CELEX: C2000/233/26
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-182/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Wels by order of that court of 9 May 2000 in the company register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft mbH, Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and Günther Gruber

C 233/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12.8.2000
—     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.             Handelsgericht (Regional Court, sitting as Commercial Court),
                                                                         Wels, Austria, of 9 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          company register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft
                                                                         mbH, Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg
On the basis of Articles 10 and 249 EC and of Article 2 of               Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and Günther
Directive 97/36/EC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   Gruber on the following questions:
required by no later than 30 December 1998 to bring into
force the laws, regulations and administrative measures neces-
sary in order to comply with the directive.                              1.   Do the measures provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of First
                                                                              Directive 68/151/EEC (1) and Article 47 of Fourth Directi-
                                                                              ve 78/660/EEC (2) regarding the disclosure obligation on
(1) OJ 1998 L 6, p. 43.                                                       capital companies infringe Article 44(2)(g) EC, which
(2) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                     confers power to coordinate the safeguards which, for
                                                                              the protection of the interests of members and creditors,
                                                                              are required by Member States of companies?
                                                                         2.   Do the measures provided for in Article 2(1)(f) of First
                                                                              Directive 68/151/EEC and Article 47 of Fourth Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof te                       78/660/EEC regarding the disclosure obligation on capital
Antwerpen, Hasselt Division, by order of that court of                        companies infringe Article 44(2)(g) EC, in that they are
4 May 2000 in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen against                       not necessary to eliminate restrictions on establishment
            Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening                               or to attain other objectives of the EEC Treaty (in
                                                                              particular the establishment of uniform general legal
                          (Case C-175/00)                                     requirements)?
                         (2000/C 233/25)                                 3.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
                                                                              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
European Communities by order of the Arbeidshof te Antwer-                    secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
pen (Labour Court Antwerp), Hasselt Division, of 4 May 2000,                  sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a                          year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
preliminary ruling in the case of M.-J. Verwayen-Boelen                       provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening on the following                  intrusive — measures, compatible with the general legal
question:                                                                     principle of proportionality?
Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, according              4.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
to which that regulation applies to branches of social security,              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
be interpreted as meaning that a scheme such as the RWW                       78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
scheme, which has characteristics both of social security and                 secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
of social assistance, falls within the scope of that regulation, so           sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
that the period during which an employed person receives                      year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
benefits under this scheme can qualify as an insurance period                 provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
which is to be taken into account when assessing whether that                 intrusive — measures, compatible with the fundamental
person can have entitlement to unemployment benefits in                       right to property in Community law?
Belgium?
                                                                         5.   Is the fact that Article 2(1)(f) of First Directive 68/151/EEC
                                                                              in conjunction with Article 47 of Fourth Directive
                                                                              78/660/EEC compels undertakings to reveal business
                                                                              secrets by imposing the obligation to disclose the balance
                                                                              sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht                     year on pain of a penalty, and that the protective objective
Wels by order of that court of 9 May 2000 in the company                      provided for can be adequately attained by other — less
register proceedings brought by Lutz Gesellschaft mbH,                        intrusive — measures, compatible with the fundamental
Dr Richard Seifert, Dr Andreas Seifert, Dr Johann Georg                       right of freedom to pursue an economic activity in
Schelling, Walter Kaltenecker, Werner Kneidinger and                          Community law?
                         Günther Gruber
                          (Case C-182/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 233/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landes- als