CELEX: C1995/229/23
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Pescara - Sezione Distaccata di San Valentino in A.C. - by order of 15 December 1994 in the criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini (Case C-224/95)

No C 229/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Question 4 :                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                       Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of                  AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      Case C-223 /95
amount charged as consideration for a specific service —                                           95 /C 229/22 )
such as for example registration of the formation or increase
in capital of a public limited company or a private limited
company — is to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the specific service — registration — or can the duty for           European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
the individual registration be fixed at for example a basic            ( Finance Court) Hamburg of 7 June 1995 , which was
charge together with 4 per mille of the nominal capital                received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 , for a
subscribed, so that the amount of the duty is independent of           preliminary ruling in the case of A. Moksel AG v.
the registration authority's time used and other costs                 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg Jonas
necessary for effecting the registration ?                             on the following question :
                                                                       Is Article 8 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 ( ] ) in the
Question 5:
                                                                       version of 27 November 1987, as rectified on 8 December
                                                                       1988 , in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty to
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of      be interpreted as meaning that those provisions also cover
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the             products which were imported into the Federal Republic of
Member State in calculating any amount to be recovered                 Germany from the former German Democratic Republic in
must work on the basis that the duty must reflect the cost of          the period from 24 May to 22 June 1990 pursuant to an
the specific service at the time at which the service is               exceptional authorization for the processing of transit-trade
performed, or is the Member State entitled to make a                   goods and exported to a third country on 10 January
comprehensive assessment over a longer period, for example             1991 ?
an accounting year or within the period in which it will
be possible under national law to assert a claim for
                                                                       (') OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
recovery ?
Question 6:
If national law contains a general principle that, in
determining claims for recovery of charges made without                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the requisite authority, importance should be attached to              Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
the fact that the charge was made in pursuance of rules                Valentino in A.C. — by order of 15 December 1994 in the
which have been in force over a long period without either                     criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini
the authorities or other parties having been aware that the                                    ( Case C-224/95
charge was unauthorized, will Community law preclude
dismissal on those grounds of an action for recovery of                                           ( 95/C 229/23 )
charges levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Question 7:                                                           European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
                                                                       Valentino in A.C. ( Magistrate's Court, Pescara; Separate
Does Community law make it impossible under national                    Division of San Valentino in AC ) of 15 December 1994,
law for the authorities of a Member State, in cases of claims          which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 ,
for recovery concerning charges made contrary to Directive              for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
 69/335/EEC , to contend and establish that national                    Anselmo Savini on the following questions :
 limitation periods start to run from a time at which
 an unlawful implementation of Directive 69/335/EEC
 occurred ?                                                             1 . Does EEC legislation provide for the exclusion from the
                                                                            definition of waste and the relevant rules relating to the
                                                                            protection of health ( and ) of the environment of
 Question 8:                                                                substances and objects which are capable of economic
                                                                            reutilization ?
 Does Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of
 Directive 69/335/EEC as interpreted in the foregoing                   2 . Does the concept of waste arising out of Council
 questions result in rights on which citizens in the individual             Directive 156/91 /EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
 Member States may rely before the national courts ?                        Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (') and Council
                                                                            Directive     689/91 /EEC     of  12  December   1991     on
 (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .                                 dangerous waste ( 2 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 259/93 ( 3 ) cover any substance which the addressee
                                                                            disposes of, has decided to dispose of or is under a duty
                                                                            to dispose of, regardless of the fact that the substance to
 ---pagebreak--- 2. 9. 95              I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/13
      be reutilized may be the subject of a legal transaction or        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      quoted on public or private commercial lists ?                    Correctionnel, Liege, by judgment of that court of 7 June
                                                                        1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                               civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his
( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                            capacity as President of the Association Pharmaceutique
( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                                Beige
                                                                                                  Case C-231 /95 )
                                                                                                  ( 95/C 229/26 )
References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court), Liege, of 7 June 1995 ,
A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek                 which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995 , for
                                  State
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Bent
          ( Cases C-225/95 , C-226/95 and C-227/95 )                    Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being
                            ( 95/C 229/24 )                             Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as President of the
                                                                        Association Pharmaceutique Beige, on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question :
European Communities by decisions of the Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which               Do the pharmacists' statutory monopoly to supply sterile
were received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1995 , for               articles, and the correspondig prohibition forbidding
a preliminary ruling in the cases of A. Kapasakalis,                    distributors of such articles to sell them directly to doctors,
D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State on the                    dentists, veterinary surgeons and midwives or to scientific
following questions :                                                   establishments or hospitals — a prohibition not applying to
                                                                        such sales to private individuals — which are the result of
1 . Does the result to be achieved by Council Directive                 the application of Articles 1 and 44 of the Royal Decree of
      89/48/EEC ( ] ) entail the recognition of rights in favour        6 June 1960 in conjunction with Royal Decree No 78 of
      of the individuals to whom it relates ?                           10 November 1967, constitute a measure having equivalent
                                                                        effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Articles 30
2 . Is the content of those rights sufficiently precise to              and 36 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 ?
      enable them to be deduced solely on the basis of the
      framework laid down in the provisions of that
      Directive ?
3 . Is there a causal link between the infringement of the
      obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 12 of           Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      the Directive by the Greek State and the demage which                 European Communities against the French Republic
      the applicant claims to have suffered ?                                                   ( Case C-234/95 )
(') OJ No L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1989 , p . 16 .                                                          ( 95/C 229/27 )
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht              represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                   Moll v. Berhane Mesghena                             office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Center,
                          ( Case C-229/95 )                             Kirchberg.
                             ( 95/C 229/25 )
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                   1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
 ( Labour Court) Wiesbaden of 18 April 1995 which was                        administrative measures needed to comply with Council
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 1995 , for a                        Directive 92/50/EEC ( J ) relating to the coordination of
preliminary ruling in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane                     procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
Mesghena on the following question :                                         French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             that Directive, in particular Article 44 thereof;
 May a cleaning contract relating to specific premises
constitute a part of a business within the meaning of                   2 . in the alternative, declare that in any event, by failing
 Directive 77/187/EEC ( M ?                                                  forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures,
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                     under those same provisions;
                                                                         3.  order the French Republic to pay the costs .