CELEX: C1999/204/63
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-191/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999 in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                       (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;