CELEX: C1998/094/29
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-32/98)

C 94/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
München (Finance Court, Munich) of 22 January 1998,                  1 July 1995 and Germany has not yet taken the necesssary
which was received at the Court Registry on 9 February               measures.
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Luksch
v. Hauptzollamt Weiden on the following questions:                   (1) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994, p. 5.
1. Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1395/
    94 (1) of 17 June 1994 to be interpreted as meaning
    that a countervailing charge is to be levied on sour
    cherries which have deteriorated through the
    formation of mould and incipient fermentation to such
    an extent that the only economic use to which they               Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission
    can be put is distillation?                                           of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                         Republic of Germany
    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:                                           (Case C-33/98)
2. Is Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2658/87 (2), in the                                       (98/C 94/30)
    version in Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 (3) of
    10 August 1993, in particular Note 1 to Chapter 8 of
    the Combined Nomenclature, to be interpreted as                  An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    meaning that the goods described in Question 1 are to            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    be classified under subheading 0809 20 20 or                     Communities on 12 February 1998 by the Commission of
    0809 20 60?                                                      the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia
                                                                     and Dr Frank Paul, of its Legal Service, with an address
(1) OJ L 152, 18.6.1994, p. 31.                                      for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
(2) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                        de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(3) OJ L 241, 27.9.1993, p. 1.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Ð declare that, by the statement of the Deutsche Bundes-
                                                                         bank (1) that (a) only leading banks' established in
Action brought on 11 February 1998 by the Commission                     Germany may act as leading bank for foreign German
     of the European Communities against the Federal                     mark issues in Germany and (b) foreign German mark
                      Republic of Germany                                issues by credit institutions not established in Germany
                         (Case C-32/98)                                  must have a maturity of at least two years, the Federal
                                                                         Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                          (98/C 94/29)
                                                                         under Council Directive 88/361/EEC (2) and, from
                                                                         1 January 1994, under Article 73b of the EC Treaty
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    and under Article 59 of the EC Treaty and Council
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      Directive 89/646/EEC (3),
Communities on 11 February 1998 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Christina
Tufvesson and Dr Frank Paul, of its Legal Service, with an           Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                costs.
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     In the Commission's view, it is not decisive whether the
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            statement is legally binding, since participants in the
    period the measures necessary to comply with                     market must in view of the Bundesbank's authority be
    Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of             concerned to comply with statements even if formally they
    the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee                  are not legally binding. Specifically,
    schemes (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,
                                                                     Ð the second sentence of point 1(1) of the statement
                                                                         infringes the principle of freedom to provide services
Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                         (Article 59 of the EC Treaty), Article 18(1) of Council
    costs.
                                                                         Directive 89/646/EEC in conjunction with point 8 of
                                                                         the Annex thereto, and the principle of the free
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      movement of capital (Article 73b of the EC Treaty), in
                                                                         so far at its effect is to exclude foreign credit
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those                  institutions from lead management for foreign German
in Case C-18/98; the period for transposition expired on                 mark bonds unless they act through a German branch,