CELEX: C2001/200/43
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 31 May 2001 in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxembourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse nationale des prestations familiales (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxembourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances — Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension but not resident in the Member State responsible for the pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept of "worker" and "social advantage")

C 200/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
M. Patakia and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Lean-            Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese SpA, established in Bolog-
za, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a declaration                na, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio
that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the activity of            del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), Società Fondiaria
transport consultant, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its        Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena (Italy),
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                represented by V. Cerulli Irelli, G. Pittalis and G. Fanzini,
after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court                     avvocati — appeal against the order of the Court of First
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber,
Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric                Extended Composition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-39/98
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;              Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-4207,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 2001, in               as amended by an order of 29 January 1999 (not published in
which it:                                                                  the European Court Reports), seeking to have the first order
                                                                           set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Council of
1.    Declares that, by subjecting, in the context of Law No 264           the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı́ez Parra) —
      Disciplina dell’attività di consulenza per la circolazione dei       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      mezzi di trasporto (Law No 264 on the activity of transport          President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and C. W.A. Tim-
      consultancy), of 8 August 1991, the pursuit of the activity          mermans (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
      of transport consultant to possession of an administrative           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      authorisation, failing which liability to penalties is incurred,     a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:
      and by making its issue subject to the condition that nationals
      of other Member States reside in Italy and lodge a security, the     1.    Dismisses the appeal.
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,              2.    Orders Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI — Società
      Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);                                                 Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese
                                                                                 SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR) to pay
                                                                                 the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                              of 31 May 2001
                          of 31 May 2001                                   in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxem-
in Case C-41/99 P: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della                     bourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse
SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA and                                 nationale des prestations familiales (1)
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxem-
                                                                           bourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances —
(Appeal — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 — Aid to
                                                                           Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension
beet sugar producers — Abolition — Marketing year
                                                                           but not resident in the Member State responsible for the
2001/02 — Action for annulment — Natural or legal
                                                                           pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept
                     persons — Inadmissible)
                                                                                           of ‘worker’ and ‘social advantage’)
                          (2001/C 200/42)                                                             (2001/C 200/43)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-41/99: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI —                In Case C-43/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil supérieur
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/25
des assurances sociales (Luxembourg) (Social Insurance                      5.    A person receiving an invalidity pension who resides in a
Appeals Board) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        Member State other than the State providing his pension is not
pending before that court between Ghislain Leclere and Alina                      a worker within the meaning of Article 7 of Council Regulation
Deaconescu and Caisse nationale des prestations familiales —                      (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
on, first, the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                     movement for workers within the Community and does not
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 42 EC),                          enjoy rights attaching to that status unless they derive from his
Articles 1(u), 10a, 73 and 77 of Council Regulation (EEC)                         previous professional activity.
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the                  (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) and
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
(OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and, second, the
validity of Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a of and Annexes II and IIa to,
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
lation No 118/97 — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and A. La Pergola (Presidents                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha                                            (Fifth Chamber)
Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 May 2001, in                                          of 26 October 2000
which it has ruled:
                                                                            in Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria v Commission of
                                                                                             the European Communities (1)
                                                                                 (Proceedings brought out of time — Inadmissibility)
1.    Examination of the first question referred to the Court has
      disclosed no factor of such a kind as to call into question the
      validity of Article 1(u)(i) of and Annex II to Council Regulation                                (2001/C 200/44)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
      social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
      persons and to members of their families moving within the                               (Language of the case: German)
      Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
      (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, in so far as they permit
      the imposition of a residence condition for the grant of
      Luxembourg antenatal and childbirth allowances.                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi,
2.    Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                    assisted by M. Schütte) v Commission of the European
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, is invalid in so far as              Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and D. Triantafyllou) —
      the Luxembourg maternity allowance appears in point I.                application for annulment of Commission Decision
      Luxembourg (b) thereof.                                               1999/779/EC of 3 February 1999 on an Austrian state aid
                                                                            granted in the form of an exemption from beverage tax of
                                                                            wine and other fermented beverages sold directly on the place
                                                                            of production to the consumer (OJ 1999 L 305, p. 27) — the
3.    An allowance such as the Luxembourg child-raising allowance           Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
      is not one of the family allowances which, pursuant to                of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón
      Article 77 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, are to be paid to persons            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 26 October
      receiving pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work     2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
      or occupational disease, irrespective of the Member State in
      whose territory they are residing.                                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            2.    The Republic of Austria is to pay the costs.
4.    A person receiving an invalidity pension cannot derive from
      Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, a right to family benefits
      other than the family allowances referred to in Article 77 of
      that regulation.