CELEX: C1997/040/21
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-386/96 P)

No C 40/ 10           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November               1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings           27 November 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the cases of
before that court in the case of Ministère Public against             August de Vriendt ( C-377/96 ), Rene Van Looveren (C­
B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sari on the following                378/96 ), Julien Grare ( C-379/96 ), Karel Boeykens ( C-380/
questions :                                                           96 ), Frans Serneels ( C-381 /96 ), Fredy Parotte ( C-382/96 ),
                                                                      Camille Delbrouck ( C-383/96 ) and Henri Props ( C-384/
A. Must Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty be interpreted               96 ) v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( National Office for
    as meaning that they preclude a Member State from                 Pensions ) on the following questions:
    requiring an undertaking established in another
    Member State and temporarily carrying out work in                 1 . Is Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (') of
    the first State :
                                                                           19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           it  leaves   the   Member          States free to determine
    1 . to appoint an agent or servant responsible for                     differently for men and women the age at which they
          keeping the individual accounts of employees who                 are respectively deemed to have become unfit for work
          provide services there ;                                         by reason of old age, for the purpose of acquiring
                                                                           entitlement to a retirement pension for salaried
    2 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to
                                                                           employees and, thus, to calculate those pensions
          the legislation of that State relating to the keeping
          of social documents;
                                                                           differently, in the manner indicated in this judgment ?
    3 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to             2 . Is that Article to be interpreted as precluding men and
          the legislation of that State relating to social                 women deemed to have become unfit for work by
          inspections;                                                     reason of old age as from the age of 65 and 60
                                                                           respectively who, as from that age , also lose their
    4 . to draw up an individual account for each worker;                  rights to social security benefit, such as unemployment
                                                                           benefit, from claiming an unconditional right to a
    5 . to keep a special staff register;                                  pension as from the age of 60 years, the amount of the
                                                                           pension being calculated differently, according to
    6 . to draw up working regulations;                                    whether the claimant is a man or a woman ?
    7 . to keep social documents ( staff register and
          individual account ) at the Belgian residence of a          3 . Should the expression ' pensionable age ' in Article 7 of
          natural person who is to keep those documents in                  Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 be
          his capacity as agent or servant;                                construed as meaning the age which gives rise to
                                                                           entitlement to a pension, or is it the age at which the
     8 . to issue an individual record for each worker,                     employee is deemed to have become unfit for work by
                                                                            reason of old age, in accordance with national criteria,
     where that undertaking is already subject to                           and enjoys the benefit of a replacement income
     requirements which, while not identical , are at least                 excluding other social security benefits of the same
     comparable on account of their aim in respect of the                   description ?
     same workers and for the same period of activity in
     the State where it is established ?
                                                                            Can that expression be interpreted as covering both of
                                                                            the above definitions ?
B. Can Articles 59 and 60 render inoperative the first
     paragraph of Article 3 of the Civil Code on Belgian               D OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
     public order legislation ?
 References for preliminary rulings by the Hof van                     Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Societe Louis
 Cassatie, Belgium, by judgments of that court of                      Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on
 4 November 1996 in the cases of August De Vriendt, Rene               24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
 Van Looveren, Julien Grare, Karel Boeykens, Frans                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
 Serneels, Fredy Parotte, Camille Delbrouck and Henri                  T-485/93 between Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the
 Props v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (National Office for                       Commission of the European Communities
                              Pensions )                                                       ( Case C-386/96 P)
      ( Cases C-377/96, C-378/96, C-379/96, C-380/96,                                              ( 97/C 40/21 )
         C-381/96, C-382/96, C-383/96 and C-384/96 )
                           ( 97/C 40/20 )
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                        1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between
 European Communities by judgments of the Hof van                      Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the
 Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 4 November               European Communities was brought before the Court of
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97            ! EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 40/ 11
Justice of the European Communities on 28 November                     with regard to the validity, interpretation or application of
1996 by Dreyfus & Cie, represented by R. Saint-Esteben,                the present contract', which , according to Article 14
with an address for service in Euxembourg at the                       thereof, ' shall be governed by French law '.
