CELEX: C1999/100/20
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-43/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Supérieur des Assurances Sociales du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, by judgment of that body of 10 February 1999 in the case of Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu against Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales

10.4.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/11
Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Sadam                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam                         Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del              that court of 13 January 1999, in the case of FaÂbrica de
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola              Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda and Tribunal TeÂcnico de 2a
SpA against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the                                            InstaÃncia
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
                                                                                             (Case C-42/99)
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-39/
98 Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam                                       (1999/C 100/19)
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola
            SpA v. Council of the European Union                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an judgment of the Second
                      (Case C-41/99 P)                               Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                      (1999/C 100/18)                                (Supreme Administrative Court) of 13 January 1999,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 12 February
                                                                     1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of FaÂbrica de
                                                                     Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda and Tribunal TeÂcnico de 2a
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of            InstaÃncia, on the following questions:
the European Communities on 12 February 1999 by
Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del              1. Are the Explanatory Notes to the combined
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                   nomenclature (1), where they state that caseins
SpA, represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, Gualtiero                    containing by weight more than 15 % water are
Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of the Bologna Bar, with an               included under heading 0406 (cheese and curd)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      contrary to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/
ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde, against the                   88 (2) according to which (Chapter IV) they are to
order made on 8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber                       classified under heading 0406, as cheese, provided
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of                  that:
the European Communities in Case T-39/98 Sadam
Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam                              (a) they have a fat content of 5 % or more;
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                   (b) they have a dry matter content, by weight, of at
SpA v. Council of the European Union.                                          least 70 % but not exceeding 85 %; and
                                                                          (c) they are moulded or capable of being moulded?
The appellants claim that the Court should set aside the
Court of First Instance's order of 8 December 1998 in
Case T-39/98 by declaring the application to be admissible           2. Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC)
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a              No 3174/88 are the imported goods (which have the
decision on the substance.                                                following composition: 54 % water, 0,9 % fat, 5,7 %
                                                                          phosphorus, 2 % salt and casein) to be classified
                                                                          under customs heading 3501 10 90 0 00 000 as
                                                                          casein Ð other Ð or under customs heading
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                        0406 90 11 01 0 000 as other cheeses?
                                                                     (1) OJ C 342, 5.12.1994, p. 1.
The contested regulation (1) has direct, not indirect,               (2) OJ L 298, 31.10.1998, p. 1.
detrimental effects on the four plants of the appellant
sugar-producing undertakings operating in southern Italy.
Those four plants are effectively the sole specific
addressees of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2613/97
and have individually been adversely affected.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil
                                                                     SupeÂrieur des Assurances Sociales du Grand-DucheÂ de
It follows     that  the   application    must    be  declared       Luxembourg, by judgment of that body of 10 February
admissible.                                                          1999 in the case of Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu
                                                                          against Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales
(1) Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of                                       (Case C-43/99)
    15 December 1997 authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar                             (1999/C 100/20)
    beet producers and abolishing all State aid from the 2001/
    2002 marketing year (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by judgment of the Conseil
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
SupeÂrieur des Assurances Sociales du Grand-DucheÂ de                   Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
Luxembourg (Supreme Council of Social Insurance of the                  of the European Communities against the French Republic
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), received at the Court
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                                      (Case C-44/99)
the case of Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu against
                                                                                              (1999/C 100/21)
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales (National
Family Benefits Fund) on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
1. Are Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a and Annexes II and IIa to               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), which lay down the                16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
     principle of the non-transferability of childbirth and             Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
     maternity allowances, consistent with Article 48 and               Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     51 of the EC Treaty?                                               Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. Is Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as
     meaning that, in respect of dependant children, it                 The Commission of the European Communities claims
     grants workers in receipt of an invalidity pension who             that the Court should:
     reside in a different country from that which pays the
     invalidity pension, family allowances only, to the
     exclusion of the child-raising allowance which is not              1. declare that, by incorrectly applying the provisions of
     granted by reference to the number of children?                        Article 68(1) and Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council
                                                                            Regulation No 1408/71 (1) to employed persons other
                                                                            than frontier workers who, during their last
3. Is Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be                       employment, were residing in a Member State other
     interpreted as meaning that the recipient of an                        than the competent Member State, and, in particular,
     invalidity pension who continues to make compulsory                    by calculating unemployment benefits on the basis of
     sickness insurance contributions in the country which                  the normal wage or salary corresponding, in the place
     provides the pension, may, notwithstanding his                         where the unemployed person is residing or staying, to
     pension, be considered in that country as an employee                  an equivalent or similar employment to his last
     who is entitled to receive family benefits, including the              employment in the territory of another Member State,
     child-raising allowance, and Ð in the event that the                   and not on the basis of the wage or salary actually
     non-transferability clause is held to be incompatible                  received by the person concerned in his last
     with the Treaty Ð childbirth allowances?                               employment in the Member State where he was
                                                                            working immediately prior to becoming unemployed,
                                                                            the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under Article 68(1) and Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council
4. Does the concept of worker' within the meaning of
                                                                            Regulation No 1408/71 and under Article 48 and
     Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2) include the recipient
                                                                            Article 51 of the EC Treaty;
     of an invalidity penison who resides in a different
     country from that which provides the pension?
                                                                        2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
5. Is Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 to be
     interpreted as meaning that the recipient of an
     invalidity pension or his spouse may, on the basis of
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     that article, enjoy social advantages which are
     denied him by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
     notwithstanding the principle of non-transferability
     laid down therein in the event that that principle is              The French institutions have conferred entitlement to
     found by the Court to be compatible with the EC                    unemployment benefit on persons other than frontier
     Treaty?                                                            workers who are regarded as employed and who, during
                                                                        their last employment, were risiding in a Member State
                                                                        (France) other than the competent Member State
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on              (Germany), but who cannot, nevertheless, be regarded as
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons      frontier workers.
    and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149,
    5.7.1971, p. 2).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
    on freedom of movement for workers within the Community             For the purposes of calculating that benefit, the competent
    (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2).
                                                                        authority has taken as the reference wage or salary a wage
                                                                        or salary corresponding to that which the person
                                                                        concerned would have received if he had worked in
                                                                        France in an employment equivalent to his employment in