CELEX: C1997/166/14
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-31 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vaasan Hovioikeus by order of that court of 21 March 1997 in the case of Markku Läärä and Others v. District Prosecutor and Finnish State (Case C-124/97)

No C 166/8             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        31 . 5 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     ( b ) Do national rules exempting a public economic entity
                                                                              from complying with the general rules laid down by
Whilst Article 171 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty does not lay down                   ordinary private-law provisions for all the other
a specific time-limit for the Member State concerned to                       operators in the sector in respect of fixed-term
fulfil its obligations arising under a judgment of the                        contracts of employment constitute an aid within the
Court of Justice, the latter must nevertheless begin                          meaning of Article 92 of the EEC Treaty ?
implementation of the judgment without delay and
conclude it as soon as possible .
The Federal Republic of Germany has failed to take
binding measures to transpose Article 3 ( 1 ) of Directive              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vaasan
75/440/EEC (2 ). It has also not yet drawn up a systematic              Hovioikeus by order of that court of 21 March 1997 in
plan of action under Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive, nor, in          the     case    of Markku Läärä and Others            v.   District
the Bundesländer, drawn up improvement plans for all                                         Prosecutor and Finnish State
watercourses . Finally, it has failed to comply with its                                           (Case C-124/97)
obligations to provide information under Article 8 of
Council Directive 79/869/EEC ( 3 ) of 9 October 1979 .                                              ( 97/C 166/14 )
The application for determination of a penalty payment                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
is based on Article 171 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty. The                     European Communities by an order of the Vaasan
Commission justifies the amount of the penalty by                       Hovioikeus (Vaasa Court of Appeal ) of 21 March 1997,
reference to its calculation method set out in Official                 which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March
Journal No C 242 of 21 . 8 . 1996 , p. 6 . It assesses the              1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Markku
Treaty infringement as severe ( Coefficient 8/20 ) and                  Läärä , Cotswold Microsystems Limited and Oy
regards its duration as very considerable ( Coefficient 2/3 ).          Transatlantic        Software   Limited v.   District Prosecutor
Concerning the deterrent effect of the penalty applied for,             (Jyväskylä Prosecutor's Office ) and Finnish State,
the Commission uses a calculation formula notified to the               represented by the Provincial Governments of Keski-Suomi
Member States, whereby reference is made to the relative                und Uusimaa, on the following questions :
position of each Member State in relation to its gross
domestic product and its weighted voting strength in the                 1 . Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 March
Council under Article 148 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty.                             1994 in Case C-275/92 Her Majesty's Customs and
                                                                              Excise v. Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler (^ to be
(') [ 1991 ] ECR 1-4983 .                                                     interpreted in such a way that it may be regarded as
( 2 ) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 26 .                                           equivalent to the present case ( compare the judgment
( 3 ) OJ No L 271 , 1979 , p . 44 .                                           of the Court of Justice of 6 October 1982 in Case 283/
                                                                              81 Sri CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v.
                                                                              Ministry of Health ( 2 ) and that the provisions of the
                                                                              EC Treaty should therefore be interpreted in the
                                                                              present case in the same way as in the aforesaid case ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                             In case the answer to the first question is wholly or
Circondariale di Padova by order of that court of                             partly negative, the Hovioikeus submits the following
