CELEX: C1995/208/32
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v. P. M. Laumen (Case C-220/95)

No C 208/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 8 . 95
— grant the forms of order sought at first instance .                 Reference         for    a       preliminary   ruling   from      the
                                                                      Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of
                                                                      14 June 1995 in the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                 P. M. Laumen
                                                                                                 ( Case C-220/95 )
— Article 85 of the Treaty                                                                          ( 95 /C 208/32 )
   The Court of First Instance affirmed that the agreements           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    in which the appellant participated were intended to              European Communities by a judgment of the
    restrict competition and were likely to impede trade              Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
    between the Member States merely by establishing prices           Amsterdam ) of 14 June 1995 , which was received at the
   and quotas .                                                       Court Registry on 21 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of A. H. M. van den Boogaard v. P. M. Laumen on
   The Court of First Instance did not take account either of         the following question:
    the Italian version of Article 85 according to which an
                                                                      Must the decision of the English j udge ( 1 ), which in any case
    agreement must have not only as its 'object' but also as
    its 'effect' the prevention of competition, nor of the            relates in part to a maintenance obligation, be regarded as a
    Court's interpretation of that article in the other               decision which relates ( in part ) to rights in property arising
    language versions .
                                                                      out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaning of
                                                                      indent 1 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels
                                                                      Convention even though :
    It is in any event arbitrary, in the appellant's view, to
    hold that all agreements fixing prices and setting quotas         ( a ) the income requirement is capitalized ;
    are ipso facto contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ). In fact, whilst it
    is true that the agreements which directly or indirectly          ( b ) an order was made to transfer the house and the De
    fix prices and which limit outlets have as their object the               Heem painting which, according to the decision, belong
    prevention , restriction or distortion of competition, that               to the husband;
    does not suffice for a finding that they are contrary to
                                                                      ( c ) in his decree , the English judge himself expressly stated
    Article 85 . It is further necessary that they are capable of
                                                                              that he did not regard the marriage settlement as
    affecting trade between Member States . That effect on                    binding;
    trade must also be appreciable . In the appellant's view,
    the contested agreement was not in a position to alter to         ( d ) it cannot be made out from that decree to what extent
    a significant extent trade between Italy and France.                      the factor mentioned in ( c ) influenced the English
                                                                              judge's decision ?
— The wire regime
                                                                      ( ! ) The parties who both have Netherlands nationality, were
                                                                            married in the Netherlands under the regime of common
    In the appellant's view the 'Court of First Instance                    property . They later concluded a marriage settlement whereby
    omitted to examine an important question of law,                        the marriage regime was amended to universal separation of
    namely whether an agreement between producers of a                      property . This severed and divided the community of property.
    finished product (welded steel mesh ) may be deemed                     The parties later settled in London .
    unlawful when the agreement is the necessary
    consequence of mandatory Community rules imposing
    quotas and prices for the semi-finished product
    ( wire ).
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
                                                                      Travail de Tournai by judgment of 6 June 1995 in the case
— Article 15 of Regulation No 17                                      of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
                                                                      Independants (INASTI ) v. Claude Hervein and Herviller
                                                                                                            SA
    The appellant considers that the Court of First Instance
    did not correctly interpret Article 15 of Regulation                                          ( Case C-221/95 )
    No 17 which gives the Community the power to impose                                              ( 95/C 208/33 )
    fines, that is a discretionary and not a mandatory
    power .                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
    All the arguments relied on by the appellant in support of        Travail de Tournai ( Labour Tribunal , Tournai ) of 6 June
    the legality of the agreement must be considered in order          1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June
    to assess at least whether a fine was justified and whether        1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Institut
    the fine actually imposed satisfied equitable criteria .           National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
    However, the Court of First Instance examined only                Independants v. Claude Hervein and Herviller SA on the
     some of those arguments whilst minimizing others of               following question:
    greater importance .
                                                                       does self-employment ( activite non salariee ) referred to in
                                                                       particular in Article 14a ( 2 ) of CounciURegulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (') refer in particular to the