CELEX: C1999/226/39
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-217/99: Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

7.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                          Presidential Decree No 641/1972, regard being had to the
Feldkirch als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht by order of that                        fact that the said Article 11 retroactively extended to taxes
court of 16 March 1999 in the case of Friedrich Jauch                            paid but not due the three-year time-limit which, however,
      against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                          in the abovementioned second paragraph of Article 13 —
                                                                                 on the basis of the true meaning of the words used in
                          (Case C-215/99)                                        context — was expressly limited solely to the case of
                                                                                 ‘repayment of charges paid by mistake’ so as to induce not
                                                                                 only the interested parties but also all the trial judges to
                          (1999/C 226/37)                                        interpret it in that manner?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           In short, does the principle of legal certainty allow the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                               national court to apply — both then and now — a
(Regional Court) Feldkirch, in its capacity as a court with                      time-limit based on a provision which, having regard to
jurisdiction in employment and social security matters, of                       the ordinary meaning of the words, does not apply to the
16 March 1999, received at the Court Registry on 7 June                          case before it?
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Jauch v
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Employees’ Retire-               2. Must the provisions of Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council
ment Insurance Institution) on the following question:                           Directive 69/335/EEC (2) be interpreted as preventing the
                                                                                 introduction of national legislation, like that introduced by
‘Is it an infringement of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation                    the Italian legislature in the form of Article 11(1) and (2)
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of                       of Law No 448/1998, which — ex post facto — reduces
social security schemes to employed persons, to self employed                    refunds in respect of amounts paid but not due by way of
persons and to members of their families moving within the                       annual charge on a flat-rate basis for entry on the register
Community, in its current version, to make entitlement                           of undertakings (at that time document registries) of
to nursing benefit pursuant to the current version of the                        company documents in respect of each of which the
Bundespflegegeldgesetz (Federal Law on nursing benefit; BGBl                     company had already paid a sum provided for by the
110/1993) dependent on the person in need of care having                         national legislation?
his normal residence in Austria?’
                                                                                 In short, is it permitted—in the light of the abovemen-
                                                                                 tioned directive—for the national legislature to duplicate,
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                               ex post facto by means of what purports to be an
                                                                                 interpretative law, levies which have already been paid?
                                                                            (1) (1988) ECR 3249.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969, p. 25.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Milano, First Civil Chamber, by order of that court of
15 May 1998 in the case of Riccardo Prisco Srl v
          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                          (Case C-216/99)                                   Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (1999/C 226/38)
                                                                                                      (Case C-217/99)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the First Civil Chamber
of the Tribunale di Milano by order of 15 May 1999, which                                             (1999/C 226/39)
was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1999, on the
following questions:                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
1. Do the principles of legal certainty and the protection of               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     individuals — which, according to the judgment of the                  represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
     Court of Justice of 21 June 1988 in Case 257/88 (1) and                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
     in other judgments, require that, in areas covered by                  of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
     Community law, the Member States’ legal rules should be                Centre, Kirchberg.
     worded unequivocally so as to give the persons concerned
     a clear and precise understanding of their rights and
     obligations and enable the national courts to ensure that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     those rights and obligations are observed — and the
     Community principle of proportionality preclude a Mem-                 — declare that, by laying clown in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal
     ber State from relying on national rules setting a peremp-                  Decree of 3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the
     tory time-limit, such as those deriving from the combined                   market of nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have
     provisions of the second paragraph of Article 13 of                         been added an obligation to indicate on the labelling of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/24                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.8.1999
     products involved a notification number provided for by             2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
     Article 4 thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 ff. (ex Article 30) of
     the EC Treaty;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         The third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty is binding
                                                                         and therefore requires the Member States to comply with the
                                                                         time-limits laid down in directives. The prescribed period laid
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          down in the first paragraph of Article 15 of the directive ended
                                                                         on 1 January 1997 without the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                         having adopted the necessary measures.
Despite the fact that the legislation applies to both national
and foreign products equally, the obligation to indicate the
notification number attributed by the Belgian authorities                (1) OJ L 213 of 7.9.1995, p. 1.
could have restrictive effects on trace, since it makes special
packaging or labelling necessary when contemplating distri-
bution in Belgium. Since it is merely the result of a desire to
facilitate monitoring measures and to make it easy to check
whether a product has been previously notified, it cannot be
justified by public health considerations, since less burdensome
measures could easily be devised. The Belgian authorities are
wrong to cite examples of Community provisions providing
for marking (veterinary sector, milk products, toys, aerosol
sprays and medicinal products) which permit the free move-               Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the
ment of the product while indicating its compliance with                     European Communities against the French Republic
binding legislation, when the obligation which is the subject-
matter of the present action serves to lighten controls after
prior notification is given.                                                                        (Case C-219/99)
                                                                                                    (1999/C 226/41)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June 1999
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos
Action brought on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the                   Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                            Luxembourg
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                          (Case C-218/99)
                                                                         1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                          (1999/C 226/40)                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of
                                                                              29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           Member States relating to lifts (1), the French Republic has
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
ties on 8 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser,             2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
                                                                         Case C-218/99 (2).
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         (1) OJ L 213 of 7.9.1995, p. 1.
     European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of               (2) See p. 24 of this Official Journal.
     29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the
     Member States relating to lifts (1), the Grand Duchy of
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;