Judgment of the Court of 21 October 2003 In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Belgische Staat v Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren (C-261/01) and between Belgische Staat and Openbaar Slachthuis NV (C-262/01) (Aid financed by parafiscal charges — Compulsory charges to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production — Retroactive effect of the charges — Validity of a Commission decision concerning State aid — Powers of the Commission)
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, tax system

13.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

2.

3.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;

2.

Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.

The connections which must link films in order that they can
come within the exception laid down for ‘series’ by Article 11(3)
of Directive 89/552 must relate to the content of the films
concerned, such as, for example, the development of the same
story from one episode to another or the reappearance of one or
more characters in different episodes.

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-245/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): RTL
Television GmbH v Niedersächsische Landesmedienan-
stalt für privaten Rundfunk (1)

(Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 11(3) — Television broad-
casting — Television advertising — Advertising breaks in
audiovisual works — Definition of ‘series’)

(2003/C 304/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-245/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between RTL Television GmbH and Nieder-
sächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk, on the
interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/
EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1.

covered by the

term ‘films made

Films which have been made for television and which provide,
from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising
are
in
Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as
amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 30 June 1997.

television’

for

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 October 2003

In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwer-
pen): Belgische Staat v Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren
(C-261/01) and between Belgische Staat and Openbaar
Slachthuis NV (C-262/01) (1)

(Aid financed by parafiscal charges — Compulsory charges
to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production
— Retroactive effect of the charges — Validity of a
Commission decision concerning State aid — Powers of the
Commission)

(2003/C 304/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01: Reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Hof van Beroep te
Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings pending before that court between Belgische Staat and
Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren (C-261/01) and between
Belgische Staat and Openbaar Slachthuis NV (C-262/01), on
the interpretation of Community law,
in particular of
Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) and Article 173
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and
of the Commission Decision of 9 August 1996 relating to aid
measure No N 366/96, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gul-
mann,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges;
F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which
it has ruled:

C 304/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.12.2003

1. Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) must be
interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in
the main proceedings, the levying of charges which finance
specifically an aid scheme that has been declared compatible
with the common market by a Commission decision, in so far
as those charges are imposed retroactively in respect of a period
prior to the date of that decision.

2.

The Commission Decision of 9 August 1996 relating to aid
measure No N 366/96 does not approve the retroactive effect
of the Law of 23 March 1998 on the establishment of a
budgetary fund for the health and quality of animals and
animal products.

(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 October 2003

in Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Eran
Abatay and Others (C-317/01) Nadi Sahin (C-369/01) v
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Interpretation of Article 41(1)
of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/
80 — Abolition of restrictions on the freedom of movement
for workers, on the freedom of establishment and on the
freedom to provide services — ‘Standstill’ clauses — Direct
effect — Scope — Legislation of a Member State requiring a
work permit in the international road haulage sector)

(2003/C 304/06)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01: Reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundessozialgericht
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Eran Abatay and Others (C-317/01)
Nadi Sahin (C-369/01) and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the
interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol
signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded,
approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972
(JO 1972 L 293, p. 1) and of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80

of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association,
adopted by the Association Council set up by the Association
Agreement between the European Economic Community and
Turkey, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which it has
ruled:

— Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed at Brussels on
23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed
on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, and of Article 13 of
Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development
of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up
by the Association Agreement between the European Economic
Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that:
those two provisions have direct effect in the Member States so
that Turkish nationals to whom they apply are entitled to rely
on them before the national courts to prevent the application of
inconsistent rules of national law;

— Article 41(1) and Article 13 prohibit generally the introduction
of new national restrictions on the right of establishment and
the freedom to provide services and freedom of movement for
workers from the date of the entry into force in the host Member
State of the legal measure of which those articles are part;

— Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 is applicable to Turkish
nationals only if their residence in the territory of the host
Member State is not only lawful but for a sufficient period to
allow them progressively to become integrated there;

— in circumstances such as those in the cases in the main
is
proceedings, Article 41(1) of
applicable to international road haulage of goods originating
in Turkey, where those services are carried out in the territory of
a Member State;

the Additional Protocol

— the protection of Article 41(1) can be relied on not only by an
undertaking established in Turkey which performs services in a
Member State but also by the employees of such an undertaking
to preclude a new restriction on the freedom to provide services;
however, it may not be relied on to that end by an undertaking
established in a Member State where those using the services
are established in the same Member State;