CELEX: C2002/084/62
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-444/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu

C 84/36                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
(a)   Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC)                     under which an insurance policy issued by an insurance
      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 (1) and/or of Council                  company in the UK, Germany or Denmark which meets the
      Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 (2)                 conditions laid down in Sweden for occupational pension
      preclude those authorities from stipulating that such a           insurance — apart from the condition that the policy must be
      transfer or reallocation of quotas is for value and,              issued by an insurance company operating in Sweden — is
      therefore, that the recipient undertaking or undertakings         treated as an endowment insurance policy with income tax
      must pay financial consideration?                                 effects which, depending on the circumstances in the individual
                                                                        case, may be less favourable than the tax effects of an
                                                                        occupational pension policy?
(b) Even if the answer is in the negative, do the same
      provisions nevertheless preclude the price of the quota to
      be transferred, and the distribution thereof, from being
      decided by public auction? Do those provisions preclude
      recourse to public auction even where it has been
      stipulated that, as part of the reallocation of quotas
      carried out by such a procedure, the measures required to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
      prevent any possible negative repercussions for national          Cassation, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by judgment of
      agricultural producers of sugar beet will be adopted?             that court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Design
                                                                                       Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA
(c)   Is the interpretation of Community law the same, and
      must the answers also be so, in the light of Council                                       (Case C-438/01)
      Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (3) on
      the common organisation of the markets in the sugar                                         (2002/C 84/61)
      sector, which repeals the earlier regulations?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) On the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector       European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-
    (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4).                                              sation (Court of Cassation), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of
(2) Laying down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar      8 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
    sector (OJ 1982 L 21, p. 3).                                        on 13 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
 3
( ) OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1.                                                Design Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘Is Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                        17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                        States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                        value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), concerning
                                                                        “advertising services”, applicable to services supplied indirectly
                                                                        to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrät-               invoices them to the advertiser, if the advertiser does not
ten (Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 October 2001                   produce goods in the price of which the cost of the services is
in the case of Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola                  going to be included?’
     Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
                         (Case C-422/01)
                          (2002/C 84/60)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  tungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten               case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua
of 23 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry                                         Owusu
on 25 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskat-                                     (Case C-444/01)
teverket on the following question:
                                                                                                  (2002/C 84/62)
Are the provisions of Community law on freedom of move-
ment for persons, services and capital, in particular Article 49
EC, in conjunction with Article 12 EC, to be interpreted as             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
meaning that they preclude application of national tax rules            European Communities by order of 18 September 2001 by
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 84/37
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),            Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla (Single-Judge Court of
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November                 Beilla), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stadt Villingen-          ber 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu on the following                    Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del lavoro
questions:                                                              (Vercelli) on the following question:
1.   With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, was
     prostitution engaged in on a self-employed basis by a              Are Article 9 bis (2) of Law No 608 of 28 November 1996, in
     national of Member State A in Member State B covered               so far as it provides that an employer is required to notify the
     by freedom of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty)          Sezione Circoscrizionale per l’Impiego of the hiring of every
     and/or freedom to provide services (Article 59 of the              worker, and Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 469 of
     EC Treaty)? Is it in this regard relevant whether prosti-          23 December 1997, in so far as it refers to Article 9 bis of Law
     tution was at that time considered in Member State B to            608/1996 in cases where non-authorised parties have acted as
     be immoral and anti-social?                                        intermediaries, consistent with the principles of Community
                                                                        law laid down by Articles 48, 52 and 90 of the EC Treaty
2.   If the first question is answered in the negative:                 (now, after amendment, Articles 39, 43, and 86 EC).
     With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, did
     the national of Member State A derive a right to reside in
     Member State B directly from Article 8a of the EC Treaty?
3.   If the second question is answered in the negative:
     As the law stood on 16 May 1997, did that person have
     a right of residence under the conditions set out in               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
     Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June           für Zivilrechtssachen, Vienna, by order of that court of
     1990 on the right of residence, even though Member                 5 November 2001 in the case of DLD Trading Company
     State B had not yet at that date implemented that directive               Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic of Austria
     in its domestic law?
4.   If the third question is answered in the affirmative:                                       (Case C-447/01)
     Was that person required at the time of her entry to have
     sufficient resources and to demonstrate this to the                                          (2002/C 84/64)
     competent authority, or does it suffice if, during her
     period of residence in Member State B, she did not claim
     any social assistance?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
(1) OJ L 180, p. 26.
                                                                        Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Court for Civil Matters), Vienna,
                                                                        of 5 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 20 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        OLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                        of Austria on the following questions:
                                                                        1.    Was a provision of directly applicable Community law or
                                                                              a directive infringed and, if so, which one, as a result of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico                       the government action described in the facts, in particular
del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in                        the alteration as from 1 January 1998 of the travellers’
case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione                       duty-free amount to EUR 75 or EUR 100, according to
Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Admin-                     the case under Paragraph 97a of the customs
                        istration, Vercelli)                                  implementing law [ZollR-DG] in conjunction with Para-
                                                                              graph 19a of the corresponding implementing regulation
                                                                              [ZollR-DV] and the quantitative restriction in regard to
                         (Case C-445/01)
                                                                              the relief from turnover tax and excise duty on tobacco
                                                                              products.
                          (2002/C 84/63)
                                                                        2.    If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                              Is the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        munity law or of that directive one which confers an
European Communities by order of 18 October 2001 of the                       individual right on the plaintiff in the main proceedings?