CELEX: C1996/133/28
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad van State, by judgment of that court of 22 February 1996 in the case of H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Case C-57/96)

4 . 5 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133 / 13
federation in order to be able to compete in an international           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Raad van
competition, and which lay down national entry quotas or                State, by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996 in the
similar competitions, are contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in            case of VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, represented
particular Articles 59 to 66 and Articles 85 and 86 .                   by the Flemish Government, Intercommunale Maatschappij
                                                                        voor Gas en Eletriciteit van het Westen and Others
                                                                                                      intervening
                                                                                                   Case C-56/96 )
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 133/27 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Appello, Milan, First Civil Division, by order of 30 January            European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Raad
1996 in the non-contentious proceedings brought before it               van State ( State Council ) of 14 February 1996 , which was
                      by Job Centre Coop. arl.                          received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for a
                           ( Case C-55/96 )                             preliminary ruling in the case of VT4 Limited v . Vlaamse
                             ( 96/C 133/26 )                            Gemeenschap, represented by the Flemish Government,
                                                                        Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en Elektriciteit van
                                                                        het Westen and Others intervening on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question:
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello,
Milan, First Civil Division, of 30 January 1996, which was              at the time of the contested decision, may regard be had, for
received at the Court Registry on 23 February 1996 , for a              the purposes of interpreting Article 2 of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the non-contentious proceedings                   89/552/EEC of 3 October 1 989 ( 1 ) with regard to its scope
brought before that court by Job Centre Coop , arl on the               ratione personae, to abovementioned draft and proposal of
following questions :                                                   31 May 1995 ( 2 ) of the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities and to the abovementioned text provisionally
 1 . May the provisions of Italian national law contained in            adopted by the Council of Ministers of the European
      Article 11(1 ) of Law No 264 of 29 April 1949 and                 Communities on 20 November 1995 ? If so, what meaning
      Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960 ,                 overlapping the three different texts must be inferred for the
      whereby the business of acting as an intermediary and             purposes of that interpretation ?
      negotiator between those seeking and those offering
      employment is prohibited unless carried on by the public          (M OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p . 23 .
      offices specified in those provisions, be regarded as             ( 2 ) OJ No C 185 , 1995 , p . 4 .
      relating to the exercise of official authority within the
      meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
      55 of the EC Treaty in view of the fact that they are
      treated by Italian law as relating to matters of public
      policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
      workers and the national economy ?                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad
                                                                        van State, by judgment of that court of 22 February 1996
2 . Must those provisions, in view of their general scope,              in the case of H. Meints v. Minister van Landbouw,
       be regarded as conflicting with the principles of                                     Natuurbeheer en Visserij
       Community law laid down by Articles 8 , 49, 55 , 59, 60,                                     Case C-57/96
       62 , 66 , 86 and 90 of the said Treaty concerning the right                                   96/C 133 /28
      to work, freedom of economic initiative, freedom of
      movement for workers and others, freedom of supply
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and demand for work and services, free and fair
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Netherlands
      competition between economic agents and the abuse of               Raad van State ( State Council ) of 22 February 1 996 , which
       dominant positions ?
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 26 February 1996 , for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Meints v. Minister
 3 . In the event that the abovementioned legislation of the
                                                                         van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( Minister for
       Italian State concerning employment agency business is
                                                                         Agriculture, Nature Conservancy and Fisheries ) on the
       in breach of the principles of Community law mentioned
                                                                         following questions :
       in the foregoing question, must the judicial and
       administrative     authorities   of that    Member    State
                                                                         1 , does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 apply to a benefit
       consider themselves bound to apply those principles                     such as that provided for in the Vergoedingsregeling
       directly, allowing public and private bodies and                       voor Uitreding van Werknemers in de Landbouw
       undertakings to act as intermediaries between those                     ( Compensation Rules for Workers Leaving Farming )
       offering and those seeking employment and temporary                     which does not depend on the duration of
       work, subject to compliance with the provisions                         unemployment and forms part of a scheme of measures
       governing employment contracts and mandatory social                     for the structural improvement of the agricultural sector
       security and subject to the controls provided for by                    which emphasizes the promotion of the complete or
       law ?
