CELEX: C2002/144/16
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2002 in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-Boelen v Rĳksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are claimed)

15.6.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/11
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     and by finally prohibiting fishing only when the quota had been
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of                              considerably exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the                            its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983                          No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
L 24, p. 1), Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation                    under Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93, as
(EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain                              regards the 1994 to 1996 fishing years;
control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1),
Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of                             By failing to take penal or administrative action against any
20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for                               master of a vessel or other person responsible for fishing after a
fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1) and Articles 2,                    prohibition had been imposed, the French Republic has failed
21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93                        to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Regulation
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable                        No 2241/87, as regards the 1991 to 1993 fishing years, and
to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) (Case                         under Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, as regards the
C-418/00), and under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3760/92                         1994 to 1996 fishing years;
and Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation No 2847/93, in
conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 of                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1995 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1994 L 363,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
p. 1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 Decem-
ber 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
stocks, the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1995 L 330,
p. 1) (Case C-419/00),
                                                                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
The Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of                                          (Fifth Chamber)
the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 25 April 2002, in which it:                                                     4 March 2002
                                                                             in Case C-175/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen): Marie-Josée Verwayen-
                                                                                  Boelen v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening (1)
1.    Declares that, as regards the 1991 and 1996 fishing years, by          (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer to the
      failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for the            question admitting of no reasonable doubt — Article 67(3)
      utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and by failing to ensure     of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Aggregation of periods
      compliance with the Community rules on the conservation of             of insurance or employment for the purpose of acquisition of
      species through monitoring of fishing activities and through           a right to unemployment benefits — Requirement that
      appropriate inspection of landings and catch records, the French       periods of insurance or employment be completed lastly in
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of    accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983                                                 claimed)
      establishing a Community system for the conservation and
      management of fishery resources, Article 1(1) of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing                                         (2002/C 144/16)
      certain control measures for fishing activities, Article 9(2) of
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
      establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
      and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of
      12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to
      the common fisheries policy;                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      By not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying the
      French flag or registered in French territory when the catches         In Case C-175/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      landed were deemed to have exhausted the corresponding quota,          EC by the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Marie-Josée Verwayen-Boelen and Rijksdienst voor                            between Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH and Land Baden-
Arbeidsvoorziening, on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of                Württemberg, on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971                  335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
on the application of social security schemes to employed                   raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412),
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their                   as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
families moving within the Community, as amended and                        (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December                  of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric,
1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber)                        R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J. N. Cunha Rodri-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von                      gues, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Bahr, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which
C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger;                    it has ruled:
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2002, in
which it has ruled:
Under Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of their families moving               Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council                     taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, the application               303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that
of the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance or employment       charges constitute taxes for the purposes of that directive where they
laid down in Article 67(1) and (2) is, except in the cases expressly        are payable for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording
referred to in Article 67(3), subject to the condition that the person      a transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, under a
concerned has completed lastly periods of insurance or employment in        system where the notaries are civil servants and the charges are paid
accordance with the provisions of the legislation under which the           in part to the public authority which employs them, and used for the
unemployment benefits are claimed.                                          financing of its official business, such as the system in force in the
                                                                            district of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                            Where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335,
                                                                            as amended, charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
                                                                            attested act recording the formation of a capital company are, in
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     principle, prohibited by Article 10(c) thereof.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            21 March 2002
                                                                            The fact that charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
in Case C-264/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   attested act recording the formation of a capital company, which
the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden): Gründerzentrum-                            increase directly in proportion to the nominal value of the capital
       Betriebs-GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)                           raised, cannot exceed a certain maximum, is not sufficient, by itself,
                                                                            to render them duties paid by way of fees or dues within the meaning
                                                                            of Directive 69/335, as amended, where the amount of that
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Raising of                      maximum bears no relation to the costs of the service for which the
capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Charges for the drawing                    charges constitute the consideration.
up of a notarially attested act recording the formation of a
                          capital company)
                           (2002/C 144/17)
                    (Language of the case: German)                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-264/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden (Germany) for a