Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 22 January 2002 in Case C-218/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza): Cisal di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Compulsory affiliation to a body providing insurance against accidents at work — Whether such a body is to be treated as an undertaking)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, interpretation of the law, occupational accident, occupational disease, public insurance, self-employed person

C 84/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

1.

2.

3.

The Commission of the European Communities was competent,
under Article 149(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
on which the European Union is founded, to adopt the measures
provided for in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on transitional measures
to be adopted on account of the accession of Austria, Finland
and Sweden in respect of trade in agricultural products.

Examination of the second question has disclosed no factor of
such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4 of Regulation
No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of proportionality
and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

The term ‘holder’ of surplus stock, within the meaning of
Article 4 of Regulation No 3108/94, refers to a person who
has authority to place the stored products on the market and
thereby realise a profit.

4. Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3108/94 must be interpreted as
meaning that, in the case of imports of Tunisian olive oil, the
‘import charge’ applicable in the Community of Twelve on
31 December 1994 is the one provided for in Annex I to
Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94 of 29 December
1994 fixing the minimum levies on the importation of olive oil
and levies on the importation of other olive oil sector products.

5.

Examination of the fifth question has disclosed no factor of
such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4(3) of Regulation
No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of equal treatment.

(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

the application brought before that court by Lutz GmbH and
others on the validity of Article 2(1)(f) of First Council Directive
68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards
which, for the protection of the interests of members and
others, are required by Member States of companies within the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,
with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
and Article 47 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the
annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222,
p. 11),the Court
Jann,
President of the Chamber, L. Sevo´ n and M. Wathelet (Rappor-
teur),
Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar:
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

(First Chamber), composed of: P.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions submitted by the Landesgericht Wels in its
decision of 9 May 2000.

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

22 January 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

15 January 2002

in Case C-182/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Wels): Lutz GmbH and Others (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual
accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of
companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2002/C 84/41)

(Language of the case: German)

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

in Case C-218/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Vicenza): Cisal di Battistello Venanzio &
C. Sas v Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli
infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)(1)

(Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81
EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Compulsory affiliation to a body
providing insurance against accidents at work — Whether
such a body is to be treated as an undertaking)

(2002/C 84/42)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-182/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Landesgericht Wels (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in

In Case C-218/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Cisal di

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/27

Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas and Istituto nazionale per
l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL), on the
interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC),the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, Judges, Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
2002, in which it has ruled:

The concept of an undertaking, within the meaning of Articles 85
and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC), does not
cover a body which is entrusted by law with the management of a
scheme providing insurance against accidents at work and occu-
pational diseases, such as the Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione
contro gli infortuni sul lavori (INAIL).

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1), the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting
for
the Chamber, A. La Pergola and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General:
J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
7 February 2002, in which it has ruled:

the President of

Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be interpreted as meaning
that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of
plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and
packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink,
can only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as ink-jet
Epson Stylus Colour printers, is to be classified under sub-heading
No 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

7 February 2002

in Case C-276/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Turbon Inter-
national GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (1)

(Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Classification
in the Combined Nomenclature of ink-cartridges compatible
with Epson Stylus Colour printers — Inks (heading 3215)
— Parts and accessories of machines under heading 8471
(heading 8473))

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

7 February 2002

in Case C-328/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg): Maria
Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern (1)

(2002/C 84/43)

(Common agricultural policy — Support system for oil-seeds
— Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 525/93)

(Language of the case: German)

(2002/C 84/44)

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

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-276/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Turbon
International GmbH, acting in its capacity as successor to
Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH, and Oberfinanzdirektion
Koblenz, on the interpretation of headings 3215 and 8473 of
the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987

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

In Case C-328/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg (Germ-
any) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Maria Weber, Martin Weber and Freistaat
Bayern, on the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of the final