Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2003 in Case C-82/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie): Agence Maritime Lalemant NV v Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteurop GIE, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and between Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture — Export refunds — Conditions for payment — Leaving the geographical territory of the Community — Definition)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, customs territory (EU), customs warehouse, export, export refund, interpretation of the law, third country

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/13

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 February 2003

in Case C-23/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Office national de l’emploi v
Mohamed Alami (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — EEC-Morocco
Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 — Principle of non-
discrimination in the field of social security — Scope —
Unemployment benefit)

(2003/C 101/22)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-23/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Belgian Cour de cassation for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Office
national de l’emploi and Mohamed Alami, on the interpretation
of Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement between the
European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of
the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
12 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

On its proper construction, Article 41(1) of
the Cooperation
Agreement between the European Economic Community and the
Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 precludes a host Member State
from refusing to grant a worker of Moroccan nationality resident in
its territory the benefit of a seniority supplement increasing the basic
amount of unemployment benefit on the sole ground that there is no
international agreement providing that account is to be taken of work
carried out by that worker in another Member State, even though no
such condition is imposed on workers who are nationals of that host
Member State.

(First Chamber)

of 27 February 2003

in Case C-82/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Cassatie): Agence Maritime Lalemant NV v
Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteurop GIE, Belgisch Inter-
ventie- en Restitutiebureau and between Malzfabrik Tivo-
li GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture —
Export refunds — Conditions for payment — Leaving the
geographical territory of the Community — Definition)

(2003/C 101/23)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-82/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Agence
Maritime Lalemant NV and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteur-
op GIE, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and between
Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitu-
tiebureau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying
down common detailed rules for the application of the system
of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317,
p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/
85 of 23 December 1985 (OJ 1985 L 371, p. 1), the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Judges;
Chamber, P.
F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after
informing the referring court that the Court proposes to give
its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of
the Rules of Procedure, after inviting the persons referred to in
Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit
any observations they might have in that regard, has made an
order on 27 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:

Jann and A. Rosas

(Rapporteur),

Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of
29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products,
as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/85 of
23 December 1985 must be interpreted as meaning that the
expression ‘geographical
territory of the Community’ refers to a
physical concept and that the requirement that the product in respect
of which export refunds have been applied for must have left the
geographical territory of the Community is not satisfied either by
placing the product under customs control or by bringing it within
the customs warehousing procedure.

( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.

(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.