CELEX: C1997/074/26
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Adjudicator, by decision of the Adjudicator of 20 December 1996, in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini against Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-416/96)

8 . 3 . 97               EN [                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/13
Registry on 23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                 2 . Must the words '[. . .] legally due [. . .]' in Article 2(1 )
the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy                          of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1697/79 be
Pohjolan Liikenne Ab on the following questions :                              interpreted as meaning that:
1 . Is the Regulation on public service obligations                            — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
       ( Regulation (EEC ) No 1191 /69 (') as amended by
                                                                                   when the competent authorities receive a
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1893/91 (2 )), in particular                          declaration containing an incorrect tariff heading
       Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1 ( 3 ), to be                        that are conclusive for determining whether an
                                                                                    amount is due ?
       interpreted as meaning that it entitles a transport
       undertaking to have a part, of whatever size, of its
       operating obligation terminated, for example, only a                         or as meaning that:
       certain part of one route operated ?
                                                                               — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
                                                                                    when the competent authorities establish that a
2 . If the answer to the first question is wholly or                                declaration contained an incorrect tariff heading
       conditionally in the affirmative, in which case the                          that are conclusive for determining whether an
       Korkein Hallinto-oikeus may remit the case to the                            amount is due ?
       Laaninhallitus for a fresh decision, in order to reach a
       final decision in the case the question arises whether it
       also follows, from the right given to transport                    3 . A. What is the legal effect of a decision by the
       undertakings in the Regulation on public service                             European Commission, after consultation with the
       obligations to have a service obligation partially                           Customs Code Committee, addressed to a Member
       terminated, that the authorities' power under national                       State following a request by a Member State to the
        law to revoke a traffic licence in order reasonably to                      Committee that it take a decision on whether there
       reorganize the traffic is precluded or restricted where                      was, in specified circumstances, justification for
       the need to reorganize results from a partial                                granting remission of import duties, and in which
       termination .                                                                the Commission and the Committee decided that
                                                                                    there was no justification for granting remission of
 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( I), p. 276.                                 import duties referred to in the Member State's
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 169, 29 . 6 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                          request to the Committee ?
                                                                               B. Is it compatible with the legal effects described in
                                                                                    the answer to question 3 .A for a court in the
                                                                                    Member State concerned to rule in a judgment
                                                                                    that there was no necessary legal basis for post­
                                                                                    clearance recovery of import duties ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Appeals and
 Objections Committee of the Hojesteret by decision of
 that      court   of 20      December     1996   in  the   case  of
                 Skatteministeriet v. Sportgoods A/S
                            ( Case C-413/96 )
                               ( 97/C 74/25 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                          Adjudicator, by decision of the Adjudicator of
                                                                          20 December 1996, in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        against Secretary of State for the Home Department
 European Communities by decision of the Appeals and                                              ( Case C-416/96 )
  Objections Committee of the Hojesteret ( Supreme Court)
  of 20 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                               97/C 74/26 )
  Registry on 27 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
  the case of Skatteministeriet ( Ministry of Fiscal Affairs ) v.
  Sportgoods A/S on the following questions :                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Immigration
                                                                           Adjudicator of 20 December 1996, which was received at
  1 . Must Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   the Court Registry on 31 December 1996 , for a
        No 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery of import                preliminary ruling in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
         duties or export duties which have not been required              against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on
         of the person liable for payment on goods entered for             the following questions:
         a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay
         such duties ( OJ No L 197, 1979, p. 1 ) be interpreted
         as meaning that post-clearance recovery may be                    1 . In a case of a Moroccan national, who is lawfully
         effected only in cases in which there is a difference in               resident in a Member State and who is lawfully
         the amount of duty involved, but not in cases of                       employed in that Member State, does the term
         incorrect declarations of headings which have not had                  'working conditions' in Article 40 of the EC/Morocco
         any bearing on the amount ?                                            Cooperation Agreement include security of such
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/ 14           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 3 . 97
     employment for the duration of the employment as                   paragraph 19 (2 ) of the Bundessozialhilfegesetz ( Federal
     freely determined between the employer and the                      Law on Social Assistance )) to a limited group of persons ?
     employee ( i.e. length of employment) and the benefits
     arising from such security, such as a career structure
     providing the possibility of promotion, vocational
     training and pay and retirement pensions
     commensurate to the seniority of the applicant,
     applying mutatis mutandis the reasoning used by the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
     European Court of Justice in inter alia Case C-272/92              Criminal Division, by order of that court of 24 December
     Spotti v. Freistaat Bayern [ 1994] 3 CMLR 29, [ 1993 ]
                                                                         1996, in the case of Regina against John Charles Goodwin
     ECR 1-5185 and Case 225/85 Commission v. Italy                                        and Edward Thomas Unstead
     [ 1987] ECR 2625 ?
                                                                                                    (Case C-3/97)
                                                                                                     ( 97/C 74/28 )
 2 . If so, does the fact that the length of the applicant's
     employment is subject to a de facto time limit by the
     operation of the United Kingdom immigration laws                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and in the instant case is being terminated by the                 European Communities by an order of the Court of
     respondent's decision not to extend the applicant's                Appeal, Criminal Division, of 24 December 1996, which
     leave to remain in the United Kingdom constitute                   was received at the Court Registry on 9 January 1997, for
     discrimination in relation to such 'working conditions'            a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina against John
     on grounds of nationality where the respondent could               Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead, on the
     not impose such a de facto time limit and/or forced                following question :
     termination of employment upon its own nationals ?
                                                                        Does the supply of counterfeit perfume products fall
3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the                        within the scope of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     affirmative, does Article 40 of the EC/Morocco                     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Cooperation Agreement require the Member State to                  Member States relating to turnover taxes (the sixth
     grant the Moroccan worker leave to remain for the                  Directive ) ( 1 )?
     duration of his lawful employment ?
                                                                        (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
Reference      for    a       preliminary     ruling    by    the       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen by                      State, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 18 December
order    of  that   court     of   9   December    1996   in  the
                                                                        1996 in the case of NV Ballast Nedam Group v. Belgian
administrative proceedings between Mehmet Birden and                                                      State
                    Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                                                   ( Case C-5/97 )
                         ( Case C-l /97 )
                                                                                                      97/C 74/29
                           ( 97/C 74/27 )
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                        European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
of the European Communities by order of the                            Staate ( Council of State ) of 18 December 1997, which was
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen                        received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1997, for a
( Administrative Court of the Free Hanseatic City of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Ballast Nedam Group v.
Bremen ) of 9 December 1996, received at the Court                     Belgian State
Registry on 6 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Mehmet Birden v. Stadtgemeinde Bremen ( City               on the following questions :
of Bremen ) on the following question:
                                                                        1 . May the word 'permit' in the phrase 'permit [. . .]
Is a Turkish worker a duly registered member of the                         account to be taken of [...]' in the operative part of
labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of                       the judgment in Case C-389/92 (') be taken to mean
Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey                       'require'?
Association     Council       on    the   development    of   the
Association, if he has a job sponsored by that Member                  2. If the word 'permit' in the above phrase cannot be
State with public funds and requiring payment of social                     taken to mean 'require ', does that mean that the
security contributions which is meant to enable him to                      Member State concerned in this regard enjoys a
enter or re-enter working life and which, owing to the                      discretionary power, even where the condition laid
State sponsorship, may only be offered (pursuant to                         down by the Court is satisfied ?