Case C-154/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank (District Court) Amsterdam by order of that court of 4 April 2005 in J.J. Kersbergen-Lap and D. Dams-Schipper v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, legal rule, non-contributory benefit, social security

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-
Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 23 March 2005
in Jean Leon Van Straaten v Netherlands State and Italian
Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
(District Court) Amsterdam by order of that court of 4
April 2005 in J.J. Kersbergen-Lap and D. Dams-Schipper v
Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werkne-
mersverzekeringen

(Case C-150/05)

(2005/C 155/05)

(Case C-154/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(2005/C 155/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch
(Netherlands) of 23 March 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 23 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Jean Leon Van Straaten and the Netherlands State and
the Italian Republic on the following questions:

1. What

is to be understood by the same acts within the
meaning of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the
Schengen Agreement (CISA)? (1) (Is having at one's disposal
approximately 1 000 grams of heroin in the Netherlands in
or around the period from 27 to 30 March 1983 the same
act as being in possession of approximately five kilograms
of heroin in Italy on or about 27 March 1983, regard being
had to the fact that the consignment of heroin in the Neth-
erlands formed part of the consignment of heroin in Italy?
Is exporting a consignment of heroin from Italy to the Neth-
erlands the same act as importing the same consignment of
heroin from Italy into the Netherlands, regard also being
had to the fact that Mr Van Straaten's fellow accused in the
Netherlands and Italy are not entirely the same? Having
regard to the acts as a whole, consisting of possessing the
heroin in question in Italy, exporting it
from Italy,
importing it into the Netherlands and having it at one's
disposal in the Netherlands, are those ‘the same acts’?)

2. Is a person's trial disposed of, for the purposes of Article 54
of the CISA, if the charge brought against that person has
been declared not to have been legally and satisfactorily
proved and that person has been acquitted on that charge
by way of a judgment?

(1) The Schengen acquis – Agreement between the Governments of the
States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of
Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of
checks at their common borders (OJ L 239 of 22 September 2000,
pp. 13 to 18).

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Rechtbank (District Court)
Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 4 April 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 6 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between J.J. Kersbergen-Lap and D. Dams-Schipper
and Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werkne-
mersverzekeringen on the following question:

‘Must a benefit under the Wajong, listed in Annex IIa to Regu-
lation No 1408/71 (1), be deemed to be a special non-contribu-
tory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No
1408/71 with the result that only the coordinating provision
introduced by Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be
applied to persons such as the plaintiffs in the main proceed-
ings and the Wajong benefit cannot therefore be paid to a
person residing outside the Netherlands?’

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 L
136, 19/05/1992 p. 1)