CELEX: C1997/040/19
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Huy on a judgment of the Tribunal Correctionnel de Huy of 29 October 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court in the case of Ministère Public against B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sàrl (Case C-376/96)

8 . 2. 97             1 EN |                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 40/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                                down by Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and
Circondariale di Caserta by order of that court of                               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation ( EEC )
14 October 1996 in the case of Antonio Pontillo against                          No 441 /88 ( 4 )?
                                 Donatab
                           Case C-372/96 )                                  2 . Are the fourth indent of Article 1 ( 3 ) of Regulation
                                                                                 ( EC ) No 343/94 and Article 1 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of
                             ( 97/C 40/ 17 )
                                                                                 Regulation ( EC ) No 465/94, as amended by
                                                                                 Regulation ( EC ) No 610/94, invalid for breach of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           principle of the protection of legitimate expectations ?
European Communities by order of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrates' Court ), Caserta , of                 3 . Are the fourth indent of Article 1 ( 3 ) of Regulation
14 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on                              ( EC ) No 343/94 , and Article 1 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of
25 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                       Regulation ( EC ) No 465/94, as amended by
Antonio Pontillo against Donatab on the following                                Regulation ( EC ) No 610/94, invalid for infringement
questions :                                                                      of Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/87 ( 5 ) and
                                                                                 their enactment ultra vires for failure to meet the legal
1 . In the light of the principle of the protection of                           requirement of an accurate determination of the 'yield
      legitimate expectations and of the rationale underlying                    per hectare '?
     the quota system, is Council Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1738/91 (') to be regarded as valid, in so far as it               4 . Is Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 822/87
      unexpectedly and unpreditably reduced the prices and                       invalid for breach of the principle of proportionality in
     the processing premium for tobacco of the variety                           so far as it prescribes, in the case of each producer
      known as Burley I ( Italian ) at such a late stage in the                  subject to the obligation , the volume to be distilled, a
     tobacco crop year that even most prudent and alert                          wholly inappropriate means of attaining the objective
     growers were left with no room for manoeuvre ?                              sought ?
2 . Is the fact that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1738/91 fails to                 5 . Is the fourth indent of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Regulation
      give any reasons at all , whether express or implied , for                  ( EEC ) No 441 /88 invalid for exceeding the limits on
      its provisions concerning Burley I tobacco — which                         the exercise of administrative discretion in delimiting
      was more seriously affected than other tobacco                             regions for the purposes of the common organization
      varieties even though excess production of those                           of the markets ?
      varieties had been even higher — open to criticism in
      that it constitutes a breach of essential procedural                  6 . Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 ( 6 )
      requirements ?                                                              invalid for infringement of Article 39 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                                  ( EEC ) No 822/87 inasmuch as it fails to meet the legal
(') OJ No L 163 , 26 . 6 . 1991 , p . 13 .                                        requirement of serving to restore market stability in
                                                                                 the current wine year ?
                                                                            7. Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 invalid
                                                                                  because it contravenes the principle of proportionality
                                                                                  with which Community policy should be consistent ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale        di    Treviso ,       Sezione    Distaccata     di
                                                                             ')  OJ  No  L  44, 17 . 2 . 1994, p . 9 .
Conegliano, by order of that court of 2 November 1996                        2)  OJ  No  L  58 , 2 . 3 . 1994 , p . 2 .
in the case of Galileo Zaninotto against Ispettorato                         ')  OJ  No  I. 77, 19 . 3 . 1994 , p . 12 .
        Centrale Repressioni Frodi, Ufficio di Conegliano                    4)  OJ  No  L  45 , 18 . 2 . 1988 , p . 15 .
                          ( Case C-375 /96 )                                 ■') OJ  No  L  84, 27 . 3 . 1987, p . 1 .
                                                                             ") OJ   No  L  332 , 22 . 12 . 1994 , p . 32 .
