Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

21.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 47/25

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del**
**Giudice di Pace di Gorizia by order of that Court of**
**27 November 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola**
**Tomadin Silvano and AGEA**

**(Case C-554/03)**

(2004/C 47/41)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Gorizia (Magistrate, Gorizia) of 27 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Tomadin
Silvano and AGEA on the following question:

Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 ( [1] ) of 31 March
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/921 ( [2] ) of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

( [1] ) OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 10.
( [2] ) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du**
**travail de Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, by order of that**
**Court of 15 December 2003 in the case of Magali Warbecq**
**against RYANAIR Ltd, a company incorporated under**
**Irish law**

**(Case C-555/03)**

(2004/C 47/42)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal du travail de
Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, of 15 December 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 24 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Magali Warbecq against RYANAIR Ltd, a
company incorporated under Irish law on the following
questions:

1. For the purposes of Article 19(2) of Council Regulation
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters ( [1] ), what are the relevant criteria
for determining the Contracting State on the territory of
which an employee habitually performs his work, when
that employee is employed as a member of the air crew
of an undertaking engaged in international air passenger
transport?

2. Which place should be considered as the place where or
from which such an employee in fact performs most of
his duties for his employer when the duties under the
contract of employment are to be performed partly on
the ground (airport) of a Contracting State and partly
on an aircraft which has the nationality of another
Contracting State which also recruited the employee?

( [1] ) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

**Action brought on 8 January 2004 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Republic of**
**Austria**

**(Case C-4/04)**

(2004/C 47/43)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 January
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Karen Banks and Dr Claudia Schmidt, Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC ( [1] )
of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive; and

2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the case.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The period within which the directive was to be implemented
expired on 30 July 2000.

( [1] ) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.