CELEX: C2000/176/18
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-137/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 31 March 2000, in the cases of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and Mergers Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen against 1) The Competition Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 3) Director General of Fair Trading, Ex Parte: National Farmers' Union

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?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/11
2. Does the function of the target price for milk set by the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
     Council under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 preclude a                   richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 30 March
     Member State from:                                                    2000 in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien
                                                                           Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
                                                                           und Technologiepark GmbH against Finanzlandesdirek-
     (a) making use of the target price as an indicator of                      tion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
          the actual price movements due to the common
          agricultural policy; and
                                                                                                     (Case C-138/00)
     (b) treating the fact that a milk producers’ co-operative in
          that State has achieved for its members milk prices                                        (2000/C 176/19)
          that are below the target price, but are nearer to the
          target price in one period of time than another, as
          supporting a conclusion that the co-operative exercises          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          market power which contributes to prices being higher            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
          than they would have reached under more competitive              hof (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna) of 30 March 2000,
          conditions.                                                      received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobi-
3. Are Articles 28 to 30, EC (ex Articles 30, 34 and 36) and               lien Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
     Articles 49 and 55 (ex Articles 59 and 66) to be interpreted          und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
     as precluding a Member State from applying national laws              Wien, Niederdösterreich und Burgenland (Tax Board for
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition                 Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the following
     Act 1998 in such a way as to prohibit a milk producers’               question:
     co-operative which has been found to enjoy market power
     from sending milk produced by its members to be
                                                                           ‘Do payments which a non-member of a capital company
     processed by contractors on its behalf, including in other
                                                                           makes to the company for the acquisition of dividend rights
     Member States, as a step being taken by the co-operative
                                                                           constitute “assets of any kind contributed or to be contributed
     for the purpose of exploiting its position in the market in
                                                                           by the members” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of
     its favour?
                                                                           Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July concerning indirect
                                                                           taxes on the raising of capital (1)?’
4. Where large vertically-integrated dairy co-operatives exist
     and are permitted to operate in other Member States,
     is the general principle of non-discrimination, whether               (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
     independently or as given specific effect in Articles 12
     and/or 34 EC (ex Articles 6 and 40), 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 prohibit a milk producers’ co-operative which
     has been found to enjoy market power from:
     (a) acquiring or building further plant for the processing
          of milk produced by its members, which would give
          the co-operative the ability to exploit still further its        Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of
          position in the market in its favour; or                         the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                       of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) sending milk produced by its members to be processed
          by contractors on its behalf, whether within the                                           (Case C-140/00)
          Member State concerned or in other Member States, as
          a step being taken by the co-operative for the purpose
          of exploiting its position in the market in its favour?                                    (2000/C 176/20)
                                                                           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(1) EEC Council: Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of compe-         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
    tition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ 30,     of the European Communities on 12 April 2000 by the
    20.04.62, p. 993 [SE SER1 (59-62) p. 129]).                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on
    the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
                                                                           Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official
    (OJ L 148, 28.6.68, p. 13 [SE SER1 68(I) p. 176]).                     seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrange-
                                                                           ment for the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                           Commission, Centre Wagner.