CELEX: C1998/397/38
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht St Pölten (Austria) by order of that court of 2 September 1998 in the case of D. (a minor) v. W. on appeal by the Österreichischer Bundesschatz (Case C-384/98)

C 397/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   19.12.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
St Pölten (Austria) by order of that court of 2 September              Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
1998 in the case of D. (a minor) v. W. on appeal by the                concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
                Österreichischer Bundesschatz                          working time (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                       (Case C-384/98)                                 Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                        (98/C 397/38)
                                                                   2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht
(Regional Court) St Pölten (Austria) of 2 September 1998,          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D. (a minor)
v. W. on appeal by the Österreichischer Bundesschatz on            Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
the followqing questions:                                          directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
1. Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/
                                                                   down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
     388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                   expired on 23 November 1996 without the Italian
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                   Republic having brought into force the necessary
     taxes (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                   provisions in order to comply with the directive referred
     exemption from turnover tax laid down by that
                                                                   to in the Commission's application.
     provision extends also to medical services which a
     doctor in his capacity as a court expert provides on
     the instructions of the Court, in particular by               (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
     anthropologico-genetic investigations in the context of
     a paternity dispute?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does that
     provision of the directive preclude application of a
     provision of national law which entitles (inter alia)
     doctors under certain conditions effectively to waive         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
     the said exemption from turnover tax?                         der Nederlanden by order of that court of 23 October
                                                                   1998 in the case of Coreck Maritime GmbH against (1)
                                                                   Handelsveem B.V., (2) V. Berg and Sons Ltd, (3) Man
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                     Producten Rotterdam B.V. and (4) The Peoples Insurance
                                                                                          Company of China
                                                                                           (Case C-387/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 397/40)
Action brought on 26 October 1998 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
                       (Case C-386/98)
                                                                   Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                        (98/C 397/39)                              23 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                   29 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Coreck Maritime GmbH against (1) Handelsveem B.V.,
                                                                   (2) V. Berg and Sons Ltd, (3) Man Producten Rotterdam
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                B.V. and (4) The Peoples Insurance Company of China on
                                                                   the following questions:
26 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and
Antonio Aresu, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos          1. Must the first sentence of Article 17 of the Brussels
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Convention (in particular, the words have agreed'),
Kirchberg.                                                             read in conjunction with the case-law of the Court of
                                                                       Justice according to which the purpose of Article 17
                                                                       is to ensure that the parties have actually consented to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            such a clause, which derogates from the ordinary
                                                                       jurisdiction rules laid down in Articles 2, 5 and 6 of
                                                                       the Convention, and that their consent is clearly and
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force              precisely demonstrated' (emphasis added by the Hoge
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Raad), be interpreted as meaning: