CELEX: C1998/041/12
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-07 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 18 December 1997 in Case C-129/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Conseil d'État): Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v. Région Wallonne (Directive 91/156/EEC - Period for transposition - Effects - Definition of waste)

7.2.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 41/7
to the Treaty on European Union Ð the Court (Sixth                   1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the
Chamber) composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                 protection of the interests of members and others, are
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                     required by Member States of companies within the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn,               meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Cosmas,                       Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a                  throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
judgment on 11 December 1997, the operative part of                  1968 (I), p. 41) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
which is as follows:                                                 of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; A.
                                                                     La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
1. Periods of service completed by part-time workers                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December
     who have suffered indirect discrimination based on sex          1997, in which it has ruled:
     must be taken into account as from 8 April 1976, the
     date of the judgment in Case C-43/75 Defrenne, for
     the purposes of calculating the additional benefits to          The rules governing the enforceability as against third
     which they are entitled.                                        parties of acts done by members of company organs in
                                                                     circumstances where there is a conflict of interests with
                                                                     the company fall outside the normative framework of the
2. Community law precludes the application, to a claim               First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on
     based on Article 119 of the EC Treaty for recognition           coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the
     of the claimants' entitlement to join an occupational           interests of members and others, are required by Member
     pension scheme, of a national rule under which such             States of companies within the meaning of the second
     entitlement, in the event of a successful claim, is             paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to
     limited to a period which starts to run from a point in         making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
     time two years prior to commencement of proceedings             Community, and are matters for the national legislature.
     in connection with the claim.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                         of 18 December 1997
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     in Case C-129/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     of 16 December 1997                             the Belgian Conseil d'EÂtat): Inter-Environnement Wallonie
in Case C-104/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                             ASBL v. ReÂgion Wallonne (1)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Coöperatieve Rabobank                (Directive 91/156/EEC Ð Period for transposition Ð
Vecht en Plassengebied' BA v. Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud                               Effects Ð Definition of waste)
         (receiver in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV) (1)
                                                                                              (98/C 41/12)
(Company law Ð First Directive 68/151/EEC Ð Scope Ð
Representation of a company Ð Conflict of interests Ð
Lack of authority of a director to enter into a binding                             (Language of the case: French)
            transaction on behalf of the company)
                          (98/C 41/11)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     In Case C-129/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'EÂtat for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and
                                                                     ReÂgion Wallonne Ð on the interpretation of Articles 5
In Case C-104/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           and 189 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1(a) of Council
of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                  Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194,
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a preliminary                 25.7.1975, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32)
between Coöperatieve Rabobank Vecht en Plassengebied'               Ð the Court composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud (receiver in bankruptcy               President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,
of Mediasafe BV) Ð on the interpretation of Article 9(1)             Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March                 Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.2.98
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón                    Article 5(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of
(Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H.             25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on                   Grouping (EEIG) is to be interpreted as meaning that the
18 December 1997, the operative part of which is as                  business name of an EEIG must include the words
follows:                                                             European Economic Interest Grouping' or the initials
                                                                     EEIG', whilst the other elements to be included may be
1. A substance is not excluded from the definition of                imposed by the provisions of internal law applicable in the
     waste in Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC           Member State in which the grouping has its official
     of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                 address.
     Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, merely
     because it directly or indirectly forms an integral part        (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
     of an industrial production process.
2. The second paragraph of Article 5 and the third
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, and
     Directive 91/156/EEC, require the Member States to
     which that Directive is addressed to refrain, during the        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     period laid down therein for its implementation, from           Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 17 June 1997
     adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the                in proceedings brought by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl
     result prescribed.                                                                      (Case C-392/97)
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                                       (98/C 41/14)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European       Communities       by    an    order    of    the
                                                                     Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of 17 June
                                                                     1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 18 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
                        (Fifth Chamber)                              proceedings brought by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl on the
                                                                     following questions:
                     of 18 December 1997
in Case C-402/96 (reference to the Court by the                      1. Is it a condition of the application of Article 3(b) of
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 (1) of 18 June
ruling): concerning the commercial registration of an                     1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
undertaking in the process of formation, brought by                       protection certificate for medicinal products that the
European        Information      Technology       Observatory,            product in respect of which the grant of a protection
    Europäische Wirtschaftliche Interessenvereinigung (1)                 certificate is sought is described as an active
 (European Economic Interest Grouping Ð Business name)                    ingredient' in the medicinal authorization?
                          (98/C 41/13)
                                                                          Are, then, the terms of Article 3(b) not satisfied where
                                                                          only one individual salt of a substance is stated in the
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          notice of authorization to be an active ingredient', but
                                                                          the grant of a protection certificate is sought for the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            free basis and/or for other salts of the active
          published in the European Court Reports)                        ingredient?
In Case C-402/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           2. If the questions at 1 are answered in the negative:
of the EC Treaty by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am
Main (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                          According to which criteria is it to be determined
proceedings pending before that court, concerning the
                                                                          whether the product is protected by a basic patent
commercial registration of an undertaking in the process
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 3(a), where the grant of
of formation, brought by European Information
                                                                          a protection certificate is sought for the free base of an
Technology Observatory, Europäische Wirtschaftliche
                                                                          active ingredient including any of its salts, but the
Interessenvereinigung Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                          basic patent in its patent claims mentions only the free
Article 5(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of
                                                                          base of this substance and, moreover, mentions only a
25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest
                                                                          single salt of this free base? Is the wording of the
Grouping (EEIG) (OJ L 199, 31.7.1985, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                          claim for the basic patent or the latter's scope of
Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann
                                                                          protection the determining criterion?
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and J.-P.
Puissochet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.              (1) OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 December 1997,
the operative part of which is as follows: