CELEX: C1996/233/06
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State, by order of that court of 31 May 1996 in the case of 1. Beside BV and 2. I. M. Besselsen v. Minister for Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation (Case C-192/96)

No C 233/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 8 . 96
     falling within the Commission's management powers,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
     defined by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 on             Eerste Aanleg, Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
     common rules for imports of certain textile products             13 May 1996 in the case of ( a ) Belgian State v. 1 . Banque
     from third countries ('). Several provisions of that            Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz GmbH and 3 . NV Rijn­
     Regulation preclude such exercise of discretion by the          and Kanaalvaart Expeditie and ( b ) Belgian State v.
     Commission which , moreover, is contrary to the specific                              European Commumty
     scope and nature of management powers .                                                  ( Case C-177/96 )
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 233/05 )
     The allowing of 'exceptional flexibility' measures is also
     contrary to the objective of rigorous and transparent           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     management of the quantitative limits underlying the            European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
     system introduced by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 .            van Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp, of
    The 'exceptional flexibility' measures made available for        13 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    textile products from China on 6 March 1996 by far               22 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of ( a )
    exceeded the limits laid down for normal flexibility             Belgian State v . 1 . Banque Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz
    measures and undeniably ran counter to the Council's             GmbH and 3 . Rijn- and Kanaalvaart Expeditie NV and ( b )
    decision to reduce the rate of annual growth of the              Belgian State v. European Community, on the following
    quantitative limits applicable to China, as is apparent          questions :
    from the Agreement renegotiated in 1 995 ; consequently,
    those measures have no basis in the bilateral agreement
    and even depart from the spirit and letter of the                1 . Does the name 'Yugoslavia ' in Commission Decision
    provisions thereof. Recourse to 'exceptional flexibility'            No 2131 /88/ECSC (') also refer to the State of
    measures also involves a clear breach of the general and             Macedonia-Scopje after it had broken away from ( what
    fundamental principles of the Community legal order,                 remained of) Yugoslavia ?
    which have been recognized as such by the Community
    case law .                                                       2 . Are the import duties which are to be levied in
                                                                         accordance      with      Decision  No  2131 /88/ECSC      on
                                                                         imports into the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union
— Manifest breach of the general Community legal                         of steel products originating in Yugoslavia also
    principles concerning competence, institutional                      applicable to such imports originating in the State of
    equilibrium and protection of the legitimate                         Macedonia-Scopje between 1 May 1992 and 31 July
    expectations of economic agents in the Community : as                1992 inclusive ?
    an authority giving effect to the commercial agreements
    entered into by the Council , the Commission must limit          (') OJ No L 188 , 1988 , p . 14 .
    its action to applying agreed provisions . Any decision
    which goes beyond such limits, such as that represented
    by the 'exceptional flexibility' measures, breaches the
    principle of legally defined competence — and is
    consequently illegal through lack of powers . The
    Commission is also acting in breach of the principle of
    institutional equilibrium in adopting decisions which, as
    regards their legal effects, constitute a derogation from
    the provisions whose approval, at Community level , or          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
    conclusion, at international level, is a matter for the         Raad van State, by order of that court of 31 May 1996 in the
    Council alone .                                                 case of 1 . Beside B V and 2 . 1 . M. Besselsen v. Minister for
                                                                     Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation
                                                                                             ( Case C-192/96 )
    The practice of taking 'exceptional flexibility' measures                                   ( 96/C 233/06 )
    represents a factor of unpredictability as regards the
    reasonable expectations of economic agents, in
    particular those in the textile industry; since such            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    measures cannot be foreseen by economic agents and do           European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
    not pursue an overriding public interest, they contravene       Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
    the principle of legitimate expectations and are, for that      31 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    reason among others, illegal .                                  4 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Beside
                                                                    BV and 2 . I. M. Besselsen v . Minister for Housing, Town
                                                                    and Country Planning and Conservation on the following
(') OJ No L 2 75 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                   questions :
                                                                     1 . Should the expression 'municipal/household waste '
                                                                         referred to under AD 160 in Annex III to Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                                                                         supervision 'and control of shipments of waste within,
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 233/5
     into and out of the European Community ( ), as                                 particular an employed or self-employed person ),
     subsequently amended, be interpreted as also including                         has exercised the right to freedom of movement
     waste which for the most part consists of the solid plastic                    within the European Community ?
     wastes referred to in Annex II to the Regulation, but also
     of various other wastes referred to in that Annex and a                  ( b ) Is it relevant in that respect whether the other
     small quantity of materials not referred to therein ?                          parent moved with the child to another Member
                                                                                    State and pursued an activity there as an employed
2 , ( a ) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative , should                     or self-employed person until his or her death ?
           the phrase ' storage of materials intended for
           submission to any operation in this Annex' in                 2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a retired
           Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                       police officer a civil servant within the meaning of
           15 July 1975 on waste ( 2 ), as subsequently                       Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
           amended, be interpreted as covering not only
           storage at the plant in which the other operations            C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
           referred to in the Annex will take place , but also
           storage pending transport to such a plant,
           regardless of whether that plant is situated inside or
           outside the Community ?
     ( b ) If the first part of this question is answered in the
           affirmative, what minimum evidence must be                    Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of the
           available for a finding that the waste is actually                European Communities against the French Republic
           intended for recovery, where notification has not
                                                                                                  ( Case C-197/96 )
           been given ?
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 233/08 )
3 . If Questions 1 and 2 ( a ) are answered in the affirmative ,
     must it then be inferred from the third sentence of                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     Article 26 ( 2 ) of the Regulation that, in the cases to            the Court of Justice on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of
     which that provison refers , the competent authority of             the European Communities, represented by Marie
     destination is also obliged, or at any rate authorized , to         Wolfcarius , acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     do what the competent authority of dispatch is obliged              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz ,
     to do pursuant to the first sentence of that                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
     provision ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
Ç-) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .                                        — declare that, by maintaining, in Article L 213-1 of the
                                                                              Code du Travail ( Employment code ), a prohibition of
                                                                             night work for women in industry, whereas no such
                                                                             prohibition exists in relation to men, the French
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             Article 5 ( 1 ) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                              1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  employment, vocational training and promotion , and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996                  working conditions ( 1 ),
       in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat Bayern
                          ( Case C-194/96 )                              — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                            ( 96 /C 233 /07 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   In consequence of the denunciation by the French
European Communities by an order of the 10th Chamber of                  Government of ILO Convention No 89 , the obligations
the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 30 April             imposed by that Convention on France in relation to third
1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 0 June             countries, as recognized by the Court of Justice in the
1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern         judgment in Levy ( 2 ), ceased to exist with effect from
( Federal State of Bavaria ) v . Hilmar Kulzer on the following          February 1993 . The retention , without amendment, of the
questions :                                                              text of the legislation referred to in the wording of the form
                                                                         of order sought gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs .
1 , ( a ) Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), in                     Save where it is of a binding nature , a ministerial reply to a
           particular Article 73 thereof, apply if the child in          parliamentary question C ) does not constitute an adequate
           respect of whom family benefits are sought, but not           adaptation of the legislative provisions in force in France .
           the person entitled to benefits him or herself ( in           Lastly, the existence of collective agreements negotiated in