CELEX: C1999/204/65
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-199/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European Communities

C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                       (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 204/33
(b) the state of the case so permitting, annul Commission                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     Decision 94/215/ECSC (1) of 16 February 1994 relating to            Düsseldorf by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in
     a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty              the case of Deutsche Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt
     concerning agreements and concerted practices (allegedly)                                      Düsseldorf
     engaged in by European producers of beams;
                                                                                                 (Case C-201/99)
(c) alternatively, reduce or cancel the fine set by the Court of
     First Instance imposed on British Steel by Article 4 of                                     (1999/C 204/66)
     Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(d) order interest to be paid by the Commission on the fine or           European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of
     such part of it as is repaid under (b) or (c) above, in respect     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of
     of the period since payment of the fine by British Steel on         12 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
     2 June 1994 until repayment by the Commission and at                26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutsche
     such rate as is considered by the Court to be fair and just;        Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf on the following
                                                                         questions:
(e) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         1. Is the definition of television receivers in heading No 8528
                                                                             of the Combined Nomenclature in the version in force
                                                                             from 1990 to 1992 to be interpreted as including devices
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              such as the satellite receivers more precisely described in
                                                                             the grounds of this order, even though with those devices
                                                                             television programmes can be made visible and audible
It is submitted, in summary, that the Court of First Instance                only with television receivers of domestic type?
erred in law in the following respects:
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the definition
                                                                             of parts in heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomen-
(a) in denying British Steel a fair trial within a reasonable                clature or in Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined
     period, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention                Nomenclature in the version in force from 1990 to 1992
     for the Protection of Human Rights;                                     to be interpreted as including devices such as the satellite
                                                                             receivers more precisely described in the grounds of this
(b) in finding that the Decision had been adopted and                        order, and are those devices then to be classified under
     authenticated in conformity with the requisite rules and                heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomenclature despite
     procedures,                                                             Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined Nomenclature?
(c) in characterising the facts as agreements or concerted
     practices prohibited by Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty,
     in disregard of its own findings as to the nature and
     purpose of the contacts taking place between the undertak-
     ings within the framework of the Commission’s monitor-
     ing system and contrary to the meaning of Article 65(1);
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
                                                                         mo (Supreme Court) Sala de lo Contencioso-
(d) in finding, contrary to the rights of defence, that, during the      administrativo (Division for Contentious Administrative
     administrative procedure, the Commission had provided               Proceedings) Sección Tercera (Third Chamber) by order
     British Steel with sufficient information concerning its            of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Asociación
     own role and had carried out an adequate investigation              Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares
     into its own role;                                                  (ANALIR), Isleña de Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamen-
                                                                         tos de Baleares S.A. and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)
                                                                                      against Administración del Estado
(e) in finding that the Decision contained an adequate state-
     ment of reasons for the fine imposed on British Steel;
                                                                                                 (Case C-205/99)
(f) in failing, contrary to Article 33 of the Treaty, to annul the
     Decision to the extent that it had found that British Steel                                 (1999/C 204/67)
     had committed infringements of Article 65(1) prior to
     1 July 1988.                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                         Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección Tercera of
                                                                         12 May 1999, received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999,
(1) OJ L 116, 06.05.1994, p. 1.                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Asociación Profesional
                                                                         de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares (ANALIR), Isleña de
                                                                         Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamentos de Baleares S.A. and
                                                                         Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) against Administración del
                                                                         Estado on the following questions: