CELEX: C1998/055/41
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge, Afdeling Oostende, by judgment of that court of 22 December 1997 in the case of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Case C-442/97)

20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/21
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de
                                                                   Cassation, by judgment of that court of 9 December 1997,
1. set aside the judgment delivered on 15 October 1997             in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde, Uni Europe, La
    by the Court of First Instance of the European                 PreÂservatrice FoncieÁre IARD, La Baloise, ReÂunion
    Communities in Case T-331/94 (1) and annul the                 EuropeÂenne, Allianz, British and Foreign Marine
    respondent's decision of 3 August 1994 refusing                Insurance Co. Ltd and Camat against the Master of the
    payment of the second instalment of the aid granted to         vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan', P. T. Perusahan Pelayaran
    the applicant by letter of 4 August 1992,                      Trikoria Lloyd', Pro Ligne Ltd, Sveriges Angarts Assurans
                                                                        Forening, Somaba and Agence maritime Borghans
2. alternatively:                                                                        (Case C-440/97)
    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                  (98/C 55/40)
    referred to in (1) above and refer the case back to the
    Court of First Instance,
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3. order the respondent to pay the costs.
                                                                   European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour
                                                                   de Cassation of 9 December 1997, which was received at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   the Court Registry on 29 December 1997, for a
                                                                   preliminary ruling in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde
Ð Complaints regarding procedural matters
                                                                   and Others v. The Master of the vessel Suhadiwarno
    Ð failure to comply with the obligation imposed by             Panjan' and Others, on the following question:
        Article 190 of the EC Treaty to provide a
        statement of reasons,
                                                                   With a view to the application of Article 5(1) of the
    Ð breach of the duty to investigate the matter and             Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
        infringement of the rules concerning the burden of         and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
        proof and the degree of proof.                             matters, must the place where the obligation at issue was
                                                                   or must be fulfilled, within the meaning of that provision,
Ð Infringements of substantive Community law                       be determined in accordance with the law which governs
                                                                   the obligation at issue or should national courts determine
    Ð the contested judgment is based on a presumption             the place of performance of the obligation by seeking to
        of fact which, as is apparent from the documents           establish, having regard to the nature of the relationship
        in the case, is incorrect,                                 creating the obligation and the circumstances of the case,
                                                                   the place where performance actually took place or should
    Ð in upholding a deadline for submission of the final
                                                                   have taken place, without having to refer to the law
        report which did not reflect the delay caused by
                                                                   which, under the rules on conflict of laws, governs the
        the Commission to the commencement of the
                                                                   obligation at issue?
        project, the Court of First Instance failed to
        observe the principle patere legem quam ipse
        fecisti and disregarded the prohibition of acts
        constituting an abuse of law,
    Ð breach of the prohibition imposed by the principle
        venire contra factum proprium, alternatively of the
        principle of estoppel: the Court of First Instance         Reference      for   a    preliminary    ruling   by    the
        wrongly assessed as irrelevant in law statements           Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge, Afdeling Oostende, by
        made by the official then responsible for the              judgment of that court of 22 December 1997 in the case
        matter in the course of discussions with the                    of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
        applicant, despite the fact that those statements
                                                                                         (Case C-442/97)
        were reflected in the minutes prepared by the
        Commission,                                                                        (98/C 55/41)
    Ð breach of the principle of proportionality: the
        Court of First Instance failed to give sufficient
        weight to the disparity between the gravity of the         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        alleged infringement and the conditions laid down          European       Communities      by    judgment     of   the
        in the Decision granting the aid and between the           Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge (Labour Court, Bruges), Ostend
        circumstances of the case (illegal intervention by         Division, of 22 December 1997, which was received at the
        the Commission and unlawful shortening of the              Court Registry on 30 December 1997, for a preliminary
        period for completion of the project) and the              ruling in the case of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor
        penalty imposed by the Commission, namely non-             Pensioenen (National Pensions Office) on the following
        payment of 40 % of the total amount of the aid.            question:
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 14.
                                                                   Article 32b(5) of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967
                                                                   laying down general rules concerning retirement and
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.98
survivor's pensions for workers provides as follows: A                 Removal from the register of Case C-169/97 (1)
worker who was employed as a worker during the period                                      (98/C 55/43)
between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945 and in
respect of whom a contribution was paid of an amount              By order of 18 September 1997 the President of the Court
equivalent to the annual amount referred to in                    of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
paragraph 2, is deemed to have paid sufficient                    removal from the register of Case C-169/97: Commission
contributions to establish that he was normally and               of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
principally employed during the entire period comprised
between the date on which the period of employment                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
established came to an end and 1 January 1946.'
Article 32b(6) of the aforesaid Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 provides as follows: The presumption
laid down in the two aforesaid paragraphs is rebuttable
only in respect of periods for which the person concerned               Removal from the register of Case C-193/96 (1)
can claim a pension under another Belgian scheme, with                                     (98/C 55/44)
the exception of the scheme for self-employed workers, or
under the scheme of a foreign country.'                           By order of 25 September 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Is a provision such as Article 32b(6) of the Royal Decree         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of 21 December 1967 a provision on reduction,                     Case C-193/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a        the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Richard Buchen GmbH v.
Member State, as referred to in Article 46b(2) of                 Bezirksregierung Köln.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which does not apply to a
benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i)?        (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (1)
                         (98/C 55/42)                                                      (98/C 55/45)
By order of 12 September 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the            of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (reference for         removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                    a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo): ICT Ð InduÂstria e ComeÂrcio TeÃxtil SA v.       Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)): Fazenda
Fazenda PuÂblica.                                                 PuÂblica v. AssociacËaÄo Nacional de Transportes PuÂblicos
                                                                  RodoviaÂrios de Mercadorias (Antram) in the presence of
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                          MinisteÂrio PuÂblico.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.