CELEX: C1998/258/41
Language: en
Date: 1998-08-15 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998 in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG (Case C-217/98)

C 258/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
least equal to the prices on 1 December 1993 increased by            27 November 1987 in conjunction with Article 29(1) of
20 %.                                                                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (2) of 22 July
                                                                     1985 to be interpreted as meaning that the additional
                                                                     amount of 20 % of the export refund concerned is to be
                                                                     levied even where the goods put into storage pending
According to the Commission, the conflicting nature of
                                                                     export with a view to advance payment of the refund
the provisions of Article 45 of Law No 2127/1993 gives
                                                                     pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/
rise to doubt as regards the rights and duties of those
                                                                     80 (3) of 4 March 1980 in conjunction with Articles 25
concerned.
                                                                     and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 are not exported
                                                                     Ð as originally planned Ð but are put back into free
                                                                     circulation in the Community following storage and the
In fact producers and importers are not free to determine            application for payment (Article 29(2) of Regulation
the selling price of their products, since there is a limit,         (EEC) No 3665/87) is withdrawn?
that is to say a minimum price which must be complied
with. That limit is fixed by the Minister for Finance and
corresponds to the selling price of those products as                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
determined for the previous year, increased by 20 %. The             (2) OJ L 205 of 3.8.1985, p. 5.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 62 of 7.3.1980, p. 5.
fact that the fixing of that limit takes place on the basis of
the selling prices which the producers or importers have
determined for previous years is not sufficient to show
that there is no restriction on freedom to determine prices.
Producers or importers do not have freedom to form their
prices but are bound to align them with the prices which
were decided upon in a given year. They cannot,
consequently, sell their products at a price lower than the
minimum price, as fixed by the Minister for Finance.                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre by judgment of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1998 in the case of Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and
                                                                                        243 others v SA Renault
Consequently, in so far as the Hellenic Republic prescribes
by ministerial decision a minimum retail selling price for                                  (Case C-218/98)
manufactured tobacco, it prevents manufacturers and
importers from determining that price freely, as they are                                     (98/C 258/42)
entitled to do under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/
EC, which replaced Article 5 of Directive 72/464/EEC.
(1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre (Industrial Tribunal, Le Havre) of
                                                                     24 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                     on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and 243 others v SA Renault on
                                                                     the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998
in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ                      Does the principle of equal pay for men and women laid
                        Nordfleisch AG                               down by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and
                                                                     subsequent legislation authorise payment to a pregnant
                       (Case C-217/98)                               woman only, and not to the father of the child, of the sum
                                                                     of FF 7 500 when she takes maternity leave, given that:
                        (98/C 258/41)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               such payment is provided for by the last part of Article 18
European      Communities        by   an    order     of   the       of the collective agreement of 5 July 1991 on social
Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Financial Court) of 7 April             benefits for Renault employees;
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the following
question:                                                            Article 19(2) of the agreement provides that employees'
                                                                     salaries continue to be paid during maternity leave?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 33(1)                 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1)                  of