CELEX: C1997/094/25
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Richmond Magistrates Court by order of that court of 3 September 1996 in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against 1. E. Clarke & Sons (Coaches) Limited and 2. D. J. Ferne (Case C-47/97)

No C 94/ 12           ran                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 3 February 1997 by the Commission of                        Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992
     the European Communities against the Italian Republic                    of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                          (Case C-43/97)                                      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
                                                                              respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (*) as regards
                            ( 97/C 94/23 )                                    consumption aid for olive oil, and
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service             — Infringement of the rules concerning the financing of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the common agricultural policy and of the rules
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     governing the common organization of the market in
                                                                              the oils and fats sector: the Kingdom of Spain states,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   with regard to each of the undertakings in respect of
                                                                              which the Commission proposes financial corrections,
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                    the reasons for which it considers that the Commission
       the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                     committed an error when assessing compliance with
       necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC                   the Community rules by the undertakings concerned.
       of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the
       award of public supply contracts ( ! ), or in any event           — Breach of the principle of proportionality: in the case
       by failing to notify said provisions to the Commission,                of the two undertakings from which the EAGGF
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              requires withdrawal of authorization for entitlement to
       under Article 34 ( 1 ) of that Directive;                             consumption aid, the amount cannot be regarded as
                                                                              significant, nor does there exist any intention to
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                              defraud .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           Also the application of a correction of 100% of the
                                                                              aid in the case of four of the undertakings
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                              investigated, and of 10% in the case of the nine
Directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                              others, does not correspond to any established
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                             criterion and is consequently out of all proportion to
Member States are required to observe the time limits laid
                                                                             the possible infringement committed.
down in directives for their transposition. That time limit
expired on 14 June 1994 without the Italian Republic
                                                                         (') OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p. 26 .
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application.
( 1 ) OJNoL 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court by order of that court of 3 September
                                                                         1996 in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against 1 . E.
                                                                             Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2. D. J. Feme
Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Kingdom                                                   ( Case C-47/97 )
of Spain against the Commission of the European                                                      ( 97/C 94/25 )
                            Communities
                          ( Case C-45/97)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 97/C 94/24 )                               European Communities by an order of the Richmond
                                                                         Magistrates Court, of 3 September 1996, which was
An action against the Commission of the European                         received at the Court Registry on 6 February 1997, for a
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate
the European Communities on 4 February 1997 by the                       against 1 . E. Clarke & Sons ( Coaches ) Limited and 2 . D. J.
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de La­                    Feme, on the following questions:
puerta, Abogado del Estado and Head of the Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 1 . Are groups of passengers carried on a single journey
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4—6 boulevard E.                           between an airport and a hotel via, on occasions, a
Servais .                                                                    tourist attraction 'specified categories of passengers'
                                                                              for the purposes of the application of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of Council Regulation 684/92/EEC H ?
— annul          Commission          Decision    96/701 /EC     of       2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is Article 2 ( 1 ) ( 2 )
       20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/311 /EC                         to be construed so that the carriage of such passengers
       on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                      on that journey where :
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 94/13
       ( a ) each group is picked up at one point of departure             2 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             and set down at one point of destination                            that Geas itself chose, at the time, to carry out that
             ( including, on occasions, a visit to a tourist                     maintenance using a geyser team specially set up for
             attraction as part of that journey);                                that purpose ?
       ( b ) the same or similar journey is repeated on a                  3 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             number of occasions pursuant to a block                             that the fitters in Geas' geyser team also carried out
             reservation made by a tour operator;                                work on other appliances apart from those belonging
                                                                                 to Gavema, occupying in the fitters' estimation 25 %
       (c ) the precise route to be taken is not predetermined;                   of their working time and in that of Gavema 40 % ?
       is a 'special regular service' within the meaning of that           4 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
       Article ?                                                                  that maintenance works on bathroom geysers
                                                                                  belonging to Gavema were also carried out by central
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is yes, is Article 4 ( 3 ) of                     heating fitters employed by Geas ?
       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 (2 ) to be
       construed so that the distance of 'the route covered by             ( 1 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
       the service in question' is to be calculated by reference
       to :
       ( a ) each component part of the driver's journey during
             the day;
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
       ( b ) the aggregate of such component parts.                        Cassation, Paris, by judgment of that court of 28 January
                                                                           1997 in the case of La Reunion Europeenne and Others v.
4. If the answer to Question 2 is no, is Article 2 ( 3 ) of                             Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor and Others
       Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 to be construed                                               ( Case C-51/97)
       so that the carriage of such passengers in such                                                    ( 97/C 94/27)
       circumstances is an ' occasional service ' within the
       meaning of that Article ?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas­
      common rules for the international carriage of passengers by         sation ( Court of Cassation ), Paris, of 28 January 1997,
      coach and bus ( OJ No L 74, 20 . 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                  which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985            1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La Reunion
      on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to       Europeenne and Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor
      road transport ( OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ).               and Others, on the following questions :
                                                                           1 . ( a ) Is an action by which the consignee of goods
                                                                                        found to be damaged on completion of a transport
                                                                                        operation by sea and then by land, or by which its
                                                                                        insurer who has been subrogated to its rights after
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                             compensating it, seeks redress for the damage
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo, by judgment of that                                 suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the
court of 5 February 1997 in the case of Jan Blauw and                                   maritime transport, not against the person who
                         Others v. Gavema BY                                            issued that document on his headed paper but
                            ( Case C-50/97)                                             against the person whom the plaintiff considered
                                                                                        to be the actual maritime carrier, based on the
                              ( 97/C 94/26 )                                            contract of transport and does it, for that or any
                                                                                        other reason, fall within the scope of matters
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                         relating to contract within the meaning of Article 5
of the European Communities by judgment of the                                          ( 1 ) of the Convention ?
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo ( District Court,
                                                                                  ( b ) If the foregoing question is answered in the
Almelo) of 5 February 1997, which was received at the                                   negative, is the matter one relating to tort, delict
Court Registry on 7 February 1997, for a preliminary                                    or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 )
ruling in the case of Jan Blauw and Others v. Gavema BV                                 of the Convention or is it appropriate to have
on the following questions:                                                             recourse to the principle laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                                        the Convention that the courts of the State in
1 . In the light of the finding that Gavema has terminated                              whose territory the defendant is domiciled have
       the maintenance contract with Geas in respect of the                             jurisdiction ?
       geysers leased out by it, and has itself taken over the
       maintenance work relating to those geysers, can that                       (c ) In the event that the matter is to be regarded as
       be said, in principle, to constitute a transfer of part of                       one relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, may the
       an undertaking within the meaning of Directive 77/                               place where the consignee, after completion of the
        187/EEC ( M ?                                                                   maritime transport operation and then the final