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
                                                                       (') Two buildings on Orsay, rented for multiple residential
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside in                    occupation , comprising 15 four-room units of 80 m2, each
part the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                        fitted with a Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating plant
24 September 1996 in so far as it declared inadmissible                    enabling tests to be carried out on two Glasoltherm heat
the action for annulment brought by Louis Dreyfus                          pump designs which have functioned for 10 years in rhe
                                                                           context of a Z.A.I , demonstration lease in Courtaboeuf les
against the decision of the Commission of 1 April 1993 .                   LJlis .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
      the EC Treaty: the judgment is too restrictive
      inasmuch as it considers that, in the absence of a legal         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
      relationship with the Commission , Louis Dreyfus                 Eerste Aanleg te Brussel by judgment of that court of
      cannot be directly concerned, since neither the validity         26 November 1996 in the case of Lease Plan Luxembourg
      nor the terms of the contract are affected . The legal                                  SA v. Belgian State
      and substantive situation of the applicant was in fact
                                                                                               ( Case C-390/96 )
      directly affected by the contested decision : the contract
      was already concluded between Louis Dreyfus and                                             ( 97/C 40/23 )
      Exportkhleb and payment of the price was to be by
      means of the Community loan . It was because of the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      contract and its terms ( and not because of a ' decision '       European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
      taken by the Russians ) that Louis Dreyfus could no              van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel ( Court of First Instance ,
      longer be paid at the new price, since the contract and          Brussels ) of 26 November 1996 , which was received at the
      the rider inextricably linked payment to the                     Court Registry on 2 December 1996 , for a preliminary
       Community loan .                                                ruling in the case of Lease Plan Luxembourg SA v. Belgian
                                                                       State on the following questions :
— Contradictory grounds .
                                                                       1 . Must the term ' fixed establishment' in Article 9 ( 1 ) of
                                                                            the Sixth VAT Directive ( Directive 77/388/EEC ) (') be
                                                                            interpreted as meaning that an undertaking from one
                                                                            Member State which hires or leases out a number of
                                                                            cars to customers established in another Member State
Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Glasoltherm                           has ipso facto, by virtue of that hiring, a fixed
Sari against the Commission of the European                                 establishment in that other Member State ?
                            Communities
                         ( Case C-388/96 )                             2 . If the answer to the preceding question is in the
                                                                            affirmative : must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth VAT
                            ( 97/C 40/22 )                                  Directive be interpreted as meaning that services
                                                                            consisting in the leasing out of vehicles can be
An action against the Commission of the European                            regarded as being supplied from a fixed establishment
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      in Belgium in the case where the supplier of the
the European Communities on 22 November 1996 by                             services has its established place of business in
Glasoltherm Sari, represented by Mr Penciolelli , lawyer, of                Luxembourg and where almost all contracts are
18 Avenue de la Liberation , 91130 Ris Orangis ( France ).                  negotiated and concluded from this place of
                                                                            establishment in Luxembourg with customers
Glasoltherm Sari claims that the Court should order the                     established in Luxembourg and only a limited number
Commission of the European Communities to support by                        of vehicles ( approximately ten cars out of a fleet of
all means, including the provision of financial assistance,                 almost 1 000 vehicles ) are purchased in Belgium and
over a period of 10 years from the date of entry into                       maintained or repaired within Belgium ?
industrial service of the two demonstration operations
referred to ('), the action taken by a commercial company              3 . Must Articles 6 and 59 of the EEC Treaty be
formed by Glasoltherm Sari to market Glasoltherm                             interpreted as meaning that foreign taxable persons,
thermoelectric micro-heating technology in the European                     who receive goods or services in Belgium and
Community.                                                                   subseqently request VAT refunds in respect of such
                                                                            goods or services pursuant to the Eighth VAT
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          Directive , cannot, in the event of late reimbursement,
                                                                             be granted a lower rate of interest, which , moreover,
The      action  is  founded     on  contract  No    EE   252/ 84            begins to accrue only from the moment at which such
concluded between the parties on 28 October 1986 .                           foreign taxable persons institute default proceedings
According to Article 13 of that contract, 'the contracting                   against the Belgian State, whereas in the event of late
parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of                  reimbursement to Belgian taxable persons, the latter
Justice of the European Communities all disputes arising                     are granted a higher rate of interest which ,