CELEX: C1999/160/19
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-100/99: Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

C 160/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Hassan
              Osseili v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                             Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless
                                                                              workers and to members of their families who have
                          (Case C-97/99)                                      travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member
                                                                              country and have not moved within the Community?
                         (1999/C 160/17)
                                                                         (1) JO L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       p. 416.
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hassan Osseili v. Bundesan-
stalt für Arbeit on the following questions:
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to               Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-              against Council of the European Union and Commission
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply                            of the European Communities
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if
     such persons have no right of free movement under the                                        (Case C-100/99)
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
     on the European Union?                                                                       (1999/C 160/19)
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
     Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     workers and to members of their families who have                   17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by
     travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member              Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Danilo Del
     country and have not moved within the Community?                    Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
(1) JO L 149 , 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
    p. 416.                                                              The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         — annul the contested regulations (1)
                                                                         — order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of
       Mohamad Nasser v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart                      1.     The amendment to Article 4 of Regulation (EC)
                                                                         No 2799/98, contained in Article 2 of Regulation (EC)
                          (Case C-98/99)                                 No 2800/98, applies to the participating Member States the
                                                                         same prohibition provided for in respect of the non-
                                                                         participating Member States to grant compensatory aid for
                         (1999/C 160/18)                                 prices and amounts other than those referred to in Article 5 of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 that does not exceed appreciable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   revaluation of 2,6 %.
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was                That requirement constitutes, by its undifferentiated nature, a
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for                     distortion to the disadvantage of the participating currencies,
a preliminary ruling in the case of Mohamad Nasser v.                    in particular those which can show an ‘appreciable’ income
Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart on the following questions:                   loss in converting to the euro, and is contrary to the principles
                                                                         and objectives of the common agricultural policy, and in
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June               particular to Articles 39 and 40 of the Treaty and to the
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to               principle of proportionality.
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if            2.     The second complaint concerns the way in which
     such persons have no right of free movement under the               the compensatory mechanism provided for in Article 4 of
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European                   Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 has been applied, in particular as
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992              regards the determination of the flat-rate income loss which,
     on the European Union?                                              for certain products, is unjustified and unfair.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 160/9
3.     Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 reserves a                 2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, was Article 4 of
particularly favourable treatment, in terms of compensatory                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 on special
aid, for certain products. Firstly, unlike the remaining prices               detailed rules for the application of the system of import
and amounts, the reduction is set at 0,5 % rather than at 2,6 %;              and export licences in the sugar sector (2), of 10 September
secondly, it constitutes a ‘de minimis’ limit rather than an                  1981 (now replaced by Article 5 of Commission Regu-
abatement percentage; thirdly, application of such a reduction                lation (EC) No 1464/95 on special detailed rules for the
is dependent on a discretionary choice by the Member States.                  application of the system of import and export licences in
Finally, under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2800/99, the                the sugar sector (3), of 27 June 1995) ultra vires and void
Community contribution for the first year amounts to 100 %.                   for the reason that it imposed a requirement which is not
                                                                              found in or justified by Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81,
                                                                              namely, that an export licence for C sugar may only be
There is no legal basis or valid reason for the abovementioned
                                                                              issued after the manufacturer in question has provided the
disparity of treatment, specifically so far as concerns the setting
                                                                              competent agency with proof that the quantity for which
of a reduction for a lower amount applicable under conditions                 the licence is requested, or an equivalent quantity has
which are by far more favourable to producers.                                actually been produced in excess of the A and B quotas of
                                                                              the undertaking concerned?
Moreover, the favourable treatment reserved for the products
and the aid in question amounts to penalisation of Mediterrane-           3. If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is ‘no’, in the
an agriculture, which is altogether contrary to the rules and                 circumstances of this case, is the National Authority in
principles of the Treaty, and is furthermore vitiated by lack of              maintaining that the sugar exported as C sugar was A or B
essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers.                       quota sugar and/or in then seeking to impose a charge
                                                                              pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 2670/81, laying down detailed implementing rules in
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (4), of
    p. 1).                                                                    14 September 1981 for the failure to dispose of C sugar
    Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 outside the EC, in breach of one or more of the following
    p. 8).                                                                    general principles of Community law:
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,
    p. 36).
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,              (a) the principle of Legitimate Expectations,
    p. 48).
    with particular regard to the provisions complained of,                   (b) the principle of Legal Certainty,
                                                                              (c) the principle of Non Discrimination,
                                                                              (d) the principle of Proportionality,
                                                                              (e) the principle of the Proper Use of Powers;
                                                                          with the effect that the demand for the charge in the present
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   case is void and unenforceable?
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
& Wales), by order of that court of 26 February 1999, in                  4. Further or alternatively, if the answer to question 1 is ‘no’:
the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for
      Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc.                      (a) Does the National Authority have a discretion to vary
                                                                                   the amount of the charge to be imposed pursuant to
                                                                                   Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case C-101/99)                                           No 2670/81?
                         (1999/C 160/20)                                      (b) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘yes’, what factors may the
                                                                                   National Authority take into account in exercising
                                                                                   such a discretion in the light, in particular, of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             circumstances of this case?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England &                     (c) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘no’, is Article 3(1) of Regulation
Wales), of 26 February 1999, which was received at the Court                       (EEC) No 2670/81 void to the extent that it requires a
Registry on 18 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                         National Authority to levy a charge even when the
case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural                      amount of sugar disposed of on the internal market
Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc, on the following questions:                  does not, in practice, exceed the sum of the relevant
                                                                                   manufacturer’s A and B quotas?
1. Under the EC Sugar Regime and in particular under Article
     24.1.c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the                 5. Is the National Authority, in the circumstances of this case,
     common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (1),              prevented from levying a charge pursuant to Article 3(1)
     of 30 June 1981, may an undertaking awarded a quota by                   of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 where it has
     a national authority attribute sugar as C sugar when that                not notified the undertaking of such a charge in accordance
     sugar is produced during a marketing year before the                     with the time limit contained in Article 3(2) of Regulation
     undertaking has actually completed production of a vol-                  (EEC) No 2670/81 before 1 May of the relevant year
     ume of sugar that is equivalent to the sum of its A and B                and/or is the undertaking relieved of any obligations to
     quotas?                                                                  pay such a charge in the above circumstances?