CELEX: C2000/006/23
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-381/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) by order of that court of 15 June 1999 in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft

C 6/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                1b) If the reply to Question 1a) is in the negative: In the
hof by order of that court of 5 August 1999 in the case of                 situation described in Question 1a), is the same classifi-
     Bertelsmann AG against Finanzamt Wiedenbrück                          cation in the collective agreement an indication of the
                                                                           same work or work of equal value within the meaning of
                                                                           Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and of
                         (Case C-380/99)                                   Directive 75/117/EEC, with the result that it is for the
                                                                           employer to prove that the activities in question are
                          (2000/C 6/22)                                    different?
                                                                       1c) Can the employer rely on circumstances not taken into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     account in collective agreements in order to justify a
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       difference in pay?
(Federal Finance Court) of 5 August 1999, received at the
Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in          1d) If the reply to Question 1a) or 1b) is in the affirmative:
the case of Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück on the                  Does this also apply if the classification in the professional
following question:                                                        category under the collective agreement is based on a job
                                                                           description in very general terms?
Is Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States             2a) Is there a definition of ‘worker’ underlying Article 119
relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as           (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC
meaning that the taxable amount in respect of the supply of a              which is uniform at least in so far as the worker’s obligation
bonus payable in kind, which is sent to the recipient in                   under the contract of employment depends not only on
exchange for recruiting a new client, includes not only the                generally defined standards, but also on the individual
purchase price of the bonus but also the delivery costs?                   capability of the worker himself?
                                                                       2b) Are Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Article
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   1 of Directive 5/117/EEC to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a difference in pay may be objectively justified by
                                                                           circumstances which can be established only ex post facto,
                                                                           particularly the result of the work of a specific employee?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Wien (Austria) by order of that court of 15 June
1999 in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der
     österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft
                         (Case C-381/99)                               Appeal brought on 8 October 1999 by The Procter &
                                                                       Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       8 July 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                          (2000/C 6/23)                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-163/98
                                                                       between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                                           and designs)
Wien (Regional Court of Appeal, Vienna) (Austria) of 15 June
1999, received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a                                 (Case C-383/99 P)
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v
Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft on
the following questions:                                                                        (2000/C 6/24)
1a) With regard to the question whether work is ‘equal work’           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
    or ‘the same job’ within the meaning of Article 119 (now           the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    Article 141) of the EC Treaty or is ‘the same work’ or             European Communities in Case T-163/98 between The Procter
    ‘work to which equal value is attributed’ within the               & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the
    meaning of Directive 75/117/EEC (1), is it sufficient, in          Internal Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before
    connection with the stipulation in an individual contract          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    of employment of supplements to the pay determined by              8 October 1999 by The Procter & Gamble Company, rep-
    a collective agreement, to ascertain whether the two               resented by Thierry van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    workers being compared are classified in the same pro-             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
    fessional category under the collective agreement?                 Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.