Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

10 . 8 . 96 EN Official Journal of the European Communities No C 233 / 5

into and out of the European Community ( ), as
subsequently amended, be interpreted as also including
waste which for the most part consists of the solid plastic
wastes referred to in Annex II to the Regulation, but also
of various other wastes referred to in that Annex and a

small quantity of materials not referred to therein ?

2, ( a ) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, should
the phrase ' storage of materials intended for
submission to any operation in this Annex ' in
Annex IIB to Council Directive 75 / 442 / EEC of

15 July 1975 on waste ( 2 ), as subsequently
amended, be interpreted as covering not only
storage at the plant in which the other operations
referred to in the Annex will take place, but also
storage pending transport to such a plant,
regardless of whether that plant is situated inside or
outside the Community ?

( b ) If the first part of this question is answered in the
affirmative, what minimum evidence must be
available for a finding that the waste is actually
intended for recovery, where notification has not
been given ?

3 . If Questions 1 and 2 ( a ) are answered in the affirmative,
must it then be inferred from the third sentence of

Article 26 ( 2 ) of the Regulation that, in the cases to
which that provison refers, the competent authority of
destination is also obliged, or at any rate authorized, to
do what the competent authority of dispatch is obliged
to do pursuant to the first sentence of that
provision ?

(') OJ No L 30, 1993, p . 1 .
Ç -) OJ No L 194, 1975, p . 47 .

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996

in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v . Freistaat Bayern

( Case C-194 / 96 )

( 96 / C 233 / 07 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the 10th Chamber of
the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 30 April

1 996, which was received at the Court Registry on 1 0 June
1 996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern

( Federal State of Bavaria ) v . Hilmar Kulzer on the following
questions :

1, ( a ) Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408 / 71 ('), in
particular Article 73 thereof, apply if the child in
respect of whom family benefits are sought, but not
the person entitled to benefits him or herself ( in

particular an employed or self-employed person ),
has exercised the right to freedom of movement
within the European Community ?

( b ) Is it relevant in that respect whether the other
parent moved with the child to another Member
State and pursued an activity there as an employed
or self-employed person until his or her death ?

2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a retired
police officer a civil servant within the meaning of
Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408 / 71 ?

C ) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .

Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of the

European Communities against the French Republic

( Case C-197 / 96 )

( 96 / C 233 / 08 )

An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Marie
Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— declare that, by maintaining, in Article L 213-1 of the

Code du Travail ( Employment code ), a prohibition of
night work for women in industry, whereas no such
prohibition exists in relation to men, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5 ( 1 ) of Directive 76 / 207 / EEC of 9 February
1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions ( 1 ),

— order the French Republic to pay the costs .

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support :

In consequence of the denunciation by the French
Government of ILO Convention No 89, the obligations
imposed by that Convention on France in relation to third
countries, as recognized by the Court of Justice in the
judgment in Levy ( 2 ), ceased to exist with effect from
February 1993 . The retention, without amendment, of the
text of the legislation referred to in the wording of the form
of order sought gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs .
Save where it is of a binding nature, a ministerial reply to a
parliamentary question C ) does not constitute an adequate
adaptation of the legislative provisions in force in France .
Lastly, the existence of collective agreements negotiated in

No C 233 / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10 . 8 . 96

certain sectors is not enough to bring the infringement to an Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
end, given that the wording of Article 213-1, which subsists 1 996, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
in the French Code du Travail, simply prohibits night 1 996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires de
working for women in industry as a whole . Thérapeutique Moderne ( LTM ) v. Fonds d' Intervention et

de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the
C ) OJ No L 39, 1976, p . 40 . following question :

certain sectors is not enough to bring the infringement to an
end, given that the wording of Article 213-1, which subsists
in the French Code du Travail, simply prohibits night
working for women in industry as a whole .

( 2 ) Case C-158 / 91 Levy [ 1993J ECR 1-4300 .

( 3 ) In response to the letter giving formal notice and the reasoned

opinion, the French Government relied on a communication
published on 13 December 1993 in the Official Journal of the
French Republic, p . 4517 et seq .

Having regard to their composition, presentation and
purpose, do the products ' Alvityl 50 Dragées ' and
' Strongenol 20 Ampoules ' fall within the scope of
subheading 21 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1010 / 86 of
25 March 1986 on the classification of goods or Chapter 30
of the Common Customs Tariff ( 1 ) ?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht t 1 ) OJ No L 94, 9 . 4 . 1986, p . 9 .
Kôln by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the
interlocutory proceedings between Metronome Musik

GmbH and Music Point Hokamp GmbH

( Case C-200 / 96 )

( 96 / C 233 / 09 ) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht Kôln

( Regional Court, Cologne ) of 18 April 1 996, which was
received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1996, for a
preliminary ruling in the interlocutory proceedings between
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp
GmbH on the following question :

Is the introduction of an exclusive rental right, contrary to
the principle of the exhaustion of distribution rights, by
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 92 / 100 / EEC of
19 November 1992 on rental rights and lending rights and
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
intellectual property ( 1 ) compatible with Community law, in
particular Community fundamental rights ?

n OJ No L 346, 1992, p . 61 .

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April

1996 in the case of Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne

( LTM ) v. Fonds d' Intervention et de Régularisation du

Marché du Sucre ( FIRS )

( Case C-201 / 96 )

( 96 / C 233 / 10 )

1996 in the case of Laboratoires Valda v . Fonds

d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre

( FIRS )

( Case C-202 / 96 )

( 96 / C 233 / 11 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
1996, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires
Valda v . Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du
Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the following questions :

— May Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 717 / 85 of
19 March 1985 on the classification of goods within
subheading 17.04 D I of the common customs tariff ( 1 )
be interpreted as referring to goods whose composition

( percentage by weight ) is different from that indicated in
Article 1 of that Regulation ?

— If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must

Chapter 30.04 of the customs nomenclature, which
refers to medicaments, be interpreted as including a
product which contains sugar but above all active
flavouring agents having medicinal properties in such a
proportion that it is used essentially for therapeutic and
prophylactic purposes ?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal (') OJ No L 78, 21 . 3 . 1985, p . 13 .