Case C-276/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 26 June 2006 — Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Morocco, cooperation agreement (EU), interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social-security harmonisation

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
travail de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 26 June 2006 —
Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions

No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p.
1) (4), as supplemented by the EC-Morocco Agreement of
26 February 1996 (OJ L 70 of 18 March 2000)?

(Case C-276/06)

(2006/C 224/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Verviers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mamate El Youssfi

Defendant: Office National des Pensions

Question referred

Is a refusal to grant statutory Guaranteed Income to Elderly
Persons on the ground that:

— (a) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of the
European Communities of 14 June 1971 does not apply to
the applicant (1);

— (b) the applicant is not a recognised stateless person or a

refugee;

— (c) the applicant is not a national of a country with which
Belgium has concluded a reciprocal convention on guaran-
teed income or in relation to which it has recognised that
de facto reciprocity exists; or that

— (d) the applicant is not entitled to any retirement or survi-

vor's pension under a Belgian scheme,

the result of:

— (1) too restrictive an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No
883/2004 of 29 April 2004 (2) (replacing Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971), in particular in the light of
Article 14 of the ECHR, Article 1 of the First Protocol
thereto and Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May
2003 (3);

or, if that is not the case,

— (2) an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that
is incompatible with the Cooperation Agreement between
the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of
Morocco, signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved
on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security
systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending
the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation
third countries who are not
(EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of
already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their
nationality (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
(OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2006 — Autorità Garante
della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente Tabacchi Italiani
— ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris
Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products
Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA

(Case C-280/06)

(2006/C 224/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v
Ente Tabacchi Italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA,
Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris
Products Inc. Philip Morris International Management SA

Questions referred

1. What, in accordance with Article 87 et seq. of the Treaty
and with the general principles of Community law, is the
criterion to be adopted in determining the undertaking on
which a penalty is to be imposed for contravention of the
rules in the sphere of competition when, in connection with
conduct penalised as a whole, the last part of those actions
was carried out by an undertaking having succeeded the
original undertaking in the economic sphere concerned
whenever the original body, while still
in existence, no
longer operates as a commercial undertaking, or at least not
in the economic sector affected by the penalty?