17 December 1996 in the case of Tommaso Nalon against                         additional questions .
                        Ente Poste Italiane
                          ( Case C-123/97 )                             2 . Do the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement of
                            ( 97/C 166/ 13 )                                  goods and services (Articles 30, 59 and 60 ) apply also
                                                                              to gaming machines like those in question here ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   3 . If the answer to the second question is affirmative,
European Communities by order of the Pretura Circonda­
riale di Padova (Padua District Magistrate's Court ) of                       ( a ) do Articles 30 , 59 or 60 or any other article
 17 December 1996 , which was received at the Court                                 preclude Finland from restricting operation of the
Registry on 24 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                              gaming machines in question by granting the
the case of Tommaso Nalon against Ente Poste Italiane on                            sole right to the Raha-automaattiyhdistys ( Slot
the following questions concerning the interpretation of                            Machine Association ), irrespective of whether the
Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty:                                                   restriction affects domestic and foreign organizers
                                                                                    of gaming in the same way, and
 ( a ) May the questions concerning the compatibility of the                  ( b ) do there exist for that restriction any justifications
       national law with the Community provisions at issue                          as referred to in Articles 36 or 56 or any other
       be raised and determined in proceedings which have                           article of the EC Treaty, on the grounds put
       not been initiated by undertakings having interests                          forward in the Arpajaislaki ( Law on Lotteries ) or
       protected by the Community rules designed to                                 its preparatory work or any other grounds, and in
       safeguard competition ?                                                      considering that question may it be relevant how
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97           I EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 166/9
            large a prize can be obtained from the gaming                     the EC Treaty and, according to the rules of national
            machines and whether the opportunity to win is                    procedural law applicable to them, the arbitrators are
            based on chance or on the player's skill ?                        not at liberty to apply those provisions of their own
                                                                              motion ?
(') [ 1994 ] ECR 1-1039 .
( 2 ) [ 1982] ECR 3415 .
                                                                         2 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                                                                              law set out in paragraphs 4.2 and 4 .4 above, should a
                                                                              Netherlands court allow a claim, which otherwise
                                                                              complies with statuatory requirements, for the
                                                                              annulment of an arbitration award on the ground that
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   the award conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty, if
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar by order of that court                       it finds that there is in fact such a conflict ?
of 18 March 1997 in the case of A. G. R. Regeling against
Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijver­
                                   heid                                  3 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                          ( Case C-125 /97 )                                  law set out in paragraph 4.5 above, is the court also
                                                                              required to allow such a claim if the applicability of
                            ( 97/C 166/ 15 )
                                                                              Article 85 of the EC Treaty was outside the scope of
                                                                              the dispute in the arbitration proceedings and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                               arbitrators therefore made no decision in regard to it ?
of the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar ( Alkmaar District
Court) of 18 March 1997, received at the Court Registry                  4 . Does Community law require the rules of Netherlands
on 26 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                     procedural law set out in paragraph 5.3 above to be
A. G. R. Regeling against Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereni­                      disapplied if this is necessary in order to be able to
ging voor de Metaalnijverheid on the following question :                     examine , in proceedings for annulment of a
                                                                              subsequent arbitration award, whether an agreement
Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (') fully satisfied                  held to be valid in an interim arbitration award with
by rules of national law which may result in a claim                          the force of res judicata may nevertheless be void
relating to pay^being met, as required by that Directive,                     because it conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty ?
only if and in so far as that claim amounts, over the
period referred to in the Directive, to a sum greater than
the amount of pay which the employee received during                     5 . Alternatively, in a case such as that described in
that period but which is attributed, under national civil                     Question 4 , is it necessary to refrain from applying the
law, to a claim relating to pay which arose prior to that                     rule that, in so far as an interim arbitration award is
period ?                                                                      in the nature of a final award, annulment of that
                                                                              award may not be sought simultaneously with that of
(') OJ No L 283 , 1980 , p . 23 .                                             the subsequent arbitration award ?
                                                                         H OJ No C 77, 1996 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 21 March 1997
in the case of Eco Swiss China Time Ltd against Benetton
                          International NV                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Chamber for
                          ( Case C-126/97 )                              Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna,
                                                                         by order of that court of 2 December 1996 in the case of
                             ( 97/C 166/ 16 )                            Annalisa Carbonari and 121 other plaintiffs against
                                                                         1 . Università degli Studi di Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sa­
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   nità, 3 . Minstero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica,
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                            4 . Ministero del Tesoro
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                               ( Case C-131 /97 )
21 March 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
 on 27 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                                          ( 97/C 166/ 17 )
 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd and Benetton International NV
on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . To what extent is the ruling of the Court of Justice in             European Communities by an order of the Chamber for
        Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel                 Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna
        and Van Veen v. SPF (') applicable by analogy if, in a           ( Bologna District Magistrates Court) of 2 December 1996,
        dispute concerning a private law agreement which is              which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April 1997,
        decided upon by arbitrators rather than the national             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Annalisa Carbonari
        courts, the parties make no reference to Article 85 of           and 121 other plaintiffs against 1 . Universita degli Studi di