Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2002 in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-Boelen v Rĳksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are claimed)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, interpretation of the law, social assistance, social security, unemployment insurance

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/11

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983
L 24, p. 1), Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain
control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1),
Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of
20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1) and Articles 2,
21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable
to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) (Case
C-418/00), and under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3760/92
and Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation No 2847/93,
in
conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 of
20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1995 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1994 L 363,
p. 1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 Decem-
ber 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain
stocks,
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1995 L 330,
p. 1) (Case C-419/00),

and by finally prohibiting fishing only when the quota had been
considerably exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation
No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
under Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93, as
regards the 1994 to 1996 fishing years;

By failing to take penal or administrative action against any
master of a vessel or other person responsible for fishing after a
prohibition had been imposed, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil
its obligations under Article 1(2) of Regulation
No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
under Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, as regards the
1994 to 1996 fishing years;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.

The Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 25 April 2002, in which it:

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2002

1. Declares that, as regards the 1991 and 1996 fishing years, by
failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for the
utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and by failing to ensure
compliance with the Community rules on the conservation of
species through monitoring of fishing activities and through
appropriate inspection of landings and catch records, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
establishing a Community system for the conservation and
management of
fishery resources, Article 1(1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing
certain control measures for fishing activities, Article 9(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of
12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to
the common fisheries policy;

in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-
Boelen v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the
question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3)
of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods
of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of
a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that
periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in
accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are
claimed)

(2002/C 144/16)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

By not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying the
French flag or registered in French territory when the catches
landed were deemed to have exhausted the corresponding quota,

In Case C-175/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary

C 144/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

and

Rijksdienst

Verwayen-Boelen

ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Marie-Josée
voor
Arbeidsvoorziening, on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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),
(Fifth Chamber)
composed of: P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von
Bahr, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and
C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2002, in
which it has ruled:

the Court

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH and Land Baden-
Württemberg, on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412),
as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
(OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
the Chamber, N. Colneric,
of: F. Macken, President of
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J. N. Cunha Rodri-
gues, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which
it has ruled:

Under Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application 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, the application
of the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance or employment
laid down in Article 67(1) and (2) is, except in the cases expressly
referred to in Article 67(3), subject to the condition that the person
concerned has completed lastly periods of insurance or employment in
accordance with the provisions of the legislation under which the
unemployment benefits are claimed.

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.

Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/
303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that
charges constitute taxes for the purposes of that directive where they
are payable for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording
a transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, under a
system where the notaries are civil servants and the charges are paid
in part to the public authority which employs them, and used for the
financing of its official business, such as the system in force in the
district of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

21 March 2002

in Case C-264/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden): Gründerzentrum-
Betriebs-GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Raising of
capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Charges for the drawing
up of a notarially attested act recording the formation of a
capital company)

(2002/C 144/17)

Where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335,
as amended, charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
attested act recording the formation of a capital company are, in
principle, prohibited by Article 10(c) thereof.

The fact that charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
attested act recording the formation of a capital company, which
increase directly in proportion to the nominal value of the capital
raised, cannot exceed a certain maximum, is not sufficient, by itself,
to render them duties paid by way of fees or dues within the meaning
of Directive 69/335, as amended, where the amount of
that
maximum bears no relation to the costs of the service for which the
charges constitute the consideration.

(Language of the case: German)

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

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

In Case C-264/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
for a
EC by the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden (Germany)