CELEX: C2001/275/10
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01: References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di L'Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)

29.9.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 275/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                       territory (Thuringia) which, under the direction of the
Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of                       manager of the holding, has been produced from its cows
Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assuran-                        installed in leased facilities in the accession territory
ces against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                         (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)?
                            Finance)
                        (Case C-266/01)                                 2.    Or is the milk quantity thus acquired to be imputed to
                                                                              the provisionally allocated reference quantity of the
                        (2001/C 275/08)                                       lessor farmer who is himself partly producing and the
                                                                              provisionally allocated milk reference quantity withdrawn
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        in favour of Thuringia where, as in this case, federal land
European Communities, by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                        borders divide the part of the holding to which the
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 May                      reference quantity was allocated from the part of the
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July                      holding in which the milk is produced and, in contradis-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Préservatrice                   tinction to the situation in the Ballmann case, cited above,
Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assurances v the State of the                 the holding or part of the holding to which the milk
Netherlands (Ministry of Finance) on the following questions:                 reference quantity was provisionally allocated is maintai-
1.    Is a claim lodged by the State under a private-law contract             ned only, as it were, as the holding’s head office and
      of suretyship which it has concluded in fulfilment of a                 produces and delivers only a proportion of less than
      condition determined by it pursuant to Article 6(1) of the              5 % of the milk reference quantity (dairy herd/milk
      1975 TIR Convention, and therefore in exercise of its                   production)?
      public powers, to be regarded as a civil or commercial
      matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels            3.    Is it material to the reply to these questions that the
      Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of                       holding producing the milk was formerly in the territory
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters?                              of the GDR but that this territory was transferred to
                                                                              Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) by state treaty between
2.    Must proceedings which are brought by the State and                     the two länder of the Federal Republic of Germany known
      which have as their subject-matter a private-law contract               as Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?
      of suretyship be regarded as a customs matter within the
      meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention on
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil            (1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
      and Commercial Matters, on the ground that pleas may              (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 73.
      be put forward by the defendant which necessitate an              (3) ECR I-25 [1991].
      investigation into, and a ruling on, the existence and
      content of the customs debts to which that contract
      relates?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
gericht Weimar by order of that court of 23 May 2001                    L’Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora
in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v                   Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of
                      Freistaat Thüringen                                  Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)
                                                                                         (Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01)
                        (Case C-268/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 275/10)
                        (2001/C 275/09)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of 20 June 2001 by the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Tribunale di L’Aquila (District Court, L’Aquila), which were
(Administrative Court), Weimar, of 23 May 2001, which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for preliminary
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        rulings in the cases of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli and
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v
                                                                        Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile on the following
Freistaat Thüringen on the following questions:
                                                                        questions:
1.    Is Article 9(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
      (amended by Regulation (EC) No 1256/99 (2)), or other             (1) Is the provision of binding minimum tariffs contrary to
      provisions concerning guaranteed quantities of milk, to                 free competition on the ground that it prevents the free
      be interpreted, by reference to Case C-341/89                           fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as provided for under
      Ballmann (3), as meaning that in the case of a holding or               Article 81(1)(a) EC, and does it also have the effect
      part of a holding in the territory of the former GDR a                  of reinforcing the compartmentalisation of markets at
      milk quantity is also to be imputed to the reference                    national level, thereby hindering the economic integration
      quantity provisionally allocated to it in the accession                 intended by the Treaty?
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
      Lawyers who are nationals of other EC Member States              No 729/70 (2) and Article 23 of Regulation No 4523/88 (3),
      and who work in Italy are also required under Article 13         under which the Member State can and must take the measures
      of the Law of 9 February 1982 to comply with the tariff          necessary to prevent and take action against irregularities and
      for legal fees and thus also with the rule prohibiting           recover amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence,
      differentiation of amounts below a specified minimum             applicable in this context as well?
      level.
(2) Are Articles 633(1)(2) and 636(1) of the Italian Code of           (1) OJ 1997 L 53 p. 30.
      Civil Procedure, under which a lawyer is authorised to           (2) OJ 1970 L 94 p. 13.
      have his fees determined by the Council of the order to          (3) OJ 1988 L 374 p. 1.
      which he belongs through the adoption of an opinion
      binding on his client and on the court (in enforcement
      proceedings), allowing him to obtain entitlement based
      on that unilateral determination of the professional
      fee pursuant to the abovementioned minimum tariffs,
      contrary to free competition on the ground that they
      prevent the free fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as
      provided for under Article 81(1)(a) EC, by reserving such
      determination to a body consisting exclusively of lawyers?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                       Schleswig by order of 5 July 2001 in proceedings involv-
                                                                       ing the imposition of a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt
                                                                                                    Steffensen
                                                                                                 (Case C-276/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                                           (2001/C 275/12)
Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001,
in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS)          European Communities by order of 5 July 2001 by the
           and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)                     Amtsgericht Schleswig (Local Court, Schleswig), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling, in proceedings involving the imposition of
                        (Case C-271/01)                                a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt Steffensen, on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 275/11)
                                                                       1.    Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June
                                                                             1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) to be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       construed as conferring on the manufacturer of a product
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                      a directly applicable right to apply for a second opinion
(Council of State), Sixth Section, of 8 May 2001, received at                in the case where public authorities have taken from a
the Court Registry on 9 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in               retail outlet a sample of the manufacturer’s product for
the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali                   purposes of analysis and that sample has failed to satisfy
(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) against CO.P.P.I., Società            certain criteria imposed by the legislation on foodstuffs?
Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi
(IBIESSE) on the following question:                                   2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                             is Article 7(1) of that directive to be construed as giving
Does Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 (1) of                 rise to a Community-law prohibition on the use of
15 February 1977 — which provides that the Commission,                       findings based on samples removed by public authorities
after consulting the Fund Committee on the financial aspects,                where it has not been made possible for the manufacturer
may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in                    of the product which is the subject of criticism in those
Article 22, to suspend, reduce or discontinue aid from the                   findings to apply for a second opinion?
Fund, and to recover sums paid, if, inter alia, prior to expiry of
the period laid down therein, the beneficiary sells equipment
or buildings having received aid from the Fund without prior
authorization from the Commission — constitute a standard              (1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.
procedure which excludes the Member State’s competence to
adopt such measures to discontinue aid and recover sums
paid, or are the principles laid down in Article 8 of Regulation