CELEX: C2002/084/09
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court 5 February 2002 in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of "family benefits" — Payment of advances on maintenance payments — Condition that the minor child must be resident within the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)

6.4.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 84/5
1.    Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      81 EC) do not preclude national legislation which, in the                    European Communities of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97
      context of a summary procedure for the recovery of debts relating            Monsanto v Commission;
      to the fees of an architect, a member of a professional
      association, requires the court seised of the dispute to follow the    2.    Dismisses the application for annulment of Decision C(97)
      opinion of that association in relation to the settlement of those           148 final of the Commission of 14 January 1997 concerning
      fees in so far as that opinion ceases to be binding where the                the definition of a position, in accordance with Article 175 of
      debtor initiates proceedings inter partes.                                   the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine somatotrophin in
                                                                                   Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90;
2.    Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty do not preclude national
      legislation which provides that the members of a profession may        3.    Orders Monsanto Company to bear its own costs and to
      set at their discretion the fees for certain services which they             pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European
      perform.                                                                     Communities both before the Court of First Instance and the
                                                                                   Court of Justice;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                   4.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred both
                                                                                   before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           8 January 2002                                                              5 February 2002
                                                                             in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Com-                                   the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (1)
                                pany (1)
                                                                             (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to                       benefits’ — Payment of advances on maintenance payments
include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the                      — Condition that the minor child must be resident within
list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —                     the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)
Prohibition on placing that substance on the market —
            Rejection of the application for inclusion)                                                 (2002/C 84/09)
                            (2002/C 84/08)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-255/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court concerning the
In Case C-248/99 P, French Republic (agents: initially                       minor Anna Humer, on the interpretation of Articles 3, 4(1)(h),
R. Abraham and J.-F. Dobelle and K. Rispal-Bellanger and                     73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Vasak, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues): Appeal against                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
Communities (Second Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in                             of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 3(1)
the proceedings being: Monsanto Company, registered in                       and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (United                    15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
States of America), (agents: C. Stanbrook, QC, and D. Holland,               within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
barrister), and Commission of the European Communities                       p. 475), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
(agents: J.-L. Dewost, R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou) the                and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, F. Macken
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet                  D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet,
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,                   R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on                S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
8 January 2002, in which it:                                                 given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
a)    A benefit such as the advance on maintenance payments                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
      provided for by the Österreichische Bundesgesetz über die            that court between Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG, Rich.
      Gewährung von Vorschüssen auf den Unterhalt von Kindern               Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG
      (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) (Austrian Federal Law on the Grant        and Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG — on the validity
      of Advances for the Maintenance of Children), adopted in              of Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 of 18 March
      1985, is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h)       1999 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC)
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications
      on the application of social security schemes to employed             and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their             Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1999 L 74,
      families moving within the Community, as amended and                  p. 8) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December            President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
      1996.                                                                 the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
b)    A person, one or other of whose parents is an employed person         General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      or is out of work, comes within the scope ratione personae of         a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
      Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a member of the
      family of a worker within the meaning of Article 2(1) of
                                                                            Consideration of the question referred has not revealed any matter of
      Regulation No 1408/71, read in the light of Article 1(f)(i)
                                                                            such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
      thereof.
                                                                            No 590/1999 of 18 March 1999 supplementing the Annex to
c)    Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be                 Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical
      construed as meaning that, where a minor child resides with the       indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
      parent who has custody in a Member State other than the               in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
      Member State providing the benefit, and where the other parent,       registers the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’.
      who is under an obligation to pay maintenance, works or is
      unemployed in the Member State providing the benefit, that            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
      child is entitled to receive a family benefit such as the advance
      on maintenance payments provided for by the Unterhaltsvor-
      schussgesetz.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                   of 27 November 2001
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                   in Case C-270/99 P: Z v European Parliament (1)
                         of 6 December 2001
                                                                            (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Failure
in Case C-269/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of
the Landgericht Hamburg): Carl Kühne GmbH & Co. KG,                         Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co., Ernst Nowka GmbH &                                                 European Communities)
   Co. KG v Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (1)
                                                                                                       (2002/C 84/11)
(Agricultural products and foodstuffs — Geographical indi-
cations and designations of origin — Simplified registration
procedure — Protection of the designation ‘Spreewälder                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                Gurken’)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2002/C 84/10)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-270/99 P: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,
                     in the European Court Reports)                         avocat, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
                                                                            4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR
In Case C-269/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  I-A-77 and II-401, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
EC from the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg (Germany)                  so far as the Court of First Instance dismissed Z’s action against