CELEX: C1996/095/18
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-30 00:00:00
Title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of 30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim (C-37/96) and Roger Albert SA (C-38/96) against Direction Générale des Douanes (Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96)

No C 95/ 10            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
24 January 1996, which was received at the Court Registry            Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
on 9 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in criminal             24 November 1995 in the administrative case of Faik
proceedings against Maria Paolantoni .                               Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin and the minor children Günes
                                                                           Günaydin and Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                                        Case C-36/96 )
Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                                     ( 96/C 95/ 17 )
C-58/95 ( M.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                     of 24 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 12 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the administrative case of Faik Günaydin, Hatice
                                                                     Günaydin and the minor children Günes Günaydin and
                                                                     Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following
Action brought on 9 February 1996 by the Commission of               questions :
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-35/96 )                            1 . is a Turkish worker within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
                           ( 96/C 95/16 )                                 of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey Association
                                                                          Council on the development of the Association
                                                                          ('Decision No 1 /80') duly registered as belonging to the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 labour force of a Member State and is he legally
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      employed there if he has been permitted to be employed
9 February 1996 by the Commission of the European                         by an employer in the Member State only temporarily
Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa , of its Legal                and only for the purpose of preparing for work with a
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  subsidiary company of his employer in Turkey ?
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                                                                     2 . can a claim under Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              opposed as an abuse of law if the Turkish worker has
                                                                         expressly declared his intention of returning to Turkey
1 . declare that by adopting and maintaining in force a law              after preparation for the work there and the authority
     which, in granting the relative decision-making power,               dealing with foreigners has permitted him to reside
     requires the Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                 in the country temporarily only in view of that
     Doganali ( CNSD ) to adopt a decision by an association             declaration ?
     of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community in that it fixes a
     compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the Italian
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;                                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                     d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                    30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem,
                                                                     Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      ( C-38/96 ) against Direction Generale des Douanes
                                                                                     ( Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 )
By Decision 93/438/EEC ( l ) of 30 June 1993 , the                                            ( 96/C 95/18 )
Commission found that the tariff adopted by the CNSD at
its meeting on 21 March 1988 constitutes an infringement             Two references have been made to the Court ofJustice of the
of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty .                                  European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
The Commission also found that the direct basis for the
                                                                     d'Instance ( District Court), Paris VII, of 30 January 1996 ,
                                                                     which were received at the Court Registry on 12 February
CNSD decision of 21 March 1988 , which hinders
                                                                     1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of the companies
competition in that it fixes a compulsory tariff for all             Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
customs agents, is Italian Law No 1612/1960 which                    ( C-38/96 ) against the Direction Generate des Douanes on
provides for the adoption by the CNSD of a decision by an            the following question:
association of undertakings prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 ) of
the Treaty. The Commission has therefore concluded that              do the rules laid down by Law 92-676 of 17 July 1992
Law No 1612/1969 constitutes an infringement of Article 5            concerning dock dues and implementing Decision 89/688 of
of the Treaty in relation to Article 85 .                            the Council of the European Communities of 22 December
                                                                     1 989 ( 1 ) have the effect of replacing a charge having
(') OJ No L 203 , 30 . 6 . 1993 , p . 27.                            equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, as
                                                                     considered in the preliminary ruling of 16 July 1992 in
                                                                     Legros, and of establishing — by contrast with the dock
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 11
dues arrangements previously in force — a genuine internal           13 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
charge which is not discriminatory and is consistent with the        Communities, represented by H. Van Lier, Legal Adviser,
letter and spirit of the Treaty establishing the European            and R. Vidal , of its Legal Service,with an address for service
Community ?                                                          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                     its Legal Service, C 252, Wagner Centre .
(M OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 46 .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                           or, in the subsidiary, by failing to notify, within
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by decision of                       the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Koninklijke                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                            Council Directive 90/377/EEC ( ! ) of 29 June 1990
Boekhandels v. ( 1 ) Free Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free
                                                                           concerning a Community procedure to improve the
                  Record Shop Holding NV
                                                                           transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to
                        ( Case C-39/96 )                                   industrial end-users, the Kingdom of Spain'Has failed to
                          ( 96/C 95/ 19 )                                  fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                           Treaty establishing the European Community;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by a decision of the                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
Amsterdam ) of 1 February 1996 , which was received at the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
van de Belangen des Boekhandels ( Royal Association for the          paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
Promotion of the Interests of the Book Trade ) v. ( 1 ) Free         of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free Record Shop Holding NV on              measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
the following questions :                                            them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the
( 1 ) If an agreement between undertakings or a decision by          Commission thereof. That period expired on 1 July 1991
      an association of undertakings to regulate competition         without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into force the
      came into existence prior to the entry into force of           necessary provisions concerning transparency of gas prices
      Regulation No 17/62 (*) and was notified to the                charged to end-users .
      Commission in good time pursuant to the provisions of
      that Regulation, does that agreement or decision               (') OJ No L 185 , 17. 7. 1990 , p . 16 .
      continue to benefit from the 'provisional validity'
      which notified cartels enjoy according to the case-law
      of the Court of Justice if the Commission has not
      reacted in any way to that notification ?
( 2 ) If the answer is yes : does that 'provisional validity'        Action brought on 14 February 1996 by the Commission of
      continue for an unlimited period ? If the answer is              the European Communities against the French Republic
      no : on what circumstances will the expiry of the                                         Case C-43/96 )
      'provisional validity' then depend ?                                                       ( 96/C 95/21 )
( 3 ) Does the 'provisional validity' apply solely to the
      agreement or decision, as referred to in Question 1 , in       An action against the French Republic was brought before
      the form in which it was notified, or does it also apply       the Court of Justice on 14 February 1996 by the
      to agreements and decisions which have since come              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      into existence and continue the same cartel agreements         Helene Michard and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal Service,
      in an amended form, in so far as they do not involve any       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      extension or reinforcement of the cartel agreements in         at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre ,
      the light of the operation and realization of the              Kirchberg.
      common market ?
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 204 .                 the Court should :
                                                                     ( 1 ) declare that, by maintaining in force legislation
                                                                            excluding the deductibility of VAT in respect of means
Action brought on 13 February 1996 by the Commission                        of transport constituting the actual tools of the trade of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          the taxable person, the French Republic has failed to
                               Spain                                        fulfil its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive
                        ( Case C-40/96 )                                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
                          ( 96/C 95/20 )                                    the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                            taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   basis of assessment ( ! ), in particular the provisions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         Article 17 ( 2 ) thereof;