CELEX: C2003/264/29
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-356/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder

C 264/18               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
7.    Does the right of ownership set out in Article 1 of                      the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-
      Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human                        selling situation, as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz
      Rights (The Rome Convention of 1950) and taken up in                     über den Widerruf von Haustürgeschäften und ähnlichen
      Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the                   Geschäften (Law on the cancellation of doorstep trans-
      European Union proclaimed in Nice in October 2000                        actions and analogous transactions), both as regards the
      also cover intellectual property in the names of the places              contract for the purchase of the immovable property
      of origin of wines and the exploitation of those names,                  and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that
      and, consequently, does the principle expressed by that                  purchase?
      law preclude application of the agreement set out in the
      exchange of letters annexed to the Agreement between                2.   Are the requirements of the rule concerning a high
      the European Community and the Republic of Hungary                       level of protection in the field of consumer protection
      on reciprocal protection and control of wine names (OJ                   (Article 95(3) EC) and the effectiveness of consumer
      1994 L 337), but not included in the body of that                        protection safeguarded by Directive 85/577/EEC satisfied
      agreement, under which wine-producers of the Friuli-                     by a national legal system or the interpretation thereof
      Venezia Giulia region are not permitted to use the name                  which limits merely to the reversal of the loan agreement
      ‘Tocai Friulano’, particularly in view of the total lack of              the legal effects of the revocation of the declaration of
      any compensation to the wine-producers of Friuli-Vene-                   intent to enter into a loan agreement, even in connection
      zia Giulia thus dispossessed, the lack of any general public             with such capital investment models in which the loan
      interest justifying their dispossession and the evident                  would not have been granted at all without the acquisition
      disregard for the principle of proportionality?                          of the immovable property?
8.    In the event that it is held that the Community laws                3.   Is a national rule on the legal effects of cancelling a loan
      contained in the Community Agreement between the                         agreement to the effect that the cancelling consumer
      European Community and the Republic of Hungary on                        must pay back the loan proceeds to the financing bank,
      the protection and control of wine names of 29 Novem-                    even though according to the plan drawn up for the
      ber 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337) and/or the exchange of letters                  capital investment the loan serves solely to finance the
      annexed thereto are unlawful to the extent described in                  immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor of
      the preceding questions, must the provisions of Regu-                    the immovable property, consistent with the protective
      lation (EC) No 753/2002 (2), under which use of the                      purpose of the rule on cancellation laid down in
      name ‘Tocai Friulano’ is to be prohibited after 31 March                 Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC?
      2007 (Article 19(2)) be regarded as invalid and of no
      effect?                                                             4.   Where a legal effect of cancellation, under national law,
                                                                               results in the consumer being required, after declaring
                                                                               cancellation, immediately to pay back — in accordance
(1) Read: 23 November 1993.                                                    with the plan drawn up for the capital investment — the
(2) OJ L 118 of 4.5.2002, p. 1.                                                loan proceeds which have thus far not been redeemed at
                                                                               all, plus interest thereon at the normal market rate, is this
                                                                               effect contrary to the rule concerning a high level of
                                                                               protection in the field of consumer protection
                                                                               (Article 95(3) EC) and to the principle of the effectiveness
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                          of consumer protection enshrined in Directive 85/577/
Bochum by order of that Court of 29 July 2003 in the                           EEC?
proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-
   gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG                      (1) OJ L 372, p. 31.
                         (Case C-350/03)
                         (2003/C 264/28)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    hof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Bochum                   Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes
(Bochum Regional Court) of 29 July 2003, received at the                                            und der Länder
Court Registry on 11 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-                                      (Case C-356/03)
gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG on the
following questions:                                                                               (2003/C 264/29)
1.    Does Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1)
      of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      of contracts negotiated away from business premises also            European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      cover such contracts for the purchase of immovable                  (Federal Court of Justice) of 9 July 2003, received at the Court
      property which must be regarded as merely a component               Registry on 18 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      of a credit-financed capital investment model and in the            case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des
      case of which the contract negotiations conducted up to             Bundes und der Länder on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 264/19
1.    Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 11(2)(a)                    EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and
      of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and Article 6(1)(g) of Directive                safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents
      86/378/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3),                      at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of
      preclude provisions of statutes governing a supplemen-                     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
      tary occupational pension scheme of the kind at issue in                   of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this case under which an employee, during statutory                        Article 14 of that directive;
      maternity leave (in this case from 16 December 1992 to
      5 April 1993 and from 17 January to 22 April 1994),                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      acquires no deferred rights to an insurance annuity which,                 proceedings.
      in the event of her early departure from the compulsory
      insurance scheme, may be claimed monthly from the time
      the insurance contingency (pensionable age, occupational
      disability or invalidity) materialises, because the accrual of
      such rights is conditional upon the employee’s receiving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      taxable pay during the relevant period, but the benefits
      paid to her during maternity leave do not constitute
      taxable pay under the provisions of national law?                    The period for transposition expired on 5 May 2001.
2.    Is this the case in particular if account is taken of the fact
                                                                           (1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
      that the insurance annuity is not — like the occupational
      pension which would be paid if the insurance contingency
      materialised whilst she was still in the compulsory
      pension scheme — intended to cover the employee in
      old age or in the event of invalidity but to reimburse the
      contributions made in respect of her during the period of
      compulsory insurance?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 348 [1992], p. 1.                                                 of the European Communities against the Republic of
(2) OJ L 225 [1986], p. 40.                                                                              Austria
(3) OJ L 46 [1997], p. 20.
                                                                                                    (Case C-358/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 264/31)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                               Austria                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                          (Case C-357/03)                                  Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
                                                                           Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
                         (2003/C 264/30)                                   the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the                          notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter                         necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/269/
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within                       EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an                    requirements for the manual handling of loads where
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
                                                                                 (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
                                                                                 Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9
                                                                                 of that directive;
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 98/24/                    proceedings.