Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

4.5.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 109/27

account of the substitutive nature of certain food and drink **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht**
products (such as, in particular, breakfast cereals enriched with **Stuttgart by order of that Court of 8 February 2002 in the**
vitamin D). **case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg against**
**Elisabeth Huttenlocher**

**(Case C-43/02)**
( [1] ) Council Directive 89/398 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
(2002/C 109/45)
nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27, as amended).
( [2] ) Council Directive 89/107/EEC on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for
use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (OJ 1989
L 40, p. 27, as amended). Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
(Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 11 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 February 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg
against Elisabeth Huttenlocher on the following question:

Is the second part of Article 2 of Directive 85/577/EEC( [1] ) to
be interpreted as meaning that a close dependant (in this case
an unmarried partner) is also acting ‘in the name or on behalf
of a trader’ where that person as a consumer takes out a loan
with a trader, the trader makes the loan subject to a security
(assumption of joint liability), makes the requisite form
available to that person and the borrower presents the form
for signature to his close dependant in the residence which
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ålands För-** they share?
**valtningsdomstol by judgment of that Court of 5 February**
**2002 in the proceedings, brought by Diana Elisabeth**
**Lindman** ( [1] ) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985, p. 31.

**(Case C-42/02)**

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vantaan Kärä-**
(2002/C 109/44) **jäoikeus by order of that Court of 1 February 2002 in the**
**case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab**

**(Case C-46/02)**

(2002/C 109/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Ålands Förvaltningsdomstol (Administrative Court, Åland, Finland) of
5 February 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 February Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceeding, brought by European Communities by order of the Vantaan Käräjäoikeus
Diana Elisabeth Lindman on the following question: (District Court, Vantaa) of 1 February 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 18 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
on the following questions:
Does Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European
Communities preclude a Member State from applying rules
1) May the requirement in Article 7(1) of the directive( [1] ) for
under which lottery winnings from lotteries held in other
Member States are included in the taxable income of the a link between the investment and the making of the
database be interpreted in the sense that the ‘obtaining’
winner on assessment to income tax, whereas lottery winnings
referred to in Article 7(1) and the investment directed at
from lotteries held in the Member State in question are exempt
from tax. it refers, in the present case, to investment which is
directed at the determination of the dates of the matches
and the match pairings themselves and, when the criteria
for granting protection are appraised, does the drawing
up of the fixture list include investment which is not
relevant?

C 109/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 4.5.2002

2) Is the object of the directive to provide protection in such **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat**
a way that persons other than the authors of the fixture **(Belgium) Section d’administration, by judgment of 8 Feb-**
list may not, without authorisation, use the data in that **ruary 2002 in the case of Commune de Braine-le-Château**
fixture list for betting or other commercial purposes? **against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste**
**Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt**

3) For the purposes of the directive, does the use by Veikkaus
relate to a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
quantitatively, of the database, having regard to the fact
**(Case C-53/02)**
that, of the data in the fixture list, on each occasion only
data necessary for one week is used in the weekly pools
coupons, and the fact that the data relating to the matches
is obtained and verified from sources other than the
maker of the database continuously throughout the (2002/C 109/48)
season?

( [1] ) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77,
p. 20).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
(Council of State), Belgium (Administrative Section) of 8 February 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 February 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Commune de Braine-leChâteau against Région Wallonne — Interveners: BIFFA Waste
Services SA, Philippe Feron and Philippe De Codt, on the
following question:

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-** 1. Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
**Holsteinen Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that** Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
**Court of 31 January 2002 in the administrative-law case** on waste( [1] ), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
**of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and 3. Albertus Snoek** 18 March 1991( [2] ), to draw up one or more waste
**against Federal Republic of Germany** management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
**(Case C-47/02)** a geographical map the precise locations of the planned
waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria
which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent
(2002/C 109/47)
authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9
of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation
is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holsteinen 2. Do Articles 4,5 and 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Administrative Court, Schles- by Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction
wig-Holstein) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court with Article 9 of Directive 75/442, preclude a Member
Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the State which has not adopted within the period prescribed
administrative-law case of 1. Albert Anker, 2. Klaas Ras, and one or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable
3. Albertus Snoek against Federal Republic of Germany on the disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
following question: permits to operate waste disposal installations, such as
landfills?

Are provisions of national law which require the nationality of
the flag State — in this instance German nationality — for the
exercise of the activity of master (captain) of a vessel used in
small-scale maritime shipping and flying the flag of that ( [1] ) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
Member State compatible with Article 39 of the Treaty ( [2] ) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
establishing the European Community?