CELEX: C1996/233/07
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996 in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat Bayern (Case C-194/96)

10 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 233/5
     into and out of the European Community ( ), as                                 particular an employed or self-employed person ),
     subsequently amended, be interpreted as also including                         has exercised the right to freedom of movement
     waste which for the most part consists of the solid plastic                    within the European Community ?
     wastes referred to in Annex II to the Regulation, but also
     of various other wastes referred to in that Annex and a                  ( b ) Is it relevant in that respect whether the other
     small quantity of materials not referred to therein ?                          parent moved with the child to another Member
                                                                                    State and pursued an activity there as an employed
2 , ( a ) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative , should                     or self-employed person until his or her death ?
           the phrase ' storage of materials intended for
           submission to any operation in this Annex' in                 2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a retired
           Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                       police officer a civil servant within the meaning of
           15 July 1975 on waste ( 2 ), as subsequently                       Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
           amended, be interpreted as covering not only
           storage at the plant in which the other operations            C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
           referred to in the Annex will take place , but also
           storage pending transport to such a plant,
           regardless of whether that plant is situated inside or
           outside the Community ?
     ( b ) If the first part of this question is answered in the
           affirmative, what minimum evidence must be                    Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of the
           available for a finding that the waste is actually                European Communities against the French Republic
           intended for recovery, where notification has not
                                                                                                  ( Case C-197/96 )
           been given ?
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 233/08 )
3 . If Questions 1 and 2 ( a ) are answered in the affirmative ,
     must it then be inferred from the third sentence of                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     Article 26 ( 2 ) of the Regulation that, in the cases to            the Court of Justice on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of
     which that provison refers , the competent authority of             the European Communities, represented by Marie
     destination is also obliged, or at any rate authorized , to         Wolfcarius , acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     do what the competent authority of dispatch is obliged              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz ,
     to do pursuant to the first sentence of that                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
     provision ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
Ç-) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .                                        — declare that, by maintaining, in Article L 213-1 of the
                                                                              Code du Travail ( Employment code ), a prohibition of
                                                                             night work for women in industry, whereas no such
                                                                             prohibition exists in relation to men, the French
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             Article 5 ( 1 ) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                              1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  employment, vocational training and promotion , and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996                  working conditions ( 1 ),
       in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat Bayern
                          ( Case C-194/96 )                              — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                            ( 96 /C 233 /07 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   In consequence of the denunciation by the French
European Communities by an order of the 10th Chamber of                  Government of ILO Convention No 89 , the obligations
the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 30 April             imposed by that Convention on France in relation to third
1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 0 June             countries, as recognized by the Court of Justice in the
1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern         judgment in Levy ( 2 ), ceased to exist with effect from
( Federal State of Bavaria ) v . Hilmar Kulzer on the following          February 1993 . The retention , without amendment, of the
questions :                                                              text of the legislation referred to in the wording of the form
                                                                         of order sought gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs .
1 , ( a ) Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), in                     Save where it is of a binding nature , a ministerial reply to a
           particular Article 73 thereof, apply if the child in          parliamentary question C ) does not constitute an adequate
           respect of whom family benefits are sought, but not           adaptation of the legislative provisions in force in France .
           the person entitled to benefits him or herself ( in           Lastly, the existence of collective agreements negotiated in