Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child care, family benefit, interpretation of the law, residence, social security

C 323/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
19 of that directive;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2002.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 November 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 5 November 2002

in Case C-325/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent
effect — Label of origin and quality)

(2002/C 323/18)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-325/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. C. Schieferer and C. Schmidt) v Federal Republic of
Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by
M. Loschelder): Application for a declaration that by awarding
the quality label ‘Markenqualität aus deutschen Landen’ (quality
label for produce made in Germany) to finished products of a
certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by awarding the quality label ‘Marenqualität aus
deutschen Landen’ (quality label for produce made in Germany)
to finished products of a certain quality made in Germany, the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 28 EC);

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home
child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)

(2002/C 323/19)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

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

In Case C-333/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tarkastuslautakunta (Finland) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by Eila
Päivikki Maaheimo, on the interpretation of Articles 4(1)(h),
10(a), 73 and 75 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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), the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. A benefit such as the home child-care allowance provided for by
the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law
No 1128/96 on home child-care allowance and private child-
care allowance) is a family benefit within the meaning of
Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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.

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/17

2. On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/
71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the
grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the
main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
territory of the competent Member State, that condition must
be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of
another Member State.

( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v
Österreichische Nationalbank (1),

(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
Annex I B)

(2002/C 323/20)

(Language of the case: German)

2.

3.

directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
down by Article 10 of that directive.

far from depriving it of

In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
and I B to Directive 92/50,
its
effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
directive. When, following the classification thus made by
reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
authority to separate from the contract in question the services
referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
respect of them.

It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
Annex I A to the Directive.

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

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

In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it
has ruled:

1.

The determination of the regime applicable to public service
contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the

in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
Dimosio (1)

(Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
transport and transport to third countries)

(2002/C 323/21)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-