CELEX: C2000/047/09
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA v Commission of the European Communities and Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) (Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Somatosalm — Procedure for setting maximum residue limits — Adaptation Committee — Failure to deliver opinion — Deadline for proposing measures to the Council)

C 47/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 18 November 1999
                                                                                                  of 18 November 1999
in Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA v Commission of the
European Communities and Fédération Européenne de la                       in Case C-161/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     Santé Animale (Fedesa) (1)                            the Tribunal du Travail, Mons): Georges Platbrood v
                                                                                       Office National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Somatosalm —
Procedure for setting maximum residue limits — Adaptation
Committee — Failure to deliver opinion — Deadline for                      (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as
               proposing measures to the Council)                          amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92) — Benefits of
                                                                           the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more
                                                                           Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or
                            (2000/C 47/09)                                 withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State
                                                                           — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance
                                                                           with a legal presumption (‘war years presumption’) where
                     (Language of the case: French)                        no pension right payable under another scheme (including a
                                                                                       foreign scheme) is established for them)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2000/C 47/10)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA, established in Seraing, Belgium,
represented by A. Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                  (Language of the case: French)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17
February 1998 in Case T-105/96 Pharos v Commission[1998]                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ECR II-285, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                                 in the European Court Reports)
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: M. Nolin) and Fédération Européenne de
la Santé Animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels, Belgium,               In Case C-161/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
represented by D. Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt                Travail (Labour Court), Mons, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling
and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — the Court (Fifth                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Georges
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     Platbrood and Office National des Pensions (ONP) — on the
Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                 interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in which it:                     of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                           (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                           J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and
2. Orders Pharos SA to pay the costs;                                      M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
3. Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
    to pay its own costs and those of the Commission arising from
    its intervention.                                                      A national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings
                                                                           under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and
                                                                           31 December 1944, was in employment is deemed to have continued
                                                                           to be an employed person under the same conditions as regards
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                  duration throughout the period between the date on which his
                                                                           employment ceased and 31 December 1945, but under which that
                                                                           presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the
                                                                           person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State,
                                                                           does not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal