CELEX: C1996/064/24
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 29 November 1995 in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case C-16/96)

2 . 3 . 96           1 EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 64/ 11
     workers within the Community require that, where                           himself during the first stage of its life and refrains from
     doctors have worked as such in the public service of                       pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
     another Member State of the EC, the time spent in such
     employment should likewise be taken into account for                       if the cash benefit, which is a fixed amount, is paid only
     the purposes of promotion on grounds of seniority as                       if the income does not exceed certain limits graduated
     provided for in the BAT or should the court instead take                   according to the number of members of the family,
     no such decision and leave this matter to the parties to                   and if, although the cash benefit, as a family-policy
     the collective agreement, having regard to their freedom                   social benefit, is intended as recompense for bringing up
     to agree terms ?                                                           the child and to compensate for the absence of income
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                                from a full-time occupation and the other burdens of
                                                                                caring for and bringing up the child, its primary purpose
                                                                                is to act as an incentive to foster an attachment to the
                                                                                child ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 29 November                       cash benefit in relation to a migrant worker within the
1995 in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                                meaning of Article 73 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71
                      Nordrhein-Westfalen                                       a family benefit even if it is not the worker himself who is
                                                                                bringing up the child and is therefore entitled, but his
                         ( Case C-16/96 )                                       wife ?
                           ( 96/C 64/24 )
                                                                          3 . Do national rules which in a Member State provide, in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          favour of its nationals residing there, for an entitlement
European Communities by an order of the                                         to a cash benefit for one parent who her or himself
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) — 14th                             brings up her or his child during the first stage of its life
Chamber — of 29 November 1995 , which was received at                           and refrains from pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
the Court Registry on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary                       also apply, under EC law, such as Article 7 ( 2 ) of
ruling in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 2 ), to the spouse of a
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:                                 worker who works in that State for the purpose of
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 and who lives with his
1 . Is a cash benefit financed from tax revenue a family                        spouse in another Member State ( frontier worker )?
     benefit within the meaning of Article 1 ( u ) ( i ) of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), if a condition for                ( ] ) OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
     entitlement is that one parent brings up the child her or            ( 2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  annulment of — firstly, the decision of the Selection
                       of 16 January 1996                                 Committee for Artists' Competition No 93/S 21-3373/FR,
                                                                          taken on behalf of the Council and notified to the applicant
in Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte v. Council of the
                                                                          by letter of 14 January 1994 , not to admit her to the second
                       European Union (')                                 stage of that competition, — secondly, that Committee's
(Artists ' competition — Rules of the competition —                       decision to delegate to each national working party the
Lawfulness of the selection procedure — Powers of the                     initial selection of applications from artists established in its
                      Selection Committee)                                national territory, — thirdly, its decision to fix the number
                            ( 96/C 64/25 )                                of artists to be selected at three per Member State, and —
                                                                          fourthly, its decision to draw up without further
                                                                          examination the list of artists admitted to the second stage of
                                                                          the competition; and ( ii ) an order requiring the Council to
                 (Language of the case: French)                           pay a symbolic ecu as compensation for the damage which
                                                                          the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                          Selection Committee's decisions, in particular the decision
In Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte , self-employed artist,                rejecting her application — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
residing in Jambes ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel                   Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, R.
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue                   has given a judgment on 16 January 1996 , in which it:
Glesener v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves
Cretien and Diego Canga Fano ) — application for ( i )                     1 . dismisses the application;