CELEX: C1999/204/59
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-184/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Travail de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre, by judgment of that court of 7 May 1999 in the case of Rudy Grzelczyk against the Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve

C 204/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
2. Is it compatible with free movement of capital for consent            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
     of the land transfer authority, which has constitutive effect,      Gerichtshof by order of 27 April 1999 in the case of Hugo
     to be required for the acquisition of building land?                  Boss Aktiengesellschaft v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O.
3. What effect does the standstill clause in point 1(e) of                                       (Case C-183/99)
     Annex XII to the EEA Agreement have on new types of
     situations requiring consent under land transfer law created
                                                                                                 (1999/C 204/58)
     after the signature of the EEA Agreement on 2 May 1992?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 27 April 1999 from the
                                                                         Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1999, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo Boss Aktiengesellschaft
                                                                         v Trigavina in Storitve D.O.O. on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Meriem                Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
              Addou v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                           down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
                                                                         export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
                                                                         counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                         (Case C-180/99)                                 Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
                                                                         situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
                                                                         the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
                         (1999/C 204/57)                                 the European Community, temporarily detained by the
                                                                         customs authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                         regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                    its registered office in a Member State of the European
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                Community?
received at the Court Registry on 17 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Meriem Addou v Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
     to refugees and to members of their families who are                Travail de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre,
     nationals of a non-member country if such persons have              by judgment of that court of 7 May 1999 in the case of
     no right of free movement under the Treaty of 25 March              Rudy Grzelczyk against the Centre Public d’Aide Sociale
     1957 establishing the European Community, as amended                                d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve
     by the Treaty of 7 February 1992 on European Union?
                                                                                                 (Case C-184/99)
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply in the case where
     a refugee working as an employed person and the members                                     (1999/C 204/59)
     of his family have travelled directly to a Member State
     from a non-member country and have not moved within                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the Community?                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Travail
                                                                         de Nivelles (Second Chamber), Section de Wavre, of 7 May
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative: Is a               1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 May 1999, for a
     family benefit such as child-raising allowance under the            preliminary ruling in the case of Rudy Grzelczyk against the
     Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz (German Federal Law on                   Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve on
     Child-Raising Allowance) also payable to the spouse of              the following questions:
     such an employed person who is likewise not a national of
     a Member State and who is herself neither an employed               1. Is it contrary to Community law — more particularly, the
     person nor a recognised refugee?                                        principles of European citizenship and of non-
                                                                             discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty
                                                                             established in the European Community — for entitlement
(1) JO L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),       to a social benefit under a non-contributory scheme, such
    p. 416.                                                                  as that introduced by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974
                                                                             on the minimum means of subsistence, to be conferred
                                                                             only on nationals of the Member States to whom Regu-
                                                                             lation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 (1) applies
                                                                             and not on all citizens of the Union?
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/31
2. In the alternative, must Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     Directive 96/93 of 29 October 1993 on the right of                by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket
     residence for students (2) be interpreted as permitting                                            vX
     exclusion of a student whose right of residence has
     been acknowledged from entitlement to benefits under a                                     (Case C-186/99)
     non-contributory social security benefit system such as the
     minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host                                          (1999/C 204/61)
     country and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive
     in nature?                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
                                                                       Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a
(1) Regulation of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X on the
    movement for workers within the Community, OJ, English Special     following question:
    Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                         Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
 2
( ) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                              Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on
                                                                       dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
                                                                       public limited company if the shares do not constitute
                                                                       current assets and the total number of votes attached to the
                                                                       undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end
                                                                       of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25% of the
                                                                       number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing
                                                                       undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt
                                                                       from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a
                                                                       Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten              or more of the share capital of the distributing company and
by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket              is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary
                             v X, Y and Z                              directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in
                                                                       particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and
                                                                       58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
                           (Case C-185/99)                             system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not
                                                                       apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled
                                                                       in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-
                           (1999/C 204/60)                             ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z
                                                                       of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda
on the following question:
                                                                            Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda
                                                                                                (Case C-187/99)
Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on                                            (1999/C 204/62)
dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
public limited company if the shares do not constitute                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
current assets and the total number of votes attached to the           European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end        of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-
of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25 % of the                 trative Court) of 28 April 1999, which was received at the
number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing         Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt           the case of Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa,
from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a              Lda., on the following questions:
Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %            1. Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (1)
or more of the share capital of the distributing company and                of 16 July 1985 concerned with the conditions (obli-
is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary                    gations, rules) laid clown in the document granting the
directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in               beneficiary of the arrangements authorisation for the use
particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and               (functioning) thereof?
58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not              2. Or, on the contrary, is it concerned with the conditions,
apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled                 requirements or bases for the issue of the inward processing
in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-                authorisation?
ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?                3. Once the rate of yield has been fixed by the customs
                                                                            authority, may the latter unilaterally alter that rate on the
                                                                            ground that the holder of the authorisation, when making
                                                                            use of the arrangements, has in fact obtained a higher rate
                                                                            of yield than that initially envisaged and approved?