CELEX: C1997/026/12
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 25 September 1996 in the case of Aher-Waggon GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-389/96)

No C 26 /6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 .  . 97
       before the entry into force of the Regulation to the                   on the approximation of the laws of the Member
       common organization of the market and are not                           States relating to the labelling, presentation and
       caused by a lack of care on the part of the traders                    advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
       concerned.                                                             consumer (!), if he puts foodstuffs on the market in
                                                                              the Federal Republic of Germany which are labelled in
2 . The EC Treaty does not authorize national courts to                       Italian, French or English ?
       order provisional measures in proceedings for the
      grant of interim relief until such time as the                     2 . If not, does the trader satisfy the requirements of
       Commission has adopted an act with legal effect to                     Article 14 of Council Directive 79/ 112/EEC at least if
      deal, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation                       he places a supplementary sign in his shop at the
       (EEC) No 404/93 , with cases of hardship affecting                     location of the goods in question, containing the
      traders .
                                                                              prescribed particulars in German ?
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovratt
Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of                         by order of that court of 22 November 1996 in the case of
7 November 1996 in the case of Louisette Cordelle                                      Anders Sjoberg v. Public Prosecutor
                against Office National des Pensions                                               ( Case C-387/96)
                           ( Case C-366/96 )
                                                                                                      ( 97/C 26/11 )
                              ( 97/C 26/09 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Svea Hovratt
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                      ( Svea Court of Appeal ) of 22 November 1996, which was
Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 7 November 1996,                  received at the Court Registry on 27 November 1996, for
received at the Court Registry on 21 November 1996, for                  a preliminary ruling in the case of Anders Sjoberg v.
a preliminary ruling in the case of Louisette Cordelle                   Public Prosecutor on the following questions:
against Office National des Pensions on the following
question:
                                                                         1 . Is the derogation contained in Article 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
Having regard to the benefits paid in accordance with                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December
French law by the Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie                        1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
Nord Picardie and to the retirement pension payable                           relating to road transport ( ! ) applicable to the services
under Belgian law, is the rule preventing the overlapping                     run by Stockholm Lan Council using SL Buss AB ?
of benefits laid down by Article 52 of the Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 applicable in the light of the                          2 . According to Article 14 ( 5 ), drivers on services
Community rules ?                                                             mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) must carry an extract
                                                                              from the duty roster and a copy of the service
                                                                              timetable. Is it sufficient for the extract from the duty
                                                                              roster to cover only the journeys made on the day in
                                                                              question ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12. 1985 , p. 1 .
Aachen by order of that court of 6 November 1996 in the
administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef
                                 Goerres
                           ( Case C-385 /96 )
                              ( 97/C 26/ 10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal­
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   tungsgericht by order of that court of 25 September 1996
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht                      in the case of Aher-Waggon GmbH against the Federal
Aachen ( Aachen Local Court) of 6 November 1996 ,                                               Republic of Germany
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November                                            ( Case C-389/96 )
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative                                                  ( 97/C 26/ 12 )
penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres on the
following questions:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
1.    Does a trader act in accordance with Article 14 of                 the European Communities by order of the Bundes­
      Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978                   verwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court) of
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 1 . 97         1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 26 / 7
25 September 1996 , received at the Court Registry on               compliance with stricter noise limits, with the result that
29 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           an aircraft admitted to traffic in another Member State
Aher-Waggon GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany on                  before the said Directive was adopted may no longer be
the following question:                                             granted admission to traffic in Germany because it
                                                                    exceeds German noise limits, even though aircraft of the
Is it compatible with the principles of free movement of            same construction which had already obtained German
goods pursuant to Article 30 of the EC Treaty for German            authorization beforehand may retain it without
law to rely on the noise-emission limits for aircraft               restrictions ?
pursuant to Directive 80/5 1 /EEC ( 1 ) as amended by
Directive 83/206/EEC (2 ), which are laid down as
minimum requirements, in making admission of aircraft to            (') OJN0LI8 , 24 . 1 . 1980, p. 26 .
traffic in the Federal Republic of Germany conditional on           ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 4 . 5 . 1983 , p . 15 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso,
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the
                     of 29 November 1996                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                Case T-180/96
in Case T- 179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council and
           Commission of the European Communities                                                ( 97/C 26/14 )
(Milk quotas — Damage caused by the Community —
Application for interim relief — Application for damages                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
    against the Community — Provisional nature — None)
                          ( 97/C 26/13 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 14 November
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                       1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino
                                                                    Particular Limitada, whose registered office is at Rua dos
In Case T-179/96 R, J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem,             Ferreiros a Estrela, n° 9, 2° Dto, Lisbon, represented by
the Netherlands, represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk,            Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                 the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand'-Rue, L-1661 ,
Guillaume, against the Council of the European Union                Luxembourg.
(Agents: G. Houttuin, A.-M. Colaert and J. -P. Hix) and
the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T.               The applicant claims that the Court should :
van Rijn) — application for an order that the European
Community pay, by way of advance, the sum of
Fl 258 565,38 , with interest thereon at the rate of 5%             — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 1185 of 14 August
calculated from 1 September 1996, together with the sum                    1996 reducing the amount of Decision C(89 ) 0570 of
of Fl 20 000 per annum from the date on which the                          22 March 1989 concerning the granting of assistance
 application for interim relief was lodged until the date on               from the European Social Fund towards the financing
which the Court gives judgment in the main case — the                      in Portugal ( Mediocurso ), within the Community
 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                 Support Framework, of Objective 1 ,
 29 November 1996, the operative part of which is as
 follows :
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
 1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                     The applicant maintains that the contested act is unlawful
                                                                      and should be annulled on the following grounds :