Case C-230/04: Action brought on 2 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2004-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, civil service, free movement of workers, medical institution, migrant worker, professional experience, seniority

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case
of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against
in Agricoltura (AGEA) and
Agenzia per le erogazioni

Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia

gericht in Bremen (Germany) of 27 May 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 2 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads,
Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim
Nitschke, on the following questions:

(Case C-224/04)

(2004/C 201/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Tribunale di Gorizia
pean Communities by order of
(District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against
Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat
Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following question:

— Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and
milk products must therefore be determined in the light of
the provisions of Community law under which that levy
was introduced and the basic rules governing its application
were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of
31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28
December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No
856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regu-
lation No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as
meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products
is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result
that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities
allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a
result of negligence?

1. Is

it

1(1)

of Directive
compatible with Article
85/577/EEC (1) for the rights of consumers,
in particular
their right of cancellation, to be made subject not only to
the existence of a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in
Article 1(1) of the directive but also to additional criteria for
responsibility, such as a trader's deliberate use of a third
party in the conclusion of the agreement or a trader's negli-
gence in respect of the third party's conduct in connection
with the doorstep selling?

2. Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC
for a mortgage borrower, who not only concluded the loan
agreement in a doorstep-selling situation but also arranged,
in that situation, for the loan to be paid into an account
which, in practice, is no longer at his disposal, to have to
pay back the loan to the lender
is
cancelled?

the agreement

if

3. Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC
for the mortgage borrower, if he is required to pay back the
loan following cancellation, to have to do so not on the
instalment repayment dates laid down in the agreement but
immediately in a one-off sum?

4. Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC
for the mortgage borrower,
if he is also required to pay
back the loan following cancellation, to have to pay interest
on it at the normal market rate?

(1) OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 372, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hanseatisches
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of 27
May 2004 in case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against
Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche,
and Joachim Nitschke.

(Case C-229/01)

(2004/C 201/17)

Action brought on 2 June 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-230/04)

(2004/C 201/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hanseatisches Oberlandes-

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

C 201/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.8.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not allowing to be taken into account the
experience and seniority, in another Member State's public
sector, of Community nationals who join the French
hospital public service, the French Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement of workers within the Com-
munity (1);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the
other part, concluded on 16 December 1991 and published
in OJ 1993 L 347, provide a proper and sufficient legal
basis for conferring on the European Community power to
conclude the Community Agreement between the European
Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal
protection and control of wine names of 29 November
1993 (OJ 1993 L 337), with particular reference to Article
65(1), to joint declaration no 13 and to Annex XIII (points
3, 4 and 5) of the European Agreement of 1991 on the
possible reservation of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of
the Member States in the matter of national geographical
names used with reference to food and wine and restraint
of any transfer of jurisdiction of competence in that matter
to the European Community?

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States are required to take into account, for the
purposes of migrant workers' recruitment to, and grading and
determination of seniority in their public services, employment
periods in a comparable field of activity in another Member
State, on the same conditions as apply to seniority and profes-
sional experience attained in the workers' own systems. The
French provisions in force do not allow the experience and
seniority,
in another Member State's public sector, of Com-
munity nationals who join the French hospital public service to
be taken into account.

2. In view of what is said in opinion no 1/94 of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities concerning the exclu-
sive jurisdiction of the European Community, should the
Community Agreement between the European Community
and the Republic of Hungary on the protection and control
of wine names of 29 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337),
which specifies the protection of geographical names which
have intellectual and commercial property significance, be
declared invalid and of no effect within the Community
legal order because the agreement itself has not been rati-
fied by the individual Member States of the European Com-
munity?

(1) OJ L 257, of 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
court of 23 February 2004 in the case of Confcooperative
Unione Regionale della Cooperazione FVG Federagricole
and Others against Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e
Forestali and Regione Veneto

3. In the event that the Community Agreement of 1993 (OJ
1993 L 337) is to be regarded as lawful and applicable in
its entirety, should the prohibition of the use in Italy after
2007 of the name “Tocai”, which arises from the exchange
of letters between the parties to the agreement, annexed to
the agreement, be regarded as invalid and of no effect
because it is inconsistent with the rules governing geogra-
phical homonyms established in the agreement itself (see
Article 4(5) of the protocol to the agreement)?

(Case C-231/04)

(2004/C 201/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale per il Lazio of 23 February 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Confcooperative Unione Regionale della Cooperazione
FVG Federagricole and Others against Ministero delle Politiche
Agricole e Forestali and Regione Veneto on the following ques-
tions:

‘1. Can the Europe Agreement establishing an association
between the European Communities and their Member

that

4. Should the Second Joint Declaration annexed to the 1993
the
(OJ 1993 L 337), which implies
agreement
contracting parties were unaware, at the time of their nego-
tiations, of
the existence of homonyms connected with
European and Hungarian wines, be regarded as a clear
the Italian and
misrepresentation of reality (given that
Hungarian names used to refer to “Tocai” wines have
existed alongside each other for centuries, were officially
recognised in 1948 in an agreement between Italy and
Hungary and were recently brought within the scope of
Community law) such as to render null and void that part
of the 1993 agreement which prohibits the use in Italy of
the name Tocai, on the basis of Article 48 of the Vienna
convention on the law of the Treaties?