                                                                               partial cessation of farming and the abandonment of
                                                                               farming by farmers ? What other circumstances may also
                                                                               be relevant ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
2 , if Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a benefit                3 , the standard cable television agreement of 29 May
      granted under the Vergoedingsregeling ( 1 ) to be regarded                1985 and/or agreements deriving therefrom are
      as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 )              incompatible with Article 7 of the EC Treaty;
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ? If so, is the
      imposition of the requirement that the worker                        4 , the participation of BUMA in the cable radio
      concerned should have his residence in the Netherlands                   agreements, in the form adopted , are incompatible
      to be regarded as different treatment by reason of                       with Article 86 of the EC Treaty;
      nationality contrary to Article 7 of that Regulation ?
                                                                           5 , the role played by the Netherlands State in the
0 ) Administrative Décision No 403 of the Stichting                            establishment of the standard cable agreements
    Ontwikkelings- en Saneringsfonds voor de Landbouw                          and their practical implementation by means of
    ( Staatscourant 1988 , 114 ).                                              increases in invoices issued by public utility
                                                                               companies are incompatible with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 90;
                                                                           6 , Articles 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 of BUMA's standard
                                                                               exploitation agreements are in breach of the
                                                                               Commission's decision of 2 June 1971 in GEMA I
                                                                               ( OJ No L 134 , 1971 , p . 15 ) and are incompatible
Appeal brought on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman against                           with Article 86 of the EC Treaty, since they
the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996 by the Court of                       constitute an abuse of BUMA's dominant position
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                             in relation to copyright owners and are a restriction
T-575 /93 between C. Koelman and Commission of the                             of competition .
                     European Communities
                        ( Case C-59/96 P)
                                                                      B. annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 133/29 )                                 9 January 1996 in Case T-575/93 , and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996                 1 , declare void on the ground of Articles 173 and 174
                                                                               the   Commission        decision not the   initiate    a
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-575/93 between C. Koelman and Commission of                          proceeding on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
the European Communities, supported by BUMA, was                               No 17 after submission of a complaint by Koelman
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            on 26 October 1990 regarding the two 'cable
Communities on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman, represented                         agreements' of 29 May 1985 and the infringements
                                                                               referred to therein;
by R. V. H. Jonker, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Pels, 12 Rue Léon
Thyes .                                                                    2 , order the Commission to pay compensation for the
                                                                               damage suffered by Koelman;
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               3 , order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
A.    rule that :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      1 , authors should be guaranteed a free choice
          regarding the organization which they wish to               The appellant's grounds of appeal are that the Court of First
          appoint as intermediary in connection with their            Instance wrongly appraised his pleas based on Article 85 ( 3 )
          rights, and undertakings which act as intermediaries        of the EC Treaty and his plea that there had been a
          for rights should be guaranteed fair access to the          manifestly erroneous appraisal and breach of the obligation
          market and should be protected against abuse                to state the reasons upon which the decision was based.
          of dominant positions by musical copyright
          monopolies and similar organizations which, selling
          ' blanket  licences '   on  the  basis   of  dominant
          positions, in conjunction with indemnification
          clauses, infringe the Auteursrecht ( Law on
          copyright) in order thereby to dominate the market
          for intermediaries and exclude competition, which           Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the
          results in an unnecessary restriction of the                   European Communities against the French Republic
          free-market economy;                                                                ( Case C-60/96 )
                                                                                                ( 96/C 133/30 )
      2 , the two cable radio and television agreements of
          29 May 1985 and all the agreements deriving
          therefrom are incompatible with Article 85 ( 1 ) of         An action against the French Republic was brought before
          the EC Treaty and therefore void;                           the Court of Justice on 5 March 1 996 by the Commission