CELEX: C1995/208/27
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona Tingsrätt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzén (Case C-189/95)

No C 208/ 14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
      as such formed part of the decision to impose a fine, that         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona
      cartel played a role in many places in the Commission's            Tingsratt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the
      decision and also had a decisive influence on the                               Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzen
      judgment of the Court of First Instance .                                                 ( Case C-l 89/95 )
— Infringements of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                                          ( 95/C 208/27 )
      Court of First Instance committed serious errors in its
      treatment of the established facts . In particular it several      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      times took no account of relevant considerations . That is
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Landskrona
      true of market delimitation, the alleged arrangements              Tingsratt ( Landskrona District Court) of 14 June 1995 ,
      between the applicant and Trefilunion, the alleged quota           which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1995 ,
      and price agreements with the Benelux producers                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public Prosecutor v.
      concerning the German market and the alleged quota                 Harry Franzen on the following questions :
      and price agreements concerning the Benelux market.
      The judgment completely ignores the applicant's
      submissions at the hearing as well as the applicant's              1 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      replies to the written questions asked by the Court of                  compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome ?
      First Instance . Likewise the Court of First Instance failed
      to observe the preconditions of Regulation No 67/67                2 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      ( group exemptions ).                                                   contrary to Article 37 of the Treaty of Rome and, if so,
                                                                              must the monopoly be abolished or is an adjustment
— Infringements of Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 : the                    possible ?
      Court of First Instance is wrong at law to assume that
      there is no need in an individual case to weigh up                 3 . If a monopoly such as the Systembolaget is to be
      mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the                         regarded as being contrary to Article 37, is any period of
      determination of the fine . Similarly wrong at law is the               adjustment available or should it have been abolished or
      Court 's assessment of the existence of the lawful                      an adjustment made by 1 January 1995 ?
      structural crisis cartel . The Court further fails to
       recognize that the applicant was in any event entitled to
      plead an inevitable mistake concerning the prohibition .
       Finally the Court misdirected itself in law in applying the
       principle of proportionality.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
( 2 ) O ) No L 260 , 6 . 9 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                         Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in the
                                                                         case of ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst
                                                                                      Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam
                                                                                                 ( Case C-l 90/95 )
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                                ( 95/C 208/28 )
Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo
di Porto e di Tivoli by orders of that court of 1 8 February
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-187/95 ) in                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against                   European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
Luciano Iommi and Others , Angelo Deodati and Luchini                     ( Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 7 June 1995
                                   Aldo                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June 1995 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of ARO Lease BV v.
                 ( Cases C-l 86/95 and C-l 87/95 )                       Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( Head
                              ( 95/C 208/26 )                            of the Large Undertakings Unit of the Revenue Office ),
                                                                          Amsterdam, on the following question :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by orders of the Pretura                            Must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive
 Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo                77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
 di Porto e di Tivoli ( District Magistrate 's Court, Rome —              laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
 Castelnuovo di Porto and Tivoli Sections ), of 18 February               common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 , which were                     assessment, be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person
 received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 for a                     established in the Netherlands who, as such, makes
 preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                   available to third parties approximately 6 800 passenger
 before that court against Iommi Luciano and Others,                      cars under operational-lease agreements , of which
 Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini on questions identical to                approximately 800 were purchased and made available in
 those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 (')•                    Belgium, where ARO does not have an office, supplies those
                                                                          services from a fixed establishment in Belgium ?
 (') See Of No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .