CELEX: C1998/209/44
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova, by order of that court of 28 March 1998 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda Agricola San Luca (Case C-160/98)

C 209/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.7.98
of the European Communities in Case T-105/96 between                 Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
Pharos SA and Commission of the European Communities                     Commission was entitled to seek a further opinion
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  from the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Communities on 17 April 1998 by Pharos SA, represented                   Products: the procedure provided for by Articles 6 and
by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                8 of the regulation is clear, precise and unconditional.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     It examines all possible situations exhaustively and
Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                   leaves the Commission no room to act otherwise than
                                                                         as laid down by the regulation.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
Ð set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
    Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    of 17 February 1998 in Case T-105/96 between Pharos
    SA and the Commission of the European
    Communities;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                     Nederlanden of 22 April 1998 in the case of
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
and
                                                                                                 SiberieÈ'
                                                                                             (Case C-158/98)
Ð declare that the case should proceed to judgment and
    give judgment for the applicant in the terms sought by                                    (98/C 209/43)
    it at first instance, that is to say:
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Ð declare that, in breach of its obligations, the                European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
         Commission failed to pursue the procedure for the           der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
         inclusion of somatosalm produced by the applicant           22 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 April
         in the list of substances not subject to an MRL in          1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
         Annex II of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (1),                Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
                                                                     SiberieÈ', on the following question:
    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant
         damages provisionally estimated at BFR 512                  Must Article 2 of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)
         million or, at least, and again provisionally, at BFR       therefore be interpreted as meaning that no liability to
         353 million,                                                turnover tax arises in respect of a person who, for
                                                                     consideration, offers another person the opportunity to
    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs both of the               deal in cannabis products?
         proceedings before the Court of First Instance and
         of those before the Court of Justice;                       (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
or
    Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
         so that it can give judgment.                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                     Giudice di Pace di Genova, by order of that court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  28 March 1998 in the case of Eridania SpA against
                                                                                       Azienda Agricola San Luca
                                                                                             (Case C-160/98)
Errors in law as regards
                                                                                              (98/C 209/44)
Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
    Commission did not breach the principles of legal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    certainty and legitimate expectations in not proposing           European Communities by order of 28 March 1998 of the
    measures to the Council as required by Article 8(3)(b)           Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova, received at the
    of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 for 11                    Court Registry on 22 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    months because the expression without delay' used in            in the case of Eridania SpA v. Azienda Agricola San Luca
    that regulation allowed it a certain margin for                 on the following questions:
    manoeuvre': both the expressions used in the various
    language versions and the general scheme of the                  1. Is Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997 (1), in
    regulation support the view that the Commission has                  particular Article 1(f) thereof, valid, especially in the
    no deadline by which it must propose measures to the                 light of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC)
    Council regarding a new pharmacologically active                     No 1785/81 (2) and Article 190 of the EC Treaty?
    substance which, as such, does not benefit from the
    provisional authorisation provided for in Article 14 of          2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
    the regulation,                                                      is Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981, as
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/23
     subsequently amended, and in particular Articles 3(1),         presumption in respect of the war years if the person
     5(3) and 6(2) thereof, valid, in the light of Article 40       concerned can claim a pension under a foreign scheme for
     and Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty?                        those periods of employment) constitute a clause for
                                                                    reduction, suspension or withdrawal declared inapplicable
(1) OJ L 170, 28.6.1997, p. 3.                                      by the new provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92?
(2) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                        amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes¼ (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
of the Tribunal de Travail, Mons, by judgment of that
court of 21 April 1998, in the case of Georges Platbrood            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
           v. Office National des Pensions (ONP)                    Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of
                       (Case C-161/98)                              13 March 1998 in proceedings concerning an
                                                                       administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann
                         (98/C 209/45)
                                                                                             (Case C-162/98)
                                                                                              (98/C 209/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Third
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Tribunal de Travail (Labour Tribunal),
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Mons, of 21 April 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 13 March
Registry on 27 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                    1998, received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1998, for
case of Georges Platbrood v. Office National des Pensions
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
(ONP), on the following questions:
                                                                    administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann,
                                                                    on the following question (1):
Do the new provisions in Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
requiere Belgium to grant a beneficiary the right to a              Does the exemption from charges afforded to motor
retirement pension calculated on the basis of a work                vehicles belonging to road maintenance and operation
record comprising in part years in the course of which              services' apply only to vehicles belonging to regional and/
presumed or notional contributions must be taken into               or local authorities, or does it also apply to vehicles
account Ð unless the person concerned can claim a                   belonging to private contractors acting on behalf of such
pension under a foreign scheme for those periods of                 authorities?
employment (principle that there is a legal presumption in
respect of the war years, as laid down by Article 32(1) of          In the latter case:
the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 establishing
general rules for the retirement and survival pension               does the exemption from charges apply only in respect of
scheme for employees prior to its repeal by the Royal               journeys undertaken for that purpose, or does it apply
Decree of 14 December 1990 Ð although it remains                    generally to all journeys made using such vehicles, thus
applicable to retirement pensions which became payable              including those undertaken on business relating to the
for the first time before 1 January 1991) in circumstances          contractor's manufacturing operations?
where, specifically, the person concerned has been
awarded a retirement pension payable by Germany on the              (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Agreement
basis of actual contributions corresponding to the                      of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
presumed or notional contributions which may be taken                   certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                        [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
into account under the Belgian legislation?
In other words, must the new provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 1248/92 (1) be interpreted as authorising
overlapping, without reduction, suspension or withdrawal
of a retirement pension awarded to a Belgian, payable by            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Seventh
Belgium and calculated on the basis of presumed or                  Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel, Arlon, by
notional contributions by virtue of the principle that there        judgment of that court of 2 April 1998 in the case of
is a legal presumption in respect of the war years, as laid         MinisteÁre Public against AndreÂ Mazzoleni Ð parties
down by Article 32(1) of the Royal Decree of 21 December            claiming damages: Eric Guillaume, Michel Pedon,
1967 (subject to the reservation contained in that                  Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin, JeÂrôme Canini;
provision whereby the person concerned may not,                      liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL
however, claim a pension under a foreign scheme for those                                    (Case C-165/98)
periods of employment) with the benefit of a retirement
pension payable by Germany calculated on the basis of                                         (98/C 209/47)
actual contributions covering the same period or, on the
contrary, might the exception provided for by Article 32(1)         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (no legal                   European Communities by judgment of the Seventh