Case C-444/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, prostitution, right of establishment

C 84/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

(a) Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 (1) and/or of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 (2)
preclude those authorities from stipulating that such a
transfer or reallocation of quotas is for value and,
therefore, that the recipient undertaking or undertakings
must pay financial consideration?

(b)

Even if the answer is in the negative, do the same
provisions nevertheless preclude the price of the quota to
be transferred, and the distribution thereof, from being
decided by public auction? Do those provisions preclude
recourse to public auction even where it has been
stipulated that, as part of the reallocation of quotas
carried out by such a procedure, the measures required to
prevent any possible negative repercussions for national
agricultural producers of sugar beet will be adopted?

(c)

Is the interpretation of Community law the same, and
must the answers also be so, in the light of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (3) on
the common organisation of the markets in the sugar
sector, which repeals the earlier regulations?

(1) On the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector

(OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4).

(2) Laying down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar

sector (OJ 1982 L 21, p. 3).

(3) OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrät-
ten (Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 October 2001
in the case of Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola
Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)

(Case C-422/01)

(2002/C 84/60)

under which an insurance policy issued by an insurance
company in the UK, Germany or Denmark which meets the
conditions laid down in Sweden for occupational pension
insurance — apart from the condition that the policy must be
issued by an insurance company operating in Sweden — is
treated as an endowment insurance policy with income tax
effects which, depending on the circumstances in the individual
case, may be less favourable than the tax effects of an
occupational pension policy?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by judgment of
that court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Design
Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA

(Case C-438/01)

(2002/C 84/61)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-
sation (Court of Cassation), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of
8 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
on 13 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Design Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA on the following
question:

‘Is Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), concerning
“advertising services”, applicable to services supplied indirectly
to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn
invoices them to the advertiser,
if the advertiser does not
produce goods in the price of which the cost of the services is
going to be included?’

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
of 23 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
on 25 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskat-
teverket on the following question:

Are the provisions of Community law on freedom of move-
ment for persons, services and capital, in particular Article 49
EC, in conjunction with Article 12 EC, to be interpreted as
meaning that they preclude application of national tax rules

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the
case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua
Owusu

(Case C-444/01)

(2002/C 84/62)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 September 2001 by

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/37

the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu on the following
questions:

Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla (Single-Judge Court of
Beilla), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto
Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del lavoro
(Vercelli) on the following question:

1. With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, was
prostitution engaged in on a self-employed basis by a
national of Member State A in Member State B covered
by freedom of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty)
and/or freedom to provide services (Article 59 of the
EC Treaty)? Is it in this regard relevant whether prosti-
tution was at that time considered in Member State B to
be immoral and anti-social?

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative:

With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, did
the national of Member State A derive a right to reside in
Member State B directly from Article 8a of the EC Treaty?

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative:

As the law stood on 16 May 1997, did that person have
a right of residence under the conditions set out in
Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June
1990 on the right of residence, even though Member
State B had not yet at that date implemented that directive
in its domestic law?

4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative:

Was that person required at the time of her entry to have
sufficient resources and to demonstrate this to the
competent authority, or does it suffice if, during her
period of residence in Member State B, she did not claim
any social assistance?

(1) OJ L 180, p. 26.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico
del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in
case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione
Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Admin-
istration, Vercelli)

(Case C-445/01)

(2002/C 84/63)

Are Article 9 bis (2) of Law No 608 of 28 November 1996, in
so far as it provides that an employer is required to notify the
Sezione Circoscrizionale per l’Impiego of the hiring of every
worker, and Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 469 of
23 December 1997, in so far as it refers to Article 9 bis of Law
608/1996 in cases where non-authorised parties have acted as
intermediaries, consistent with the principles of Community
law laid down by Articles 48, 52 and 90 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Articles 39, 43, and 86 EC).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtssachen, Vienna, by order of that court of
5 November 2001 in the case of DLD Trading Company
Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic of Austria

(Case C-447/01)

(2002/C 84/64)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Court for Civil Matters), Vienna,
of 5 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
on 20 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
OLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic
of Austria on the following questions:

1. Was a provision of directly applicable Community law or
a directive infringed and, if so, which one, as a result of
the government action described in the facts, in particular
the alteration as from 1 January 1998 of the travellers’
duty-free amount to EUR 75 or EUR 100, according to
customs
the
implementing law [ZollR-DG] in conjunction with Para-
graph 19a of the corresponding implementing regulation
[ZollR-DV] and the quantitative restriction in regard to
the relief from turnover tax and excise duty on tobacco
products.

case under Paragraph 97a of

the

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 October 2001 of the

Is the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
munity law or of that directive one which confers an
individual right on the plaintiff in the main proceedings?

2.

If Question 1 is answered affirmatively: