CELEX: C2000/149/39
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-87/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA

C 149/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.5.2000
By issuing to those taxpayers five-year or ten-year Government         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
bonds, the Italian State has gone far beyond the facultative           Heidelberg by order of that court of 3 March 2000 in the
power conferred on Member States by Article 18(4) of the                      business register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH
Sixth Directive, which allows the difference between tax
deducted and tax due to be carried forward, but only to the
following tax period. To carry the excess further forward                                        (Case C-86/00)
entails infringement of the rule clearly laid down by Article
18(4), frustrating that provision and ultimately constituting a                                 (2000/C 149/38)
serious contravention of the basic principle underlying the
common system of value added tax, namely, the right to
immediate exercise of the right to a refund.                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht, Heidel-
                                                                       berg (Local Court, Heidelberg), received at the Court Registry
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the business
                                                                       register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH on the following
                                                                       questions:
                                                                       A. Does the transfer to Spain of the registered office of a
                                                                           company properly constituted under German law, regis-
                                                                           tered in the German register, and whose sole shareholder
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                        is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its legal person-
richtshof by order of that court of 10 February 2000 in the                ality, fall within the rights set out in Articles 43 and 48 of
case of Italian Leather SpA against WECO Polstermöbel                      the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 52 and 58 EC)?
                          GmbH & Co.
                                                                       B. Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty (previously Articles
                         (Case C-80/00)                                    52 and 58 EC) preclude a national rule prohibiting the
                                                                           transfer to Spain of the registered office of a limited
                        (2000/C 149/37)                                    liability company properly constituted under German
                                                                           law, registered on the German register, and whose sole
                                                                           shareholder is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     legal personality?
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 10 February 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Italian Leather SpA v
WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. on the following questions
concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Convention’)
(OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32):
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                       di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in
1. Can judgments be irreconcilable within the meaning of
                                                                                 the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA
    Article 27(3) of the Convention when the only difference
    between them lies in the specific requirements for the
    adoption of a particular type of autonomous provisional                                      (Case C-87/00)
    measure (within the meaning of Article 24 of the Conven-
    tion)?
                                                                                                (2000/C 149/39)
2. May and must the court of the enforcing State which has
    declared a foreign judgment requiring the debtor to desist         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    from certain activities to be enforceable in accordance with       European Communities by an order of the Giudice di Pace di
    Articles 34(1) and 31(1) of the Convention at the same             Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 28 February 2000,
    time order the measures necessary under the law of the             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000,
    enforcing State for enforcement of a restraining order?            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana
                                                                       SpA, on the following questions:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the
    measures necessary under the law of the enforcing State
    for enforcement of the restraining order be ordered even if        1. Are Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 (1) of 26 June 1998 and
    the judgment to be recognised does not itself include                  Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 (2) 26 June 1998 valid, in
    comparable measures in accordance with the law of the                  view of the fact in that, as a result of belatedly fixing for
    State of judgment, and that law makes no provision at all              the 1998-99 marketing year certain prices applicable to
    for the immediate enforceability of such restraining orders?           the sugar sector, they belatedly determine the intervention
                                                                           prices to be observed on the Italian market, in breach of
                                                                           Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic regulation, Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81 (3)?
 ---pagebreak--- 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-