CELEX: C2000/285/05
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-290/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria, by a decision of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Johann Franz Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

C 285/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.10.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches                     21 June 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February 2000                 24 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fincantieri
in the case of Medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann                    — Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v
     GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz                         Federico Bianchi and Others, on the following questions:
                         (Case C-263/00)
                                                                         Must Articles 1(2)(e) and 2(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                         No 3541/92 (1) of 7 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning
                         (2000/C 285/03)                                 that Italian natural persons (in this case the respondent
                                                                         lawyers) are not permitted, in reliance on a transfer of a claim
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   pro solvendo (for payment of fees for legal representation) by an
European Communities by order of the Hessiches Finanzger-                Iraqi subject (in this case Rafidain Bank), to require in Italy
icht (Finance Court, Hessen) of 21 February 2000, received at            from an Italian legal person (in this case Fincantieri and
the Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling             Finmeccanica) payment in respect of an award of costs to the
in the case of Medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann                    Iraqi subject (the transferor of the claim) contained in an Italian
GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (Principal                   judgment which has become res judicata?
Revenue Office, Koblenz) on the following questions:
a)    Does the description ‘orthopaedic appliances’ within the
      meaning of CN Code No 9021 cover functional knee                   (1) OJ L 361 of 10.12.1992, p. 1.
      supports with tracking stays and functional knee orthoses
      with a supportive effect, consisting essentially of neo-
      prene, with two removable aluminium side stays, 30 cm
      and 37 cm long respectively, with extension-limited
      polycentric joints and two Velcro fastening straps, where
      proper use of each of the above appliances requires an
      individual setting of the joints with extension-limiting
      wedges?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
b)    Does the term ‘solely’, used in Note 1(b) of CN Chapter 90
                                                                         Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria, by a decision of
      and in Note 2(b) to CN Chapters 61 and 62 allow the
                                                                         that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Johann Franz
      elasticity of the material to be regarded as the sole relevant
                                                                         Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten
      criterion even if the supportive function is strengthened
      by other materials?
                                                                                                  (Case C-290/00)
c)    If Question b) is answered in the affirmative:
      Is General Rule A.3(b) in the General rules for the                                         (2000/C 285/05)
      interpretation of the comined nomenclature suitable for
      determining the question when the supportive function              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      of the other materials is predominant, or what other               European Communities by a decision of the Oberster Gerichts-
      criteria should be used to determine the question?                 hof (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 27 June
                                                                         2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 July
                                                                         2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Franz
                                                                         Duchon v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on
                                                                         the following questions:
                                                                         1.    Does the situation of an employed person who, as a
                                                                               national of a country which is now a Member State, was
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                     employed prior to the accession of that Member State in
di Genova, First Civil Division, by order of that court of                     another Member State and sustained an accident there,
21 June 2000 in the case of Fincantieri — Cantieri Navali                      fall within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC)
Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi                           No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971(1) on the application of
                            and Others                                         social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                               employed persons and to members of their families
                         (Case C-289/00)                                       moving within the Community, as amended and updated
                                                                               by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
                                                                               1983 (2), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (2000/C 285/04)
                                                                               No 1249/92 of 30 April 1992 (3), where the person
                                                                               concerned applies for an occupational disability pension
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         after the accession of the Member State and the accident
European Communities by an order of First Civil Division of                    at work can have the effect of establishing entitlement to
the Corte di Appello di Genova (Genoa Appeal Court) of                         an occupational disability pension?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 285/3
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:                 May a Member State continue, in particular after the adoption
                                                                            of Directive 92/51/EEC on a second general recognition
                                                                            system (1), to reserve an activity allied to medicine, such as that
2.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now                       of a non-medical practitioner under the German Heilpraktiker-
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) and Regulation (EEC)                        gesetz (Law on non-medical practitioners, RGBl I 251/1939)
      No 1408/71 to be interpreted as precluding national                   in the version currently in force, to holders of the diploma of
      rules which, for the qualifying period for a benefit                  doctor, or is that now precluded in particular by Article 43
      stemming from the insurance contingency of reduced                    EC (formerly Article 52 of the EC Treaty) on freedom of
      capacity for work not to apply, require not only that the             establishment and Article 50 EC (formerly Article 60 of the EC
      insurance contingency is the result of an accident at work,           Treaty) on freedom to provide services?
      but also that the insurance contingency materialised in
      respect of a person insured compulsorily with a pension
      insurance institution under the (Austrian) Allgemeines                Do the said provisions of European law preclude national
      Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social Secur-               provisions which reserve training for activities which are
      ity) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or in respect           regulated by legal provisions in the field of health to the
      of a person insured privately under Paragraph 19a of the              institutions designated for that purpose and prohibit the
      (Austrian) Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG)               offering or procuring of such training by other persons or
      and therefore do not cover accidents at word sustained                institutions and advertising therefor, even if that training
      during employment in other Member States?                             relates only to certain branches of medical activity?
3.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) to be interpreted as contrary to
      Article 9a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and national                (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
      rules which preclude in general any prolongation of the
      reference period in respect of the period during which a
      pension is received or limits such prolongation to cases
      of entitlement to a pension stemming from the statutory
      accident insurance of the Member State concerned?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 2.
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Action brought on 1 August 2000 by the Commission of
(3) OJ 1992 136, p. 28.                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                      (Case C-295/00)
                                                                                                      (2000/C 285/07)
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 13 July                     for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
2000 in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulsen für                        Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
          Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-294/00)
                                                                            (a)   declare that, by maintaining in force a tax payable by
                                                                                  passengers disembarking or embarking in the ports of
                          (2000/C 285/06)                                         Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers arrive
                                                                                  from, or are travelling to, ports in another Member State
                                                                                  or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-                        territory, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 13 July 2000, which was                          its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a prelimi-                    (EEC) No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the
nary ruling in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für                        principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner on the following                           transport between Member States and between Member
questions:                                                                        States and third countries;