.
Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG
and Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG — on the validity
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 of 18 March
1999 supplementing
to Regulation (EC)
the Annex
No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 74,
p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it has ruled:

Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any matter of
such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 590/1999 of 18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
registers the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 November 2001

in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure
to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of
Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities)

(2002/C 84/11)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-269/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg (Germany)

In Case C-270/99 P: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,
avocat, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR
I-A-77 and II-401, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
so far as the Court of First Instance dismissed Z’s action against