                              ( 97/C 40/ 18 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European        Communities         by     order   of    the  Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrates' Court ), Treviso —
Sezione Distaccata di Conegliano ( Conegliano Section ) —                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
of 2 November 1996 , received at the Court Registry on                      Premiere Instance de Huy on a judgment of the Tribunal
26 November 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  Correctionnel de Huy of 29 October 1996 in the criminal
Galileo Zaninotto against Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni                  proceedings pending before that court in the case of
Frodi , Ufficio di Conegliano, on the following questions:                  Ministere Public against B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage
                                                                                                                    Sari
 1 . Are the fourth indent of Article 1 ( 3 ) of Regulation                                                Case C-376/96 )
       ( EC ) No 343/94 ('), and Article 1 ( 1 ) ( c ), Article 1 ( 2 ),
                                                                                                              97/C 40/ 19
       second subparagraph, and Article 1 ( 3 ) ( Annex,
       concerning Region 4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No
       465/94 ( 2 ), as amended by Regulation ( EC ) No                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       610/94 (■*) so far as concerns Region 4 , invalid for                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
       breach of the principle of non-discrimination laid                    Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Huy, of 29 October 1996 ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/ 10           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 2 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November               1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings           27 November 1996 , for preliminary rulings in the cases of
before that court in the case of Ministère Public against             August de Vriendt ( C-377/96 ), Rene Van Looveren (C­
B. Leloup, S. Leloup and Sofrage Sari on the following                378/96 ), Julien Grare ( C-379/96 ), Karel Boeykens ( C-380/
questions :                                                           96 ), Frans Serneels ( C-381 /96 ), Fredy Parotte ( C-382/96 ),
                                                                      Camille Delbrouck ( C-383/96 ) and Henri Props ( C-384/
A. Must Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty be interpreted               96 ) v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( National Office for
    as meaning that they preclude a Member State from                 Pensions ) on the following questions:
    requiring an undertaking established in another
    Member State and temporarily carrying out work in                 1 . Is Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (') of
    the first State :
                                                                           19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                           it  leaves   the   Member          States free to determine
    1 . to appoint an agent or servant responsible for                     differently for men and women the age at which they
          keeping the individual accounts of employees who                 are respectively deemed to have become unfit for work
          provide services there ;                                         by reason of old age, for the purpose of acquiring
                                                                           entitlement to a retirement pension for salaried
    2 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to
                                                                           employees and, thus, to calculate those pensions
          the legislation of that State relating to the keeping
          of social documents;
                                                                           differently, in the manner indicated in this judgment ?
    3 . not to obstruct inspections organized pursuant to             2 . Is that Article to be interpreted as precluding men and
          the legislation of that State relating to social                 women deemed to have become unfit for work by
          inspections;                                                     reason of old age as from the age of 65 and 60
                                                                           respectively who, as from that age , also lose their
    4 . to draw up an individual account for each worker;                  rights to social security benefit, such as unemployment
                                                                           benefit, from claiming an unconditional right to a
    5 . to keep a special staff register;                                  pension as from the age of 60 years, the amount of the
                                                                           pension being calculated differently, according to
    6 . to draw up working regulations;                                    whether the claimant is a man or a woman ?
    7 . to keep social documents ( staff register and
          individual account ) at the Belgian residence of a          3 . Should the expression ' pensionable age ' in Article 7 of
          natural person who is to keep those documents in                  Council Directive 79/7/ EEC of 19 December 1978 be
          his capacity as agent or servant;                                construed as meaning the age which gives rise to
                                                                           entitlement to a pension, or is it the age at which the
     8 . to issue an individual record for each worker,                     employee is deemed to have become unfit for work by
                                                                            reason of old age, in accordance with national criteria,
     where that undertaking is already subject to                           and enjoys the benefit of a replacement income
     requirements which, while not identical , are at least                 excluding other social security benefits of the same
     comparable on account of their aim in respect of the                   description ?
     same workers and for the same period of activity in
     the State where it is established ?
                                                                            Can that expression be interpreted as covering both of
                                                                            the above definitions ?
B. Can Articles 59 and 60 render inoperative the first
     paragraph of Article 3 of the Civil Code on Belgian               D OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
     public order legislation ?
 References for preliminary rulings by the Hof van                     Appeal brought on 28 November 1996 by Societe Louis
 Cassatie, Belgium, by judgments of that court of                      Dreyfus & Cie against the judgment delivered on
 4 November 1996 in the cases of August De Vriendt, Rene               24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
 Van Looveren, Julien Grare, Karel Boeykens, Frans                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
 Serneels, Fredy Parotte, Camille Delbrouck and Henri                  T-485/93 between Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the
 Props v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (National Office for                       Commission of the European Communities
                              Pensions )                                                       ( Case C-386/96 P)
      ( Cases C-377/96, C-378/96, C-379/96, C-380/96,                                              ( 97/C 40/21 )
         C-381/96, C-382/96, C-383/96 and C-384/96 )
                           ( 97/C 40/20 )
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                        1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                of the European Communities in Case T-485/93 between
 European Communities by judgments of the Hof van                      Societe Louis Dreyfus & Cie and the Commission of the
 Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 4 November               European Communities was brought before the Court of