Case C-37/02 and C-38/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza by orders of 16 January 2002 in the case of Adriano Di Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02) against Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero — Direzione Generale per la Politica Commerciale e la Gestione del Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: import policy, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, tariff quota, tropical fruit

20.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 97/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of
Katharina Rinke against A¨ rtztekammer Hamburg

(Case C-25/02)

(2002/C 97/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Katharina Rinke against
A¨ rtztekammer Hamburg (the Hamburg Chamber of Phys-
icians) on the following questions:

1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secça˜o (Fiscal Court
of First Instance, Lisbon, 3rd Division, 2nd Chamber) of
27 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 4 Febru-
ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recheio Cash
& Carry SA against Fazenda Pu´ blica and Registo Nacional de
Pessoas Colectivas on the following questions:

1.

2.

Is it contrary to Community law for a Member State to
fix a limitation period, for actions for repayment of taxes
levied in breach of Community law, of 90 days reckoned
from the expiry of the period for voluntary payment, so
that the exercise of the right to reimbursement is made
excessively difficult?

If so, what is the minimum period that may be considered
compatible with the rule that exercise of that right must
not be made excessively difficult?

3. What are the criteria to be used to fix that period?

1. Does

the

laid

requirement

down in Directives
86/457/EEC (1) and 93/16/EEC (2),
that
to the effect
certain components of the specific training in general
medical practice — completion of which confers the right
to use the title ‘general medical practitioner’ — must be
undertaken full-time, constitute indirect discrimination
on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive
76/207/EEC (3)?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is yes:

(a) How is the incompatibility of Directive 76/207/EEC
on the one hand with Directives 86/457/EEC and
93/16/EEC on the other to be resolved?

(b) Does the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
grounds of sex constitute a basic unwritten right
under Community law that overrides any conflicting
rule in secondary legislation?

(1) OJ L 267, 19.9.1986, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
tario de 1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secça˜o
by order of 27 December 2001 in the case of Recheio
Cash & Carry SA against Fazenda Pu´ blica and Registo
Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas

(Case C-30/02)

(2002/C 97/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributario de

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza
by orders of 16 January 2002 in the case of Adriano Di
Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02) against
Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero — Direzione
Generale per la Politica Commerciale e la Gestione del
Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II

(Case C-37/02 and C-38/02)

(2002/C 97/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Tribunale Amminis-
trativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza (Regional
Administrative Court of the Veneto — Third Chamber) of
the Court Registry on
16 January 2002,
13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Adriano Di Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02)
against Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero (Ministry of
Foreign Trade) — Direzione Generale per la Politica Commer-
ciale e la Gestione del Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II on
the following questions:

received at

(1) Are Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 31 of Regulation (EC)
No 896/2001 (1) incompatible, in primis, with the Treaty,
in particular Article 7 (formerly Article 4) thereof, and
with the other provisions and principles enshrined in that
Treaty with regard to the principle of the division of
functions and powers between the Community institu-
tions (in particular between the Council and the Commis-
sion)?

(2) Are those same Articles of Regulation 896/2001 contrary
to the principle that laws should not have retrospective
effect and to the related principles of the protection of
legitimate expectations and legal certainty?

C 97/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2002

(3) Are the same provisions of Regulation 896/2001 incom-
patible with Council Regulation EEC No 404/93 (2) of
13 February 1993 (with subsequent amendments and
additions), in particular with Article 20 thereof?

(4)

If the answer given to the preceding questions is in the
negative, the Court is asked to state whether, by preclu-
ding persons related to traditional operators from being
granted a tariff quota even as ‘non-traditional operators’,
Article 6 of the aforementioned Commission regulation,
in particular subparagraph (c) thereof, conflicts with the
to pursue a professional activity,
fundamental right
viewed in relation to the freedom to conduct a business.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph
of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States must adopt the
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to them
into their domestic law before the expiry of
the period
prescribed for doing so. That period expired on 29 September
2000 without Portugal having brought into force the necessary
provisions.

(1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

(Case C-44/02)

(2002/C 97/08)

(Case C-45/02)

(2002/C 97/09)

An action against
the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 February 2002 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Anto´ nio Caeiros, acting as
Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against
the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by
engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors
and amending Council Directive 74/150/EEC(1),
the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 9 of
aforementioned Directive
2000/25/EC; and

the

the Portuguese Republic was brought
An action against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 February 2002 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Anto´ nio Caeiros, acting as
Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
mission Directive 2000/2/EC of 14 January 2000 adapt-
ing to technical progress Council Directive 75/322/EEC
relating to the suppression of radio interference produced
by spark-ignition engines fitted to wheeled agricultural
or forestry tractors and Council Directive 74/150/EEC
relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or
forestry tractors (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed
to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4 of Directive
2000/2/EC;

— In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the
Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of the
aforementioned Directive 2000/25/EC;

— In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
the Commission immediately of such provisions, the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 4 of Directive 2000/2/EC;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.