CELEX: C1996/233/08
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-197/96)

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
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
certain sectors is not enough to bring the infringement to an             Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
end, given that the wording of Article 213-1 , which subsists              1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
in the French Code du Travail , simply prohibits night                     1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires de
working for women in industry as a whole .                                Thérapeutique Moderne ( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et
                                                                          de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the
C ) OJ No L 39 , 1976 , p . 40 .                                          following question :
( 2 ) Case C-158/91 Levy [ 1993J ECR 1-4300 .
( 3 ) In response to the letter giving formal notice and the reasoned     Having regard to their composition, presentation and
      opinion, the French Government relied on a communication            purpose, do the products 'Alvityl 50 Dragées ' and
      published on 13 December 1993 in the Official Journal of the
      French Republic, p . 4517 et seq .
                                                                          'Strongenol 20 Ampoules' fall within the scope of
                                                                          subheading 21 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1010/86 of
                                                                          25 March 1986 on the classification of goods or Chapter 30
                                                                          of the Common Customs Tariff ( 1 ) ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht                   t 1 ) OJ No L 94, 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Kôln by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the
interlocutory proceedings between Metronome Musik
            GmbH and Music Point Hokamp GmbH
                           ( Case C-200/96 )
                             ( 96/C 233/09 )                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                          Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    1996       in  the  case    of Laboratoires    Valda   v.   Fonds
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht Kôln                  d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre
( Regional Court, Cologne ) of 18 April 1 996, which was                                                   ( FIRS )
received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1996 , for a                                              ( Case C-202/96 )
preliminary ruling in the interlocutory proceedings between
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp                                                           ( 96/C 233/11 )
GmbH on the following question :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Is the introduction of an exclusive rental right, contrary to             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
the principle of the exhaustion of distribution rights, by                Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of                        1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
19 November 1992 on rental rights and lending rights and                  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of                    Valda v . Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du
intellectual property ( 1 ) compatible with Community law, in             Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the following questions :
particular Community fundamental rights ?
                                                                         — May Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 717/85 of
n OJ No L 346 , 1992 , p . 61 .                                                 19 March 1985 on the classification of goods within
                                                                                subheading 17.04 D I of the common customs tariff ( 1 )
                                                                                be interpreted as referring to goods whose composition
                                                                                ( percentage by weight) is different from that indicated in
                                                                                Article 1 of that Regulation ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April               — If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must
1996 in the case of Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne                       Chapter 30.04 of the customs nomenclature, which
( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du                         refers to medicaments, be interpreted as including a
                      Marché du Sucre ( FIRS )                                  product which contains sugar but above all active
                          ( Case C-201 /96 )                                    flavouring agents having medicinal properties in such a
                             ( 96/C 233/ 10 )                                   proportion that it is used essentially for therapeutic and
                                                                                prophylactic purposes ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal                          (') OJ No L 78 , 21 . 3 . 1985 , p . 13 .