CELEX: C1996/269/42
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 24 July 1996, in the case of Imperial Chemical Industries plc against Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (Case C-264/96)

No C 269/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
    solely on fulfilment of the conditions applying with                  administrative provisions of the Member States relating
    regard to German nationals and not on fulfilment of the               to construction projects ( 1 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
    further conditions applying to aliens which are laid                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
    down in the first sentence of paragraph 1 ( 3 ) of the
    Bundeskindergeldgesetz ('BKGG') in the version thereof            2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
    published in the Official Notice of 31 January 1994
    ( BGB1 . I, p. 168 )?                                             The time limit for transposition expired on 27 June
                                                                      1991 .
    Or, to phrase that question in more general terms :
                                                                      (>) OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 12 .
    Is a Member State prohibited from refusing a Turkish
    national who comes within the personal scope of
    Article 2 of Decision No 3/80 family benefits provided
    for under its law on the ground that that person does
    not possess an Aufenthaltsberecbtigung or an                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
    Aufenthaltserlaubnis ?                                            order of that court of 24 July 1996 , in the case of Imperial
                                                                      Chemical Industries pic against Colmer ( Her Majesty's
2 . Is a Turkish national residing in the territory of a                                       Inspector of Taxes )
    Member State a worker within the meaning of Article 2                                        ( Case C-264/96 )
    in conjunction with Article 1 ( b ) of Decision No 3/80                                        ( 96/C 269/42 )
    during periods when, pursuant to the law of that State,
    compulsory contributions to the social security pension           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    scheme are deemed, in favour of that person , to have             European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
    been paid in respect of time spent in bringing up a               of 24 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    child ?
                                                                      29 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Imperial
                                                                      Chemical Industries pic against Colmer ( Her Majesty 's
3 . Is a Turkish national residing in the territory of a              Inspector of Taxes ), on the following questions :
    Member State who, in addition to following a course of
    studies, is employed there on the basis of a                      1.  In a situation where :
    corresponding Aufenthaltserlaubnis for up to 16 hours
    per week as an occasional worker to be regarded on that                   ( i ) a company ( company A ) is resident in a Member
    ground alone as a worker within the meaning of                                  State of the European Union;
    Article 2 in conjunction with Article 1 ( b ) of Decision
    No 3/80, or in any event because that person is insured                 ( ii ) company A is part of a consortium with another
    under a statutory accident insurance scheme against                             company ( company B ) also resident in that
    accidents at work ?                                                             Member State;
                                                                          ( iii ) companies A and B jointly own a holding company
                                                                                    ( company C ) also resident in the Member State ;
                                                                          ( iv ) company C has a number of trading subsidiaries ,
                                                                                    which are resident either in that Member State,
                                                                                    other Member States of the European Union or
Action brought on 26 July 1996 by the Commission of the                             elsewhere in the world ; and
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                        ( Case C-263 /96                                    ( v ) company A is precluded from being entitled to
                          ( 96/C 269/41 )                                           claim against its corporation tax liability relief in
                                                                                    respect of trading losses incurred by a trading
                                                                                    subsidiary ( also resident in that Member State ) of
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                company C because the national legislation ,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          construed as a matter of national law, required
26 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                                      that the business of company C should consist
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                                 wholly or mainly in the holding of shares in
Adviser in the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address                         subsidiaries which are resident in that Member
for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la                           State .
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
European Communities, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                      Does the requirement identified at ( v ) constitute a restriction
                                                                      on the freedom of establishment under Article 52 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty ? If so, is such treatment nevertheless justified under
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Community law ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and       2 . If the requirement under ( v ) is an unjustified restriction
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  under Community law, does Article 5 of the EC Treaty
    with Council Directive 89/ 106/EEC of 21 December                     require a national court to interpret the relevant
    1988 on the approximation of laws , regulations and                   national legislation, so far as is possible, so as to comply
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 269/21
     with Community law, even though neither company A,               measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
     company B or company C is itself seeking to exercise any         them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     rights under Community law, and even if an                       prescribed for doing so . That period expired on 30 June
     interpretation of national legislation which would               1994 without the Kingdom of Belgium having brought into
     comply with Community law would have the effect of               force the necessary measures .
     giving relief where the business of company C consisted
     mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries                  (') OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 33 .
     established outside the EC/EEA ? Or does Article 5 have
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 10 .
     the consequence only that the national legislation,              (>) OJ No L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 25
     despite its interpretation, takes effect subject to the
     requirements of Community law in a case where these
     requirements are in point ?
                                                                      Action brought on 5 August 1996 by the French Republic
                                                                                     against the European Parliament
Action brought on 31 July 1996 by the Commission of the                                        ( Case C-267/96 )
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                                  ( 96/C 269/44 )
                          Case C-265 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 269/43 )
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   5 August 1 996 by the French Republic, represented by Marc
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            Perrin de Brichambaut, Director of Legal Affairs at the
31 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and Denys Wibaux, Secretary
Communities, represented by A. X. Lewis, acting as Agent,              for Foreign Affairs at the same ministry, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Embassy, 9 boulevard du Prince Henri .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,             — declare null and void the decision of the European
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 Parliament of 17 July 1 996 ,
      comply with :
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      ( a ) Commission Directive 93/64/EEC ( 1 ) of 5 July 1 993
            setting out the implementing measures concerning
            the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            establishments pursuant to Council Directive
            92/34/EEC ( 2 ) on the marketing of fruit plant            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
            propagating material and fruit plants intended for          Case C-345/95 of 6 November 1995 ( M.
            fruit production and/or by not notifying the
            Commission thereof;                                         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 7 .
      ( b ) Commission         Directive    93/79/EEC ( 3 )      of
            21 September 1993 setting out additional
            implementing provisions for lists of varieties of fruit
            plant propagating material and fruit plants, as kept
            by suppliers under Council Directive 92/34/EEC,
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-327/95 (')
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 of Directive 93/64/EEC and                                       ( 96/C 269/45 )
      Article 3 of Directive 93/79/EEC and under the EC
      Treaty;                                                           By order of 3 May 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                    register of Case C-327/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v. Italian Republic .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
 paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the