Case C-322/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Augsburg by order of that Court of 7 March 2002 in the proceedings between Eva-Maria Weller and Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, dental medicine, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, residence, social security

C 289/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.11.2002

3. Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/
EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC and Clause 4
of the Framework Agreement on part-time work to be
construed as meaning that it constitutes objectively
unjustified unequal
in the case of part-
treatment if,
timers, on the assumption that the vast majority of them
are women (approximately 90 % women and 10 % men),
an employer expressly rules out an agreement on the
positioning and amount of working time, whereas in the
case of full-time workers, on the assumption that women
are not in that same majority, both the amount and, to
some extent, the allocation of working time are already
laid down by statute or collective agreement?

4. Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/
EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC and Clause 4
together with Clause 1(b) (facilitation of the development
of part-time work) of the Framework Agreement on part-
time work to be construed as meaning that in order to
compensate for objectively unjustified unequal treatment
it is necessary and permissible

A with regard to the amount of working time, to
presume a definite amount and, if so, to presume

1.

normal working time, or

2.

the maximum length of weekly working time
actually worked, unless the employer can prove
that this was due to unusually high demand for
work at that particular time, or

3.

the demand ascertained at the date of con-
clusion of the contract of employment, or

4.

average weekly working time, and

B

with regard to the positioning of working time, in
order to compensate for the extra burden on the
worker caused by flexibility and for the benefit
afforded to the employer, to award the worker

1.

2.

3.

a ‘reasonable’ supplement on the hourly wage,
determined in the light of the individual cir-
cumstances in question, or

a minimum supplement equal to that paid to
full-time workers who work more than normal
working hours (eight hours a day or forty
hours a week), or

irrespective of the amount of time worked,
compensation for time not remunerated as
working time during which, under the agree-

ment, it would be possible to schedule working
time (potential working time), if the length of
prior notice of a job placement should be less
than

(a) 14 days or

(b)

a reasonable amount of time?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 4 July 2002 in the
proceedings between Finanzamt Rendsburg and Detlev
Harbs

(Case C-321/02)

(2002/C 289/16)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 4 July 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 13 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between Finanzamt Rendsburg and Detlev
Harbs on the following question:

Where the owner of a farm:

— gives up part of his farm (the entire dairy cow operation)
and leases the property necessary for that operation to
another farmer;

— and continues to farm on a not insignificant scale after

granting the lease,

may he treat the turnover from the lease — like the rest of his
turnover — under the flat-rate scheme for farmers (Article 25
of Directive 77/388/EEC), or is the turnover from the lease
taxable under the general rules?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
Augsburg by order of that Court of 7 March 2002 in the
proceedings between Eva-Maria Weller and Deutsche
Angestellten-Krankenkasse

(Case C-322/02)

(2002/C 289/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Augsburg
(Social Court, Augsburg) of 7 March 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 16 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Eva-Maria Weller and Deutsche
Angestellten-Krankenkasse on the following questions:

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/11

1. Do Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Sozialgesetzbuch (Code
of Social Law) relating to statutory sickness insurance
(‘SGB V’), which in this country make reimbursement of
the costs of dental treatment carried out by a dentist in
another Member State subject to authorisation based on
the merits of the case by the insured person’s social
security institution, infringe Articles 59 and 60 of the
EC Treaty, even where the national statutory sickness
insurance scheme is based on the benefit-in-kind principle
(and not, as in Case C-158/96 Kohll v Union des caisses
de maladie (1), on the cost-reimbursement principle)?

2.

If, depending on the answer to Question 1, the defendant
were to be required, for reasons connected with Com-
munity law, to reimburse the costs of the dental treatment
(in this case provided in the Republic of Austria), is the
amount of the claim for reimbursement governed by the
costs actually incurred or is that amount restricted to the
rates applicable under the national sickness insurance
scheme (in this case that of the Federal Republic of
Germany)?

( 1) European Court Reports 1998, page I-01931.

Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Hydrowatt
SARL (‘Hydrowatt’)

(Case C-323/02)

(2002/C 289/18)

An action against Hydrowatt Sarl (‘Hydrowatt’) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 September 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent and
E. Cabau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should order Hydrowatt to:

— pay

to the Commission the principal

25 109 euros,
23 422,91 euros, making a total of 48 531,91 euros;

together with default

sum of
interest of

— pay the Commission’s costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action seeks reimbursement of the part of a subsidy
awarded under a contract for the completion of a project ‘New

group with turbine and generator adapted for low heads’,
which was terminated by Commission under Article 8. The
contract is governed by French law and the parties have agreed
to submit any disputes to the Court of Justice of the European
Communities.

Appeal brought on 18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 Sep-
tember 2002) by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH
against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1
SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonis-
ation of the Internal Market

(Case C-329/02 P)

(2002/C 289/19)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1
SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation
of the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 September 2002) by
SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, represented by Reinhard
Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, Büsing, Müffelmann and Theye,
Marktstraße 3, D-28195 Bremen, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

set aside the contested judgment (1),
in so far as it
dismissed the action (2) as formulated in the form of order
sought;

2.

order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘the Regu-
lation’):
the Court erred in law in finding that
Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation also pursues the general
interest objective of allowing signs covered by that
provision to be used freely by everyone. There is,
however, no evident reason to assume that indications
which are merely not suitable for distinguishing goods or
services according to their origin must be available for
free use. In the present case it was therefore necessary for
the Court to examine whether the compound sign ‘SAT.2’