Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te Brussel of 23 December 2004 in the case of Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid. v N.V. Herbosch-Kiere
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, form, interpretation of the law, labour mobility, social security, worker (EU)

C 82/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
brought on 28 January 2005 by the Republic of Kazakhi-
stan Statistics Agency against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

— lift the Commission's immunity so that the funds which it
holds in favour of the judgment debtor, in this case CESD –
Communautaire a.s.b.l., may be garnisheed, there being no
argument either in law or fact that the Commission, as
garnishee, does not validly discharge its liability for the
funds which it holds provisionally to the judgment debtor's
order by paying them to the judgment creditor;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

(Case C-3/05 SA)

(2005/C 82/13)

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
28 January 2005 by the Republic of Kazakhistan Statistics
Agency, represented by R. Nathan, avocat.

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
brought on 28 January 2005 by Names b.v. against the
Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-2/05 SA)

— lift the Commission's immunity so that the funds which it
holds in favour of the judgment debtor, in this case CESD –
Communautaire a.s.b.l., may be garnisheed, there being no
argument either in law or fact that the Commission, as
garnishee, does not validly discharge its liability for the
funds which it holds provisionally to the judgment debtor's
order by paying them to the judgment creditor;

(2005/C 82/12)

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
28 January 2005 by Names b.v., represented by R. Nathan,
avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— lift the Commission's immunity so that the funds which it
holds in favour of the judgment debtor, in this case CESD –
Communautaire a.s.b.l., may be garnisheed, there being no
argument either in law or fact that the Commission, as
garnishee, does not validly discharge its liability for the
funds which it holds provisionally to the judgment debtor's
order by paying them to the judgment creditor;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te
Brussel of 23 December 2004 in the case of Rijksdienst
voor Sociale Zekerheid. v N.V. Herbosch-Kiere

(Case C-2/05)

(2005/C 82/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of 23 December 2004 of the
Arbeidshof te Brussel (Brussels Higher Labour Court), which
was received at the Court Registry on 5 January 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zeker-
heid. v N.V. Herbosch-Kiere on the following questions:

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/7

May a court of
the host State examine and/or determine
whether a direct relationship exists between the undertaking
which has posted a worker and the posted worker himself, in
view of the fact that the term ‘undertaking to which he is
normally attached’ in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 (1) requires (pursuant to Decision No 128) that there
be a direct relationship throughout the period of posting?

1. Is the requirement that the level of remuneration for the
planting of harvested material within the meaning of Article
5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 (1) be 'sensibly lower'
than the amount charged for the licensed production of
propagating material of the same variety in the same area
satisfied even if the remuneration is calculated at a flat rate
of 80 % of that amount?

that certificate if

May a court of a Member State other than that which issued
the abovementioned certificate (E 101 certificate) disregard
and/or annul
it appears from the factual
circumstances presented for its consideration that the direct
relationship between the undertaking which posted the worker
and the posted worker himself did not exist during the period
of posting?

Is the competent institution of the State of origin bound by a
decision of a court of the host State which, in circumstances
such as those set out above, disregards and/or annuls the
abovementioned certificate (E 101 certificate)?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p.
416).

References for preliminary rulings from the Bundesger-
ichtshof by orders of that court of 11 October 2004 in
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v The heirs of Dieter
Deppe: 1.Ulrich Deppe, 2. Hanne-Rose Deppe, 3. Thomas
Deppe, 4. Matthias Deppe, 5. Christine Urban, née Deppe
(C-7/05), Siegried Hennings (C-8/05) and Hartmut Lübbe
(C-9/05)

(Cases C-7/05, C-8/05, C-9/05)

(2005/C 82/15)

(Language of the cases: German)

2. Does Article 5(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 (2), contain a
commitment in value terms with respect to the level of
remuneration for the planting of harvested material in the
event of statutory assessment?

If so, does that commitment, as the expression of a general
idea, also apply to plantings of harvested material occurring
before Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 entered into force?

3. Does the guideline function of an agreement between orga-
nisations of holders of plant variety rights and farmers
within the meaning of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC)
No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98,
include the possibility, in the event of statutory assessment,
of the essential elements (calculation parameters) of that
agreement being applied even if, at the time of the calcula-
tion of the statutory remuneration, not all of the parameters
lying within the sphere of the planter of the harvested mate-
rial and required for calculation based on the agreement are
known to the holder and he is not entitled to be notified of
the relevant facts by the farmer?

If so, does such an agreement, if it is to perform a guiding
function along these lines, presuppose, for its effectiveness,
compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 5(4)
of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 2605/98, even if it was concluded before the latter
regulation entered into force?

4. Does Article 5(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98, set an upper limit
on the remuneration under contractual and/or statutory
remuneration arrangements?

5. Can an agreement between professional organisations be
used as a guideline within the meaning of Article 5(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 2605/98, if it exceeds the rate of remuneration of
50 % of the amount defined in Article 5(5) of that regu-
lation?

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by orders of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal
Court of Justice) (Germany) of 11 October 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 14 January 2005, for preliminary rulings
in the proceedings between Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs
GmbH and the heirs of Dieter Deppe: 1.Ulrich Deppe,
2. Hanne-Rose Deppe, 3. Thomas Deppe, 4. Matthias Deppe, 5.
Christine Urban, née Deppe (C-7/05), Siegried Hennings (C-8/
05) and Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05) on the following questions:

(1) OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14.
(2) OJ 1998 L 328, p. 6.