CELEX: C2000/176/17
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-136/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kuopion Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 22 March 2000 in the case of Rolf Dieter Danner

C 176/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
(3) Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place at        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
     allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of an        (Crown Office), by order of that court of 31 March 2000,
     opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of the         in the cases of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and
     envelopes and before the adoption of the measure exclud-           Mergers Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and
     ing it, represent an obstacle to the application of Article        Industry, Ex parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen
     30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                          against 1) The Competition Commission 2) Secretary of
                                                                        State for Trade and Industry 3) Director General of Fair
(4) Does a provision under which the contracting authority                       Trading, Ex Parte: National Farmers’ Union
     may take account of explanations relating solely to the
     economy of the construction method or the technical                                         (Case C-137/00)
     solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
     ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                        (2000/C 176/18)
(5) Does the [exclusion] of explanations relating exclusively to        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     items for which minimum values have been established by            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     administrative provisions or can be inferred from official         Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
     lists represent an obstacle to the application of Article          Office) of 31 March 2000, which was received at the Court
     30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                          Registry on 11 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and Mergers
                                                                        Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the          parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen against 1) The
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works            Competition Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and
    contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).                            Industry 3) Director General of Fair Trading, Ex parte: National
                                                                        Farmers’ Union, on the following questions:
                                                                        1. Are Articles 32 to 38 (ex Articles 38 to 46) EC, Council
                                                                            Regulation 26/62/EEC (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 804/68 (2), as amended, to be interpreted as precluding
                                                                            a Member State from applying national laws such as the
                                                                            Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1998 to
                                                                            the manner in which producers of milk choose to organise
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kuopion                         themselves into co-operatives and conduct themselves in
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 22 March 2000                     regard to the sale and processing of their milk:
               in the case of Rolf Dieter Danner
                                                                            (a) in all circumstances; or
                         (Case C-136/00)
                                                                            (b) where the intended or actual effect is to deprive such
                         (2000/C 176/17)                                        producers of the ability to increase the price obtained
                                                                                for their milk; or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            (c) where the intended or actual effect is to reduce
European Communities by an order of the Kuopion Hallinto-
                                                                                the price that producers obtain for their milk in
oikeus (Administrative Court, Kuopio), Finland, of 22 March
                                                                                circumstances where that price is already below the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
                                                                                target price fixed pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Rolf Dieter
                                                                                804/68; or
Danner on the following question:
                                                                            (d) in a way which is not consistent with any one or more
Is the restriction described above of the right to deduct for                   of the following:
tax purposes pension insurance contributions payable from
Finland to a foreign institution, laid down in the first sentence
of Paragraph 96(9) of the Tuloverolaki (Income Tax Law),                        (i) the objectives set out in Article 33 EC (ex Article
contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty referred to in the appeal                     39); and/or
(now Article 49 EC) or to the other articles referred to in the
appeal (Articles 6, 60, 73b, 73d and 92 of the EC Treaty) or                    (ii) the policy, aims or functioning of the common
the corresponding present articles (Articles 12, 50, 56, 58 and                       organisation of the market in milk and milk
87 EC)?                                                                               products; and/or
                                                                                (iii) the policy of Article 36 EC (ex Article 42) and
                                                                                      Regulation 26?