Case C-231/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Jonkman
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, interest, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social security, social-security contribution

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/9

Question referred

Should shelled pumpkin seeds from pumpkins cultivated as
vegetables, which have lost their ability to germinate and are
intended for the baking industry, be classified under subheading
1209 91 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (1) or under
subheading 1212 99 80 of the CN?

(1) Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff — OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the
consequences of an incorrect Community transit opera-
tion?

(2) In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is

Article 11a(2) applicable?

(3) Is the question of whether the customs authorities have
competence to be determined according to the criteria laid
down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of
Regulation No 92/2913/EEC (3)?

(1) OJ L 107, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 253, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Mili-
tzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-230/06)

(2006/C 190/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze

Question(s) referred

(1)

(a) Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC (1), as
amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC (2),
to be
interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit
within which the administration of the customs office
of departure must communicate the fact that goods
moving under the Community transit procedure have
not been discharged is applicable in a case where
discharge by the customs office of destination is
evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not
easily discernible?

(b) For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision,
are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court
of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applic-
able?

(c) In circumstances such as those under consideration, is
it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 —
Office national des pensions v Jonkman

(Case C-231/06)

(2006/C 190/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national des pensions

Defendant: Émilienne Jonkman

Questions referred

1. With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of
the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
ticular
to become
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment
(a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions
recovery of which would be time-barred under the legisla-
tion applicable in that State in the case of the latter category
of persons?

C 190/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
applicable time-limit
the contributions
which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of
that legislation?

recovery of

for

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national des pensions

Defendant: Hélène Vercheval

2. With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the
Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third sub-
paragraph of Article 16b(4))

Questions referred

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
to become
ticular
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large
amount of late payment interest recovery of which would
be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State
in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest
due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progres-
sive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 —
Office national des pensions v Vercheval

(Case C-232/06)

(2006/C 190/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

1. With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of
the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2)):

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
ticular
to become
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment
(a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions
recovery of which would be time-barred under the legisla-
tion applicable in that State in the case of the latter category
of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
applicable time-limit
the contributions
which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of
that legislation?

recovery of

for

2. With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the
Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third sub-
paragraph of Article 16b(4))

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
to become
ticular
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large
amount of late payment interest recovery of which would
be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State
in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be
interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation
contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that
there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the
time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest
due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progres-
sive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).