CELEX: C1999/001/16
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, by order of that court of 29 October 1998, in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK Rheinland, Cologne Regional Office (Case C-404/98) (1999/C 1/16)

4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                 1. Is a person who is employed by an undertaking (a
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, by order of that                    company in the form of a Besloten Vennootschap
court of 11 March 1998, in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                (private limited company) incorporated under
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       Netherlands law) which has its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State (the Netherlands) and maintains an
                       and Mario Pittaro                                office there but performs its activities primarily in the
                                                                        territory of another Member State and in the past has
                        (Case C-402/98)                                 performed them exclusively in the latter Member State
                         (1999/C 1/15)                                  (in this case, the carrying out of building projects in
                                                                        Germany) a person employed in the territory of the
                                                                        first Member State (Article 13(2)(a) of Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in the version of 2 June
                                                                        1983 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 8.)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Lazio Regional
Administrative Court) of 11 March 1998, which was                   2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 1998, for                 there a posting' within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a)
a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 where a
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       building contractor with its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State employs its employees primarily on
and Mario Pittaro, on the following question:                           building projects in another Member State and has
                                                                        employed them exclusively there in the past over a
                                                                        number of years but the anticipated duration of each
                                                                        individual building project does not exceed twelve
By introducing innovative arrangements for the rules on                 months?
premiums for the production of tobacco when planting
had already been carried out and producers had made
investments in accordance with reasonable assessment
criteria based on the Community rules in force at the time
of sowing and planting out in the fields, do Article 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 (1) Article 20 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 (2) and Article 2             Reference for a preliminary ruling by Stockholms
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 (3), infringe              Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm) by order of
the principles governing sound organisation of the                  that court of 18 September 1998 in the case of
agricultural market in tobacco and the principle of                 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
protection of legitimate expectations?                                  v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP)
                                                                                          (Case C-405/98)
(1) OJ L 73, 1.4.1995, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 5.                                                             (1999/C 1/17)
(3) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 11.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of 18 September 1998
                                                                    Stockholms Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm),
                                                                    which was received at the Court Registry on 16 November
                                                                    1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP) on the
Bundesgerichtshof, by order of that court of 29 October             following questions:
1998, in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK Rheinland,
                   Cologne Regional Office
                        (Case C-404/98)                             1. Is Article 30 or Article 59 of the Treaty of Rome to be
                                                                        interpreted as precluding national legislation entailing
                         (1999/C 1/16)                                  a general prohibition of alcohol advertising, such as
                                                                        the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                        Alkoholreklamlagen?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof              2. If so, can such a prohibition be regarded as justified
(Federal Court of Justice) of 29 October 1998, received at              and proportionate for the protection of life and health
the Court Registry on 16 November 1998, for a                           of humans?
preliminary ruling in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK
Rheinland, Cologne Regional Office, on the following
questions: