CELEX: C2000/335/56
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-333/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslautakunta by order of that tribunal of 31 May 2000 in the case of Päivikki Maaheimo

C 335/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
     The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance,         (a)   if so, does Article 73 in conjunction with Article 75 of
     which does not have to interpret French law but only to                 Regulation No 1408/71, having regard also to Article 10a
     apply it in appropriate cases, committed an obvious error               and to the fact that the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen
     in holding that the Parliament’s argument that it could                 hoidon tuesta is not mentioned in Annex IIa of the
     negotiate with self-employed taxi drivers without causing               regulation, impose an obligation to pay home childcare
     them to infringe French legislation was ‘credible’. The                 allowance in respect of a child in the family of an
     Court of First Instance had to find that the Parliament                 employee posted temporarily to another Member State,
     failed to take any steps with the French authorities                    even in a case where the condition concerning actual
     to obtain information, claiming that it was for those                   residence which is a condition for receipt of the benefit
     authorities to approach the Parliament and for the self-                under national legislation is not satisfied, as a conse-
     employed taxi drivers to comply with the legislation in                 quence of which the choice referred to in the law between
     the performance of the contract, without concerning                     a day-care place organised by the local authority and
     itself with the possibility that the call for tenders might             home child-care allowance is not possible to make or has
     have an effect in breach of the legislation.                            not in fact been made;
—    Infringement of essential procedural requirements (insuf-         (b) if not, does Community law impose an obligation on
     ficient statement of reasons).                                          another ground to pay home child-care allowance in
—    Error in assessing the plea in law claiming discrimination.             another Member State in the situation described in
                                                                             point (a)?
—    After the revelations in the defence, AICS was justified in
     requesting the Court of First Instance to hold that the
     condition appearing in the notice concerning three years’         (1) Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
     business had been infringed, and the plea in law raised on            cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                           employed persons and to members of their families moving
     that point by AICS should have been accepted.                         within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971, p. 416).
—    Since it has been shown that the Parliament established
     an unlawful system of working to the benefit of self-
     employed taxi drivers and to the detriment of AICS
     carrying on the business at a large discount enabling it to
     submit its offer, the conditions for holding the institution
     liable and awarding compensation to a private person
     suffering loss are met.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                       Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
                                                                       court of 26 January 2000 in the case of Republic of
                                                                                        Austria against Martin Huber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslau-
takunta by order of that tribunal of 31 May 2000 in the                                         (Case C-336/00)
                  case of Päivikki Maaheimo
                                                                                                (2000/C 335/57)
                        (Case C-333/00)
                        (2000/C 335/56)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 26 January
European Communities by an order of the Tarkastuslautakunta            2000, received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2000,
(Social Security Review Tribunal), Finland, of 31 May 2000,            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Republic of Austria
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 September               against Martin Huber on the following questions:
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Päivikki Maaheimo
on the following questions:                                            1.    Was Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June
                                                                             1992 on agricultural production methods compatible
Does home child-care allowance under the Laki lasten kotihoi-                with the requirements of the protection of the environ-
don ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law on home child-care                      ment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992
allowance and private child-care allowance, 1128/1996) fall                  L 215, p. 85) validly adopted?
within the material scope of Community law as a family
benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of Council               2.    Does a decision on the approval of a programme under
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-                    Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-              30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods com-
employed persons and to members of their families moving                     patible with the requirements of the protection of the
within the Community (1), as amended and updated by Council                  environment and the maintenance of the countryside also
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and amended                       encompass the content of the programmes submitted by
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989;                   the Member States for approval?