CELEX: C1998/258/48
Language: en
Date: 1998-08-15 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-225/98)

C 258/28                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
te Groningen by judgments of that court of 20 May 1998                 Travail de LieÁge (7th Chamber) by judgment of that court
in the case of Hendrik Van der Woude against Stichting                 of 17 June 1998 in the case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop
                             Beatrixoord                                           against the Office National de l'Emploi
                          (Case C-222/98)                                                      (Case C-224/98)
                            (98/C 258/45)                                                       (98/C 258/47)
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 judgment of the Kantongerecht
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen) of 20 May
                                                                       Travail de LieÁge (7eÁme chambre) (LieÁge Labour Court Ð
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 1998, for
                                                                       7th Chamber) of 17 June 1998, received at the Court
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hendrik Van der
                                                                       Registry on 22 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
Woude against Stichting Beatrixoord on the following
                                                                       case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop against the Office
question:
                                                                       National de l'Emploi on the following question:
Are Article II(G) of the CAO (1) (which prohibits any
departure from the terms of that collective labour                     Given that the Court of Justice has already interpreted
agreement (2)) and Article 32 thereof (which lays down the             Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
medical expenses insurance rules (3)), read in conjunction             No 1612/68 (1) to mean that Article 36 of the Royal
with each other, contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC              Decree of 25 November 1991 cannot prevent a dependent
Treaty?                                                                child of a Community migrant worker who has completed
                                                                       his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
(1) Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst voor het ziekenhuiswezen           State other than Belgium from being eligible to receive the
    (Collective Labour Agreement relating to medical treatment).       tideover allowance, are those provisions to be interpreted
(2) may not . . . agree with the employee any conditions of           as meaning that Article 36 of the aforesaid royal decree
    employment which are not regulated by this CAO'.                   also cannot prevent a Belgian student who has completed
(3) Employees (and former employees) may be members of the             his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
    IZZ collective medical expenses insurance scheme. In               State other than Belgium and is seeking his first
    accordance with that article, Beatrixoord pays 50 % of the
                                                                       employment from being eligible to receive the tideover
    premium due from Mr Van der Woude in respect of the
    collective (individual) IZZ Medical Expenses Scheme.               allowance?
                                                                       (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
                                                                           relating to the free movement of workers within the
                                                                           Community (OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Kammarrätten,
Stockholm by order of 16 June 1998 in the case of
           Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG
                          (Case C-223/98)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of
                            (98/C 258/46)
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                               (Case C-225/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 16 June 1998 from                                              (98/C 258/48)
Kammarrätten, Stockholm (Administrative Court of
Appeal, Stockholm), which was received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the              An action against the French Republic was brought before
case of Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG on the                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
following question:                                                    22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Michael Nolin, of its Legal
                                                                       Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Does Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) constitute a
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
bar to application of rules of national law under which
                                                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the names of declarers or consignees of imported goods,
which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit,
may not be disclosed to the trade-mark owner?                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994
    laying down measures to prohibit the release from free             Declare that, in the course of the various procedures for
    circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive           the award of public service contracts for the construction
    procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341 of            and maintenance of school buildings conducted by the
    30.12.1994, p. 8).                                                 Nord-Pas de Calais Region and the DeÂpartement du Nord
                                                                       over a period of three years, the French Republic has
                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/29
Treaty as well as under Articles 12, 26 and 29 of Directive            freedom of Community architects to provide their
71/305/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 89/440/EEC (2)                  services (by requiring proof that the main architect
and Articles 8, 11, 22 and 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC (3).              was a member of the Architects' Association), the
                                                                       DeÂpartement du Nord failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       under Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Article 12(5) of Directive 71/305/EEC
                                                                       and of Article 11(5) of Directive 93/37/EEC: during
Ð Infringement of Article 12 of Directive 71/305/EEC                   the period 1993 to 1995, the Nord-Pas de Calais
    and of Article 11 of Directive 93/37/EEC: during the               Region did not publish any award notice.
    period 1993 to 1995, the pre-notification procedure
    was only rarely followed by the Nord-Pas de Calais
    Region. So far as concerns the DeÂpartement du Nord,           Ð Infringement of Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC:
    the Commission found no pre-notification notice                    the French authorities refused to forward to the
    published in the Official Journal of the European                  Commission the minutes of the procedures in issue.
    Communities, Supplement S, during the same period.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 185 of 16.8. 1971, p. 5.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 210 of 21.7. 1989, p. 1.
Ð Infringement of Article 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC: the           (3) OJ L 199 of 9.8. 1993, p. 54.
    Commission acknowledges that the taking into
    account of employment-related projects may be
    considered to be a valid additional criterion, but only
    as a condition of performance. By expressly presenting
    an employment-related condition as a criterion for
    awarding contracts, the French authorities have
    infringed Article 30.                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sixth Tax
                                                                   Chamber of the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles by judgment of
                                                                   that court of 12 June 1998 in the case of Georges Van der
                                                                    Zwalmen and Elisabeth Massart against the Belgian State
Ð Infringement of Article 22 of Directive 93/37/EEC: in
    notices which appeared in the Official Journal of                                     (Case C-229/98)
    18 February 1995, the phrase limited number of                                        (98/C 258/49)
    candidates' (Heading 13), gives the impression that
    that number could be less than 5.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by the Sixth Tax Chamber of the
Ð Infringement of Article 29(2) of Directive 71/305/EEC            Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) by
    and of Article 30(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC: in most           judgment of 12 June 1998, which was received at the
    of the notices, the contracting authorities, in order to       Court Registry on 26 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    indicate the award criteria, resorted to the method of         in the case of Georges Van der Zwalmen and Elisabeth
    award by reference to the Public Contracts Code'.             Massart v Belgian State, on the following questions:
    However, a general reference to a provision of
    domestic legislation cannot fulfil the obligation to
    advertise.                                                     Must Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
                                                                   Immunities of the European Communities be interpreted
                                                                   as:
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty: the
    technical specifications selected by the contracting           (1) prohibiting the Member States, under fiscal
    authorities could have the effect of favouring national             legislation applicable to personal tax, from creating,
    undertakings who are familiar with the system of                    for the taxation of married couples and their
    quality certification and which are used to providing               children, a distinct category of taxpayers by reason of
    documents or services in accordance with the                        the fact that one of them is a European official,
    references laid down in the contract notice. Moreover,              receiving as such earned income which is exempted
    undertakings established in other Member States are                 under a convention, without reservation as to
    not encouraged to submit tenders inasmuch as they                   progressive rates of tax, and from making for that
    do not have the means of knowing beforehand                         category two separate assessments whereby the tax is
    whether their qualifications comply with those                      determined for each of them on the basis of his own
    technical particulars in the absence of any equivalent              income and that of his children which is available to
    qualification.                                                      him by operation of law, whilst at the same time,
                                                                        where appropriate, each remains jointly and severally
                                                                        liable for the tax debt of the household (see
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty;                          Article 295 of the 1964 Income Tax Code and
    infringement of Article 26 of Directive 71/305/EEC: by              Article 394 of the 1992 Income Tax Code),
    imposing restrictions in a number of notices on the                 whereas, for married couples in which one spouse