Case C-159/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, decision, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, legal action

C 169/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

1.2.2.2.
Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries
of that motorway?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft

1.3.

If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative:

(Case C-160/02)

1.3.1.
Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or,
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired?

If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
1.3.2.
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed?

(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32.
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42.
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail
Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.

(2002/C 169/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
following question:

Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
Council 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 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
of that benefit?

(Case C-159/02)

(2002/C 169/32)

(1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
(2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit,
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question:

‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly
before the English courts?’

Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-161/02)

(2002/C 169/34)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.