CELEX: C1995/119/17
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of 8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Case C-72/95)

No C 119/8              | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 5 . 95
Where a claimant is entitled to a national social security                   or Article 19 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 is
benefit by virtue of falling within the scope of Council                     amplified ?
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
and women in matters of social security ( 1 ) does Community
law, in the circumstances of the present case, entitle the
claimant to interest on the award of benefit and, if so:
   (i ) from what date is interest payable ?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State,
  (ii ) what shall the rate of interest be ?                             Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of
                                                                         8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
( iii ) is interest to be calculated only on the balance which           Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
          falls due after off-setting, in accordance with national                                  Zuid-Holland
          overlapping rules, any other benefit payments made
                                                                                                   (Case C-72/95 )
          for the same period ?
                                                                                                    ( 95/C 119/17
H OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Raad van
                                                                         State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ( State Council,
                                                                         Administrative Appeal Section) of 8 March 1 995 , which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer                   Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 9 February              Zuid Holland ( Zuid-Holland Provincial Executive ), on the
1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co . KG v.
                                                                         following questions:
Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung, third
                 party: Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         1 . Must the expression 'canalization and flood-relief
                            ( Case C-68/95 )                                 works ' in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
                              ( 95/C 119/16 )                                27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                             public and private projects on the environment (*) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       interpreted as also covering certain types of work on a
European Communities by an order of the Hessischer                           dike running alongside waterways ?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof,              Eighth     Senate     ( Higher
Administrative Court, Hesse ) of 9 February 1995 , which                 2 . Having regard in particular to the expressions 'projects'
was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1 995 , for a                 and 'modifications to projects' employed in the
preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co. KG                      Directive, does it make any difference to the answer to
v. Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung                         question 1 whether what is involved is :
( Federal Office for Agriculture and Food ), third party:
Federal Republic of Germany, on the following                                (a ) the construction of a new dike;
questions :
                                                                             ( b ) the relocation of an existing dike;
1 . Does Article 16 ( 3 ) or Article 30 of Council Regulation
       ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 H put the                       (c ) the reinforcement and/or widening of an existing
                                                                                   dike;
       Commission under a duty to deal with cases of hardship
       arising because operators of category A have difficulties
       in continuing trading owing to the fact that, on the basis
                                                                             ( d) the replacement in situ of a dike whether or not the
                                                                                   new dike is stronger and/or wider than the old one;
       of the reference years to be taken into account under                       or
       Article 19 (2 ) of that Regulation, they are allocated an
       exceptionally low quota and cannot switch to the                      (e ) a combination of two or more of ( a ) to ( d )?
       market for ACP and Community bananas ?
                                                                         3 . Must Article 2(1 ) and Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be
2 . Is Article 19 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 invalid               interpreted as meaning that — if a Member State lays
       in so far as it makes no provision for taking other                   down in its national implementing legislation wrong
       reference years into account in cases of hardship in the              specifications or criteria and/or thresholds within the
       transitional period ?                                                 meaning of Article 4 (2 ) of the Directive for a project
                                                                             listed in Annex II — an obligation exists by virtue of
3 . In the event that one of the above two questions is                      Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Directive to subject the project to an
       answered in the affirmative : on what conditions is the               environmental impact assessment if the project is likely
       national court authorized to take provisional measures                to have 'significant effects on the environment by virtue
       in proceedings for the grant of interim relief until                  inter alia of [its] nature, size or location' within the
       such time as hardship arrangements are introduced                     meaning of Article 2 ( 1 )?
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/9
4 . In the event that question 3 is answered in the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
     affirmative, does that obligation have direct effect, that        Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 15 March 1995
     is to say, can it be invoked by an individual before a            in the case of Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van
     national court and must it be applied by the national                                          Financiën
     court even though it was not in fact invoked in the                                       ( Case C-80/95 )
     matter pending before that court ?
                                                                                                 ( 95/C 119/19
(!) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                       15 March 1995, which was received at the Couft Regfefty
                                                                       on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der              Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on the
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 10 March 1995 in              following questions :
the case of 1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v.
                Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH                            1 . Are the mere acquisition of ownership in and the
                           (Case C-78/95 )                                 holding of bonds — claims embodied in marketable
                            ( 95/C 119/18 )                                securities —, activities which are not subservient to any
                                                                           other business activity, and the receipt of income
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     therefrom to be regarded as economic activities within
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                        the meaning of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Directive ?
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
10 March 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry              2 . If that question has to be answered in the affirmative,
on 16 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 should those activities be regarded as transactions,
1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v. Magenta Druck                   within the meaning of Article 13B ( d ) ( 1 ) or ( 5 ) of the
& Verlag GmbH, on the following questions:                                 Sixth Directive, which, in so far as they relate to bonds
                                                                           issued by a body established outside the Community,
1 . Must Article 29 of the Brussels              Convention be             confer an entitlement to deduct the input tax imposed
     interpreted as meaning that the court "of the State in                on the possession and management of the bonds as a
     which recognition is sought must refrain from making                  result of Article 17 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive ?
     any inquiry into the question as to whether the
     defendant to the proceedings conducted in the State in            3 . If question 2 has to be answered in the affirmative, in the
     which judgment was given was validly represented, even                event that a taxable person carrying out the activities
     if the court of the State in which judgment was given                 referred to in the foregoing questions is also the holder
     made no ruling in that regard ?                                       of shares, which, according to that which the Court of
                                                                           Justice held in particular in its judgment of 22 June 1994
2 . ( a ) Must Article 27 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention be              in Case C-333/91 Satam SA, fall outside the scope of
           interpreted as precluding recognition of a judgment             value added tax, can the input tax charged to that
           given in another Contracting State where the                    taxable person be deducted in full or is the input tax
           defendant to the relevant proceedings was not                   relating to the possession of the shares debarred from
           validly represented and had no knowledge of the                 being deducted ?
           proceedings, even if he later had cognizance of the
           judgment which was given and availed himself in             4 . If question 3 must be answered in the latter sense,
           that regard of none of the legal remedies afforded              according to what yardstick must be the amount
           by the procedural law of the State in which                     disqualified from deduction be calculated ?
           judgment was given ?
     ( b ) Is it relevant in this connection that the time within
           which the legal remedy must be applied is one
           month from the day on which the defendant has
           cognizance of the judgment which has been                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
           given ?                                                     Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       3 March 1995 in the case of Intercod Sri v. Amministrazione
3 . Must Article 27 (2 ) of the Brussels Convention be                                    delle Finanze dello Stato
     interpreted as meaning that that provision is also                                        ( Case C-81/95 )
     applicable in a case in which, although the defendant
     was not declared to be in default of appearance , the                                       ( 95/C 119/20 )
     document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent
     document was not duly served on or notified to him in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sufficient time and the defendant was not lawfully                European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     represented in the proceedings ?                                  Genova , Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First
                                                                       Civil Section ), of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling