CELEX: C2002/323/19
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)

C 323/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
            directive in relation to group water supplies, Ireland has                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and
            19 of that directive;
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                                  (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2002.
                                                                                                      of 7 November 2002
                                                                              in Case C-333/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                  the Tarkastuslautakunta): Eila Päivikki Maaheimo ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Family benefits — Home
                        of 5 November 2002
                                                                                 child-care allowance — Residence condition for children)
in Case C-325/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                                         (2002/C 323/19)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent
               effect — Label of origin and quality)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: Finnish)
                            (2002/C 323/18)
                    (Language of the case: German)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-325/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. C. Schieferer and C. Schmidt) v Federal Republic of               In Case C-333/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by                  EC by the Tarkastuslautakunta (Finland) for a preliminary
M. Loschelder): Application for a declaration that by awarding                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by Eila
the quality label ‘Markenqualität aus deutschen Landen’ (quality              Päivikki Maaheimo, on the interpretation of Articles 4(1)(h),
label for produce made in Germany) to finished products of a                  10(a), 73 and 75 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic of                  14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of              employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), the                      of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                      and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                    2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Sixth
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                  Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,                Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha
given a judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:                             Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                              7 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by awarding the quality label ‘Marenqualität aus
      deutschen Landen’ (quality label for produce made in Germany)
      to finished products of a certain quality made in Germany, the
      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations        1.    A benefit such as the home child-care allowance provided for by
      under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                      the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law
      Article 28 EC);                                                               No 1128/96 on home child-care allowance and private child-
                                                                                    care allowance) is a family benefit within the meaning of
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                      Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                                    14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                                    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                         their families moving within the Community, as amended and
                                                                                    updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
                                                                                    1996.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 323/17
2.    On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/                directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the                   and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
      grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the              down by Article 10 of that directive.
      main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
      territory of the competent Member State, that condition must           2.    In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
      be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of          several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
      another Member State.                                                        and I B to Directive 92/50, far from depriving it of its
                                                                                   effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
                                                                                   directive. When, following the classification thus made by
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                       reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
                                                                                   Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
                                                                                   Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
                                                                                   Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
                                                                                   authority to separate from the contract in question the services
                                                                                   referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
                                                                                   respect of them.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
                                                                                   the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
                                                                                   50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
                                                                                   that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
                       of 14 November 2002                                         the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
                                                                                   In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                               cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v                                   in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
                Österreichische Nationalbank (1),                                  Annex I A to the Directive.
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope                      (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
                              Annex I B)
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2002/C 323/20)
                                                                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 14 November 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
                                                                             Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
                                                                             OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
                                                                             Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                               Dimosio (1)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the                        (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June                     services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                      all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),                     ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                              transport and transport to third countries)
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,                                             (2002/C 323/21)
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The determination of the regime applicable to public service                                in the European Court Reports)
      contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
      to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the       EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-