CELEX: C2001/186/06
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — International coach and bus transport of passengers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

30.6.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 186/3
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;                   ings pending before that court by Vincent Offermanns and
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   Esther Offermanns — on the interpretation of Articles 3 and
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March                  4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
2001, in which it has ruled:                                                 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                             employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
1.    In order to determine whether a frontier worker is to be regarded      of their families moving within the Community, as amended
      as partially unemployed or wholly unemployed within the                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
      meaning of Article 71(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC)                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 6 and
      No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons         and 43 EC), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
      and to members of their families moving within the Community,          Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward
      as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                     (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, uniform Community criteria                  General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      must be applied. That assessment may not be made on the                has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
      basis of criteria drawn from national law.                             ruled:
2.    If, in a Member State other than that in whose territory he
      resides, a worker remains in employment with the same                  A benefit such as the advances on maintenance payments provided
      undertaking, but part-time, while remaining available for work         for by the Austrian Bundesgesetz über die Gewährung von Vorschüss-
      on a full-time basis, he is partially unemployed and the related       en auf den Unterhalt von Kindern (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz)
      benefits are to be provided by the competent institution of that       (Federal Austrian Law on the Grant of Advances on Maintenance for
      State. On the other hand, if a frontier worker no longer has any       Children) constitutes a family benefit within the meaning of
      link with that State and is wholly unemployed, those benefits          Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
      are to be provided by the institution of the place of residence at     1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
      its own expense. It is for the national court to determine on the      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
      basis of those criteria, in the case pending before it, the category   moving within the Community, as amended and, updated by Council
      to which the worker in question belongs.                               Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996. Consequently,
                                                                             persons residing in the territory of a Member State to which the
                                                                             provisions of that regulation apply are entitled, in accordance with
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                    Article 3 of that regulation, to receive such a benefit under the
                                                                             legislation of that Member State on the same conditions as that
                                                                             State’s nationals.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 15 March 2001                                              ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
in Case C-85/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               (Third Chamber)
the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria): by Vincent
             Offermanns and Esther Offermanns (1)                                                   of 16 November 2000
(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family                         in Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL v Commission of
benefits’ — National legislation providing for payment of                                     the European Communities (1)
advances on maintenance payments due by a worker to his
minor child — Condition concerning the child’s nationality)                  (Appeal — International coach and bus transport of passen-
                                                                                          gers — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                            (2001/C 186/05)
                                                                                                        (2001/C 186/06)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-85/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster                         In Case C-289/99 P: Schiocchet SARL, having its registered
Gerichtshof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-               office in Beuvillers, France, represented by P. Barbier, avocat,
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
Thionville, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          2.    accordingly, declare the application admissible and send
premises of Borislav Erdeljan, 90 Route de Thionville —                     it back to the Court of First Instance for judgment (or for
Appeal against the unpublished order of the Court of First                  a stay of proceedings pending delivery of the judgment
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                     of the Court of Justice in Case C-310/99 Italy v Com-
21 May 1999 in Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 Schiocchet v                     mission);
Commission, seeking to have that order annulled and to have
the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance          3.    order the Commission to pay the full costs incurred by
granted, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission               the appellants in respect of matters adjunct to proceedings
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Wolfcarius, assisted                 before the Court of First Instance and the present appeal
by J.-L. Fagnart) — The Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                 proceedings, reserving the costs of the main proceedings.
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 Novem-          Pleas in law and main arguments
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                      The contested order is vitiated by the following errors in law:
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                      —     infringement and misapplication of Articles 111 and 114
2.    Schiocchet SARL shall pay the costs.                                  of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;
                                                                      —     infringement and misapplication of the provisions of the
                                                                            Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                  regard to calculating procedural time-limits in the event
                                                                            of publication of the contested act;
                                                                      —     failure to give reasons in relation to the legal arguments
                                                                            for the application of the rules on time-limits invoked by
                                                                            the appellant;
                                                                      —     in the alternative, error of law and failure to state reasons
                                                                            with regard to the matter of excusable error.
Appeal brought on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria), estab-
lished in Rome, Confederazione Generale Italiana del
Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI
(Confcommercio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria
Italiana (ABI), established in Rome, Associazione Naziona-
le fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
(Italy), and Banco di Napoli SpA, established in Naples               of by order of that court of 1 March 2001 in the case of
(Italy) against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the              Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                  Second Chamber, Extended                                                          Krefeld
                        (Case C-141/01 P)                                                      (Case C-152/01)
                                                                                               (2001/C 186/08)
                         (2001/C 186/07)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An appeal against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the            European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Second Chamber extended Composition, of the Court of First            (Federal Finance Court) of 1 March 2001, received at the Court
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-126/00                 Registry on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
between Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Con-         of Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
findustria) and Others and the Commission of the European             on the following questions:
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione               1.    Must Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and the other              No 1495/80 (1) of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
abovementioned companies.                                                   provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 1224/80 (2) on the valuation of goods for
                                                                            customs purposes as amended by Regulation (EEC)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 No 220/85 (3) be interpreted as meaning that payments
                                                                            of interest are distinct from the price of the goods if at
1.    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the             the material time, namely the acceptance of the customs
      European Communities of 19 January 2001;                              declaration, only the invoice for the net price of the goods