CELEX: C2000/149/41
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-89/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin, by order of that court of 3 December 1999 in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land Berlin

27.5.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/23
2. Must Regulation No 1785/81 be interpreted as meaning                       law, annulled on grounds of lack of competence, under
     that the classification of an area as a deficit area is to be            Article 133(2)(b) of the Código do Procedimento Adminis-
     based on a calculation method which treats as being                      trativo (Code on Administrative Procedure), inasmuch as
     consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated there                  the final decision on such matters falls within the purview
     in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in another            of the Commission of the European Communities, and in
     country, or is the classification of an area as a deficit area           other cases, to the opposite effect, it has held that the
     to be based on a calculation method which does not treat                 DAFSE has exclusive competence, a view supported by the
     as being consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated               fact that in Portuguese law it is expressly provided
     there in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in              that authenticated orders or decisions of the DAFSE are
     another country?                                                         enforceable in respect of debts arising from certification.
3. Is Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 26 June 1998, published
     in OJ 1998 L 185, p. 3, valid, in view of the fact that it
     fails to fix a derived intervention price for all areas of Italy    (1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.
     in accordance with Article 3(1). Article 5(3), and Article          (2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
     6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/81 and contains no
     statement of reasons for that omission?
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.81, p. 4.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção by
judgment of that court of 24 November 1999 in the case                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
of Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do                   gericht Berlin, by order of that court of 3 December 1999
Fundo Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria                     in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye Bicakci,
         de Mobiliário e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda                  Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                                                       Berlin
                           (Case C-88/00)
                          (2000/C 149/40)                                                          (Case C-89/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção (Second Sub-Chamber                                     (2000/C 149/41)
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of
24 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria de Mobiliário            Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin), of 3 December 1999,
e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda. The Supremo Tribunal Admin-             received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2000, for a
istrativo referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the          preliminary ruling in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye
interpretation of Community law, namely:                                 Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                         Berlin, on the following question:
— Articles 1, 5(4), 6(1) and (2), and 7(1), (2) and (5) of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October
     1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC (2)
     on the tasks of the European Social Fund (ESF);                     Is the termination of the residence of a Turkish national who
                                                                         fulfils the requirements of the first sentence of Article 7 of
     and                                                                 Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, by
— Article 5(1) and (5) of Council Decision 83/516/EEC on                 the expulsion of that person solely on general preventive
                                                                         grounds relating to the deterrence of other aliens, compatible
     the tasks of the European Social Fund in order to ascertain
                                                                         with Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80?
     the legal nature of the certification by the national
     authorities as to the accuracy of the facts and accounts in
     payment claims for the return of certain amounts relating
     to vocational training projects funded by the European
     Social Fund, a certificate on which the Supremo Tribunal
     Administrativo has, in some cases, according to its case-