CELEX: C1999/188/35
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-135/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 24 February 1999 in the case of Ursula Elsen against Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte

3.7.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 188/15
     presented by the Member States in respect of the expendi-           (2) Must the operations referred to in Article 4(3) of Direc-
     ture for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                   tive 69/335/EEC be regarded as covered by the prohibition
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (1) in so far as                laid down in Article 10 of the same Community measure,
     Article 2 thereof requires a contribution from Germany of                in such a way as to preclude the collection, under the
     DM 833 895.82 on account of non-compliance with                          directive, not only of the tax on the raising of capital but
     payment deadlines, rather than charging it to the EAGGF;                 also of any other levy, of whatever kind, in particular one
                                                                              that is a charge rather than a tax?
•    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (3) Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of the same directive be
                                                                              interpreted as meaning that the fees payable for entry
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               (prescribed by law) on the National Register of Legal
                                                                              Persons of increases of capital may not vary according to
— Lack of legal basis for charging a contribution of                          the amount of such increases?
     DM 2 237 238.60 to Budget heading B01-2122-007
     rather than the contribution of DM 1 403 342.78 calcu-              (4) May such variables also be regarded as a function of the
     lated by the German authorities, which was the correct                   cost of the service provided?
     figure especially in view of a reserve remaining from 1994
     of DM 2 447 802.54. In clearing the accounts for 1995,
     the Commission did not apply, or did not correctly apply,           (5) Does that cost include the salary of officials, agents or
     the reserve regulations in its working paper VT/458/93 -                 other public employees, expenses incurred in respect of
     Rev.4 of 30 September 1994.                                              minor operations carried out free of charge, and a portion
                                                                              of overheads (rent of premises, data-processing and com-
                                                                              munications equipment, electricity, water and the like)
— Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate               attributable to registration operations?
     expectations: The Commission’s conduct is in contradic-
     tion to its own conduct in connection with the clearance
     of accounts for 1994, when it recognised an initially               (6) Is it permitted, having regard to the abovementioned
     disputed payment as having been paid on time. The unused                 articles of the said directive, to regard those variables
     residual reserve amount resulting therefrom cannot be left               deriving from increases of capital as a manifestation of
     out of account by the Commission in the clearance of                     standardised charges and, as such, authorised charges?
     accounts for 1995.
                                                                         (7) It is permitted, having regard to the same provisions of the
— Infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 190                 directive, for any fee to be charged in excess of the cost of
     of the EC Treaty.                                                        the service? And if so, to what extent? If the excess were to
                                                                              be manifest and unreasonable, could the amount of the
                                                                              fees be reduced on an equitable basis?
(1) Decision 1999/187/EC, OJ No L 61, 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
                                                                             indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition,
                                                                             1969(II) p. 412).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
of that court of 17 March 1999, in the case of IGI-
Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, and Fazenda Pública, both
            being both appellants and respondents
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
                         (Case C-134/99)                                 gericht by order of that court of 24 February 1999 in the
                                                                         case of Ursula Elsen against Bundesversicherungsanstalt
                                                                                                    für Angestellte
                         (1999/C 188/34)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             (Case C-135/99)
European Communities by an judgment of the Second Chamb-
er of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-                                        (1999/C 188/35)
trative Court) of 17 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of IGI-Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, and Fazenda             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Púiblica, on the following questions:                                   European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                         (Federal Social Court) of 24 February 1999, received at the
(1) May Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1)           Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
     be relied on by a private individual in dealings with the           the case of Ursula Elsen against Bundesversicherungsanstalt
     State, even if the latter has not transposed that directive         für Angestellte (Federal Insurance Office for Clerical Staff) on
     into national law?                                                  the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Does European law require a period of child-rearing under                  Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
German law prior to 1 January 1986 to be taken into account                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
if the child was in fact raised in another Member State (in this
case France) but the parent who brought the child up was
                                                                                                     (Case C-137/99)
engaged in occupational activity as a cross-border worker
subject to compulsory insurance in the Federal Republic of
Germany until the start of the maternal protection period and                                        (1999/C 188/37)
after the end of her maternity leave as well?
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its legal Service,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth                 1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
and Eighth Sub-Sections) by order of that court of 5 March                      administrative provisions required to comply with Council
1999 in the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de                          Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending and
l’Economie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di                        consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure
                               Siena                                            financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
                                                                                animals and certain animal products and amending Direc-
                                                                                tives 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, for the protection of
                         (Case C-136/99)                                        animals during transportation, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;
                         (1999/C 188/36)
                                                                           2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the French Conseil                     Pleas in law and main arguments
d’Etat (Council of State) (Judicial Section, Ninth and Eighth
Sub-Sections) of 5 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in               The Member States are required by the binding character of
the case of Ministre du Budget and Ministre de l’Economie et               the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena.                          Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
                                                                           into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for
                                                                           that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
The French Conseil d’Etat is asking the Court of Justice to rule           to the Commission. That period expired on 1 July 1997
on the question whether or not the provisions of the Eighth                without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 (1)have                   Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
the effect of granting to taxable persons established in a                 into national law.
Member State of the Community where they are taxed only on
a part of their turnover a right to a partial refund of the tax            (1) OJ No L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
charged in another Member State in respect of goods or
services which they have used in order to carry out, in the
State in which they are established, transactions of which some
are not taxed. If they do, to what method of determining the
portion of refundable tax do those provisions refer, and, in
particular, is that portion to be determined according to the
rules applicable in the State where the taxable person is
established, or according to the rules in force in the State
required to make the refund?                                               Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                                       Luxembourg
(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on
    the harmonisation of the 1aws of the Member States relating to                                   (Case C-138/99)
    turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax
    to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country
    (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).                                                                          (1999/C 188/38)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European