CELEX: C2000/316/29
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-327/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March 2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA

4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/15
1.    Is Article 141 (1) directly applicable in the circumstances        Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
      of this case (as set out in this judgment) so that it can be       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
      relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to           Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,
      enable them to compare their pay with that of men in               Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council
      who are performing work of equal value to that done by             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the applicants?
                                                                         1.    declare that, by granting the seal of quality ‘Markenquali-
2.    Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct
                                                                               tät aus deutschen Landen’ to manufactured goods of a
      effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent
                                                                               certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic
      employer is in a position where he is able to explain
                                                                               of Germany has infringed Article 28 EC;
      why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his
      employees as he does?
                                                                         2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The grant of the quality mark exclusively to German products
                                                                         which meet certain quality standards is likely to impede
                                                                         imports between Member States, whether directly or indirectly,
                                                                         actually or potentially. A designation of quality may not —
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  subject to the provisions on designations of origin and
Münster by order of 21 August 2000 in the case of                        indication as to provenance — be reserved for domestic
     Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt                        products. The designation in question does not fall within the
                                                                         scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92,
                                                                         since it is too remote from the specific subject-matter of that
                         (Case C-324/00)                                 regulation. Even advertising by reference to a quality mark is
                                                                         not allowed to include the geographical origin of the goods, in
                         (2000/C 316/27)                                 this case ‘German’. Even if it is conceded to the Federal
                                                                         Government that the seal of quality does not reflect any
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ‘chauvinistic intentions’, the emphasis on quality in direct
European Communities by order of 21 August 2000 by the                   association with an indication as to provenance — in this case,
Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Münster, which was received at             the domestic origin of the product — none the less constitutes
the Court Registry on 4 September 2000, for a preliminary                at the same time discrimination against equivalent goods of
ruling in the case of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt                 different origin.
Steinfurt on the following question:
Is the requirement of freedom of establishment for nationals
of a Member State in the territory of another Member State
laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty of 10 November 1997
establishing the European Community to be interpreted as
precluding the national rule in Paragraph 8a of the German
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on Corporation Tax)?
                                                                         of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
                                                                         by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v
                                                                         Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke,
                                                                                           Artsana SpA and Fater SpA
                                                                                                  (Case C-327/00)
Action brought on 4 September 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                         (2000/C 316/29)
                         (Case C-325/00)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
                                                                         Tribunal Amministrativo per la Lombardia (Regional Adminis-
                         (2000/C 316/28)                                 trative Court, Lombardy) dated 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000, which was received at the Court
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    Registry on 5 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42,
ties on 4 September 2000 by the Commission of the European               Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the
Communities, represented by J. Christian Schieferer and                  following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
1.   May Article 22 of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June              2.    Was it permissible to increase the prices established for
     1993 be interpreted as meaning that the competent                       Hamburg and ‘Fac Atlant’ by the addition of notional
     national courts are required to protect citizens of the                 freight costs of ECU 3,8 per tonne?
     Union adversely affected by measures adopted in breach
     of Community law, by resorting, in particular, to disappli-
     cation as provided for in Article 5 of Law No 2248 of             3.    When determining the final reference price was it per-
     20 March 1865 with respect to clauses of an invitation                  missible to use as a basis purely mathematically deter-
     to tender which are contrary to Community law but were                  mined average prices, without taking into account the
     not challenged within the short time-limit laid down by                 different quantities marketed in the individual months of
     national procedural law for the application of Community                the calculation period?
     law by the court of its own motion, whenever it is found,
     first, that the application of Community law has been             4.    If questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, is
     seriously impeded or rendered difficult in any way, and                 Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 defective as regards its
     second, that there is a public interest, of Community or                criteria for calculating the final regional reference amount
     national origin, which justifies such application?                      in that it fails to state reasons within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 253 (previously Article 190) of the EC Treaty?
2.   Does Article 6(2) of the Treaty which, by providing for
     respect of the fundamental rights safeguarded by the              5.    Would that failure to state reasons be so material that it
     European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamen-                       would lead to the nullity, in whole or in part, of the
     tal Freedoms, has adopted the principle of effective                    regulation?
     judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of
     that Convention, lead to the same conclusion?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1993 L 56 of 9.3.1993, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Com-
                                                                       mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                             Duchy of Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg by order of 30 August
2000 in the case of Maria Weber and Martin Weber v                                               (Case C-335/00)
                        Freistaat Bayern
                                                                                                 (2000/C 316/31)
                        (Case C-328/00)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 316/30)                                ties on 11 September 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also
European Communities by order of 30 August 2000 by
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht (Bavarian Administrative
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 Septemb-
er 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern on the following
questions:
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
1.   Was the Commission, when establishing the final regional                trative provisions needed in order to comply with
     reference amount, entitled, notwithstanding the wording
     of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 (1), to leave
     out of account reference prices from months in the                      —     Commission Directive 98/68/EC of 10 September
     period between 1 July 1992 and January 1993, to include                       1998 laying down the standard document referred
     in its calculation reference prices from months after that                    to in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and
     period, and to replace missing information on reference                       certain rules for checks at the introduction into the
     prices by an estimate?                                                        Community of feedingstuffs from third countries (1),