Case C-416/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Tercera by order of 3 October 2001 in the case of Sociedad Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Administración General del Estado, Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén and Azucarera Ebro Agrícolas SA
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, interpretation of the law, merger, production quota, sugar

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/35

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 13 September 2001
in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v Bundesminister für
Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst

2.2.1.

the fact that shortly after the employment
relationship ended he became eligible for entry
to university in the host country by virtue of
having completed his schooling in his country
of origin and/or

(Case C-413/01)

(2002/C 84/58)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court of Appeal) of 13 September 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v
Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst on the
following questions:

1.1.

Does the fact that an EU citizen works for a short
period (two and a half months) that is fixed from the
outset in a Member State of which he is not a national
confer on him the status of a worker under Article 48
of the EC Treaty (now Article 39 EC)?

1.2. When determining whether he is a worker in the
above sense in such a case, are any of the following
circumstances significant:

1.2.1.

the fact that he took up the job only some
years after his entry into the host State;

1.2.2.

the fact that shortly after the end of his short,
relationship he
fixed-term employment
became eligible for entry to university in the
host country by virtue of having completed
his schooling in his country of origin;

1.2.3.

the fact that he attempted to find a new job
in the period between the end of the short,
fixed-term employment relationship and the
time when he took up his studies?

2.

If he is a (migrant) worker under Question 1:

Does the termination, by expiry of time, of an employ-
ment relationship which is limited from the outset to
a fixed term constitute a voluntary termination?

2.1.

2.2.

2.2.2.

immediately following termination of
that
employment relationship until beginning his
studies, he was looking for another job?

Is it relevant to the answer to this question that the other job
sought by the person in question constitutes a sort of
continuation at a similar (low) level of the job which he was
doing for a fixed period but which has come to an end, or a
job which corresponds to the higher level of education
achieved in the meantime?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccio´ n Ter-
cera by order of 3 October 2001 in the case of Sociedad
Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Adminis-
tracio´ n General del Estado, Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén
and Azucarera Ebro Agrı´colas SA

(Case C-416/01)

(2002/C 84/59)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 3 October 2001 by the
Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), Sala de lo Contencioso-
Administrativo, Seccio´ n Tercera, (Chamber for Contentious
Administrative Proceedings, Division Three), which was
received at the Court Registry on 22 October 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Sociedad Cooperativa General
Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Administracio´ n General del Estado,
Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén and Azucarera Ebro Agrı´colas SA
on the following questions:

If so, in such a case, when assessing whether or not
the termination of the employment relationship was
voluntary or involuntary, are any of the following
circumstances significant, either in themselves or in
conjunction with the other factors referred to herein:

If, in the exercise of its power of administrative review of a
merger of undertakings, the authorities of a Member State
deem it necessary to redistribute sugar production quotas
among undertakings situated in its territory in order to
safeguard competition:

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