CELEX: C1996/145/13
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 3 November 1995, in the case of The Queen against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd (Case C-100/96)

No C 145/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18 . 5 . 96
        Article 6 ( 2 ) of Decision No 1 /80 as periods of legal        If either the first or the second and third questions are
        employment ?                                                    answered in the negative :
 ( b ) Is a Turkish employee who holds work and residence               4 . Does the possibility provided for in Articles 289 to
        permits entitling him to work as a specialist chef duly              297 of the Netherlands Wetboek van Burgerlijke
        registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member              Rechtsvordering ( Code of Civil Procedure ) for
        State within the meaning of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision              obtaining a judgment ordering payment of contractual
        No 1 /80 even in the case where he was aware from the
                                                                             consideration through application for an immediate
         beginning of his residence in that Member State that he             interim order by way of an abbreviated procedure ('kort
        would be granted a residence permit only for a total                 geding') constitute a provisional measure within the
        period of validity of three years and only in order                  meaning of Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
        to carry out a specified activity with a named
        employer ?
 ( c ) If the Court of Justice should take the view that a
        person as described in question ( b ) is duly registered as
        belonging to the labour force of a Member State, does
        the power under Article 6 ( 3 ) of Decision No 1 /80
        entitle Member States to create rights of residence that        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
        do not from the outset form part of the benefits under         Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
        Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 ?                          3 November 1995 , in the case of The Queen against
                                                                        Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                                      British Agrochemicals Association Ltd
                                                                                                 ( Case C-100/96 )
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 145/ 13 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof
by order of that court of 29 February 1996 in the appeal on a
point of law brought by Hans-Hermann Mietz against the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    limited-liability company Intership Yachting Sneek BY               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       Justice , Queen's Bench Division, of 3 November 1995 ,
                           ( Case C-99/96 )                             which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March
                             ( 96/C 145/12 )                            1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen
                                                                       against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                     parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on the
the European Communities by an order of the                             following questions :
Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) — Ninth Civil
Chamber — of 29 February 1 996 , which was received at the              1 . Does Council Directive 91 /414/EEC ( ! ) of 15 July 1991
Court Registry on 26 March 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling                 concerning the placing of plant protection products on
in the appeal on a point of law brought by Hans-Hermann                     the market as amended allow a Member State to permit
Mietz against the limited-liability company Intership                       the placing on the market of a plant protection product
Yachting Sneek BV on the following questions :                              imported from another EEA State or from a third
                                                                            country because the Member State considers that
1 . Is there a sale of goods on instalment credit terms within            . product to be identical to a master plant protection
       the meaning of point ( 1 ) of the first paragraph of                 product which has already been authorized by that
       Article 13 of the Brussels Convention in the case where,             Member State pursuant to Articles 4 ( 1 ) or 8 ( 2 ) of the
       in a document described by the parties as a 'contract of             Directive, when the imported product is deemed to be
       sale', one of the parties undertakes to manufacture a                identical to the master product if:
       specific type of motor yacht with nine specified
       alterations and to transfer it to the other party, and the
                                                                              ( i ) the active ingredient in the imported product is
       latter is required to pay DM 250 000 for it in five                          manufactured by the same company ( or by an
       instalments ?
                                                                                    associated undertaking or under licence ) as the
If the first question is answered in the negative:                                  active ingredient of the master product and is the
                                                                                    same within variations accepted by the registration
2 . Is the contract described under ( 1 ) a contract for the                        authority; and
      supply of goods within the meaning of point ( 3 ) of
      the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Brussels                     ( ii ) the formulation of the imported product is
       Convention ?                                                                 produced by the same company ( or by an
                                                                                    associated undertaking or under licence ) as that of
3 . Under the second paragraph of Article 34 of the Brussels                        the master product and any differences in the
      Convention , in conjunction with the second paragraph                         nature, quality and quantity of the components are
      of Article 28 thereof, must account also be taken of new                      deemed by the registration authority to have no
      facts which, according to the debtor, establish that the                      material effect on the safety of humans, domestic
      court of the State of origin breached the provisions of                       animals, livestock, wildlife or the environment
      Section 4 of Title II of that Convention ?                                    generally, or on efficacy ?
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 5 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/7
2 . Does Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member State to                   took place was so plain that no reasonable third party
     allow a plant protection product imported from another               could have asserted that no such conflict existed ?
     EEA State or from outside the EEA onto the market as
     identical ( as defined in question 1 ) to a master product       (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .
     without any analysis of the actual contents of the
     imported product prior to placing on the market ?
3 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
     Article 9 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member
     State to allow a plant protection product imported from          Action brought on 1 April 1996 by the United Kingdom
     countries outside the EEA onto the market when the                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     importer or person placing the product on the market is                                  ( Case C-106/96 )
     a person without a permanent office within the EEA ?                                       ( 96/C 145/ 15 )
(M OJ No L 230 , 19 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 1 April 1996 by the United
                                                                      Kingdom, represented by Mr John E. Collins , Assistant
                                                                      Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                      Wyatt QC , of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 22 March                 Roosevelt.
1996 in the case of Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en
Plassengebied' BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver               The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision or
                in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV                         decisions referred to in the press release of the Commission
                         ( Case C- 1 04/96                            of 23 January 1 996, without prejudice to the competence of
                           ( 96/C 145/ 14                             the Court of Justice to declare the decision or decisions in
                                                                      issue of definitive effect .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                   The applicant asks for costs against the Commission
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of               pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
22 March 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 1 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en Plassengebied' BA and
Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver in bankruptcy of                    The United Kingdom seeks the annulment of the decision or
Mediasafe BV, on the following questions :                            decisions referred to in the press release of 23 January 1 996
                                                                      on the following grounds specified in Article 173 ( 2 ) of the
1 . Is it consistent with the First Directive ( J ) for a company     EC Treaty, namely lack of competence, infringement of an
     to be allowed to rely, as against a third party with whom        essential procedural requirement, and infringement of the
     a director generally authorized to represent the                 EC Treaty.
     company has entered into a transaction on its behalf, on
     the fact that the director lacked authority on the ground        The United Kingdom alleges lack of competence, since the
     that the transaction involved a conflict of interests            Commission incurred legal expenditure without lawful
     between him and the company ?                                    authority. The United Kingdom also alleges breach of
                                                                      Article 4 of the EC Treaty, which provides that each
2 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred
     third party had knowledge of the conflict of interests at        upon it by this Treaty .
     the time when the transaction took place, or would
     reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of               The United Kingdom also alleges breach of an essential
     that conflict of interests on the basis of the information       procedural requirement, since the challenged expenditure
     available to him at the time ?                                   was unsupported by reasoning specifying its legal basis.
                                                                      Such reasoning should have been incorporated in a decision
3 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       of the Commission addressed to and notified in full to the
     conflict of interests at the time when the transaction           Member States .