CELEX: C2000/335/68
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-359/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of 25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup

C 335/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vakuutus-                   3)    If the answer to Question (2) is no, is that payment
oikeus by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the                       nonetheless part of the taxable amount by reason of
                 case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi                                 constituting the consideration (or part of the consider-
                                                                              ation) for a supply?
                        (Case C-351/00)
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                        (2000/C 335/65)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Vakuutusoikeus
(Insurance Court), Finland, of 18 January 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 21 September 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi on the
following question:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                        Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
Does the pension scheme under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              by judgment of that court of 31 July 2000 in the case of
Pensions Law) fall within the scope of Article 141 EC or of                            Freskot AE against the Greek State
Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?
                                                                                                  (Case C-355/00)
(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
    gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                              (2000/C 335/67)
    men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.79,
    p. 24).                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-
                                                                        kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,
                                                                        Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 July 2000,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2000 for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Freskot AE against the Greek
                                                                        State on the following question:
                                                                        Whether the imposition of the insurance contribution referred
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                to in the grounds of the judgment, to which domestically-
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                   produced agricultural products and by-products of vegetable
that court of 8 September 2000, in the case of Keeping                  or animal origin or originating from fishing are subject and
Newcastle Warm against Commissioners of Customs and                     which is levied and paid as income to the competent public
                              Excise                                    finance service, is, given the objective which it pursues, namely
                                                                        organising and implementing programmes of proactive protec-
                        (Case C-353/00)                                 tion and insuring the production and assets of agricultural
                                                                        enterprises, contrary to the provisions of European Union law
                                                                        concerning the free movement of goods (Article 28), the
                        (2000/C 335/66)                                 common agricultural policy (Articles 38, 39 and 40), the
                                                                        freedom to provide services (Articles 59 and 60), permitted
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  State aid (Article 92) and the provisions of the First Council
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973.
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 8 September 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 September
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Keeping Newcastle
Warm against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:
1)    Is a payment made by the Energy Grants Action Agency              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
      to the Appellant, which receives it in respect of energy          Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of
      advice given to an eligible householder, a subsidy within         25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs
      the meaning of that word in Article 11.A.I (a) of the EC                             Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)?
                                                                                                  (Case C-359/00)
2)    If the answer to the first Question is yes, is that payment
      also directly linked to the price of the supply of energy                                  (2000/C 335/68)
      advice, so as to form part of the taxable amount of
      that supply by reason of the concluding words of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 11.A. 1(a)?                                               European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 335/39
Commerce (Commercial Court), Foix, of 25 September 2000,                          Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 September                          approximation of the laws of the Member States with
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Réunion des                         regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (1) and
Assureurs Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup, on the following                            Commission Directive 96/87/EC of 13 December 1996
question:                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                                  96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the
In the light of:                                                                  Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous
—     the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European                          goods by rail (2) or in any event by failing to inform the
      Communities in Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement                            Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Wallonie v Région Wallonne [1997] ECR I-7411, which                         its obligations under those Directives.
      states that:
                                                                            —     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      ‘the Member States ... [must] refrain, during the period
      laid down [in a directive] for its implementation, from
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the
      result prescribed’; and
                                                                            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
—     the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
      Communities in Case C-239/98 Commission v France                      upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
      [1999] ECR I-8935 declaring that the French State has                 on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
      failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose Directives              laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
      92/49 and 92/96 into domestic law,                                    1997 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                            ary to comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions
      can Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                            of the Commission.
      direct insurance other than life assurance (1) and Directive
      92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 [relating to direct life
      assurance] (2) be interpreted as prohibiting any enforce-             (1) OJ L 235, 17.09.1996, p. 25-30 .
      ment (or any procedure) of any kind whatsoever, in                    (2) OJ L 335, 24.12.1996, p. 45.
      particular by means of court-supervised receivership
      or liquidation proceedings before the Tribunaux de
      Commerce, of judicial decisions taken pursuant to legis-
      lation on direct insurance other than life assurance [or on
      direct life assurance] which is incompatible with those
      directives?                                                           Appeal brought on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc
                                                                            against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the Second
(1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98 (1)
    direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives      between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)          European Communities, supported by the Federal Repub-
    (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the                  lic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktienge-
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions                                      sellschaft
    relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
    79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ                                  (Case C-371/00 P)
    1992 L 360, p. 1).
                                                                                                     (2000/C 335/70)
                                                                            An appeal against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Action brought on 4 October 2000 by the Commission                          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98
        of the European Communities against Ireland                         between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany,
                          (Case C-370/00)                                   the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft, was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (2000/C 335/69)
                                                                            ties on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc, a public limited
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                   company incorporated in England with its registerd office at
Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2000 by                    Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by Mark Brealey,
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                     Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Jonathan
by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an                Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a            at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10, Rue Mathias
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner                       Hardt.
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                            The Appellant seeks an order that:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1)    the Appeal be allowed;
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    2)    the Order be set aside;