CELEX: C1995/208/12
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1995 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/94 between Frédéric Daffix and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-166/95 P)

No C 208/6             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
Appeal brought on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                   'S -Hertogenbosch        ( Regional     Court    of    Appeal,
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                   's-Hertogenbosch ), of 18 May 1995 , which was received at
28 March 1995 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First                 the Court Registry on 31 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/94                     in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J.
between Frederic Daffix and the Commission of the                        Scheres c.s . v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/
                    European Communities                                 Ondernemingen te Roermond ( Head of the Undertakings
                       ( Case C-166/95 P)                                Unit of the Revenue Office, Roermond ) on the following
                                                                         question:
                           ( 95/C 208/ 12 )
                                                                         should Article 9 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1 995               meaning that the place where a veterinary surgeon supplies
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               his services as such should be deemed to be the place where
European Communities in Case T-12/94 between Frederic                    he has established his business or has a fixed establishment
Daffix and the Commission of the European Communities                    from which the services are supplied or, in the absence of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   such a place of business or fixed establishment, the place
Communities on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                      where he has his permanent address or usually resides, or
European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                            should that Article be interpreted as meaning that the place
Gouloussis, of its Legal Service , acting as Agent, assisted by          where a veterinary surgeon supplies his services as such is
Benoit Cambier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                  located elsewhere, namely at the place where those services
service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis,                  are physically carried out or at the place where the customer
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 has established his business or has a fixed establishment to
                                                                          which the service is supplied or, in the absence of such a
The appellant claims that the Court should :                              place, the place where he has his permanent address or
                                                                          usually resides ?
— set aside the judgment given on 28 March 1995 by the
     Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     European Communities in Case T-12/94 ('),
 — grant the form of order sought by the Commission
     before the Court of First Instance and , as a consequence,
     reject the claims of Frederic Daffix,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
 — make an appropriate order as to costs .                                Circondariale di Vicenza by order of that court of 22 April
                                                                           1995 in criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                              against Luciano Arcaro
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                  ( Case C-168/95 )
 — inadmissibility of the plea in law upheld by the Court of                                        ( 95/C 208/14 )
     First Instance : the Court of First Instance was wrong in
     considering that, in the present case, the plea alleging
     that the statement of reasons was inadequate could be                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     regarded as involving a question of public policy and be              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
     held to be admissible even though it was out of time,                 Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Vicenza, of
                                                                           22 April 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 — the plea in law upheld by the Court of First Instance is                30 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
     unfounded .                                                           proceedings pending before that court against Luciano
                                                                           Arcaro on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 11 .
                                                                           1 . Does point 8 (') of the present order for reference put
                                                                               forward a correct interpretation of the Community
                                                                               Directives 76/464/EEC ( 2 ) and 83/513/EEC (*) which
                                                                               Legislative Decree No 133/1992 aims to implement ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,                  2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may, in the
 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 18 May                          light of a correct interpretation of Community law,
 1995 in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and                  direct effect be given to provisions of Community law —
 J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/                            while at the same time conflicting provisions of national
                 Ondernemingen te Roermond                                     law are disapplied — even though the position of the
                                                                               individual may thereby be impaired ?
                          ( Case C-167/95 )
                             ( 95/C 208/ 13 )
                                                                           3 . If question 2 is answered in the negative, what other
                                                                               steps may be taken, in the light of a correct
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        interpretation of Community law, in order to secure the
 European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechthsof,                        repeal under the national legal system of provisions