CELEX: C2001/245/08
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-233/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against Dario Lo Bue

C 245/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
1.    Are goods which have been cleared for Community                          2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
      transit removed from customs supervision if the transit                  States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
      document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-                     ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
      ment?                                                                    particular Article 15 thereof; or
2.    If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:                   —     Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed                    the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
      from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to                  the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
      ensure their identification was opened and the goods                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
      were partially unloaded, without the consignment first                   ‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof
      being duly produced for customs, even though the
      operation was arranged with the persons in question by             preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
      customs investigation officers operating incognito and             are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
      observed in every detail by those officers?                        has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
                                                                         displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
3.    If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the               gible manner?
      affirmative:
      Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
      Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs               (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
      investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
      infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
      the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
      used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
      by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
      repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
      from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
      munity transit?                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                         di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.                                                                    Dario Lo Bue
                                                                                                  (Case C-233/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 245/08)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of                    (District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by                    Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                         Susanne Müller                                  the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
                                                                         Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:
                         (Case C-229/01)                                 (1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
                         (2001/C 245/07)                                       Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
                                                                               cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
                                                                               curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         party liability in connection with the use of motor
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                      vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-                      vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June                    goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a                    insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller                  consumer price index?
on the following questions:
                                                                         (2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Does                                                                           Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
                                                                               Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
—     Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)                      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                    inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
      relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of               rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
      foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version              coefficients for determining the premium and differential
      prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of                 premium rate systems under which the premium payable
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March                   depends on the claims record?
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 245/5
(3) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing                                     (Case C-235/01)
      inflation, also requires insurance undertakings, if the
      client so requests, to draw up policies the terms of which
      incorporate a bonus-malus arrangement (positive or                                          (2001/C 245/10)
      negative adjustment of the premium on the basis of the
      claims record) subject to an excess in an amount set
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      between the minimum and the maximum level permitted
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 June
      by law?
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(4) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             represented by Bernard Mongin and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      inflation, provides that, on expiry of the period during
      which premium rates were frozen, the insured person              —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and
      may withdraw from the contract if, on the date for annual              administrative provisions necessary for compliance with
      renewal of the policy, an increase is applied to the                   Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
      premium (not provided for under a customised arrange-                  Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
      ment) higher than the scheduled rate of inflation decided              seafarers (1), or in any event by not forwarding those
      by the Government?                                                     provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ L 228 of 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case               provides that a directive is binding on each Member State to
   of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord                  which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, involves
                                                                       an obligation on Member States to respect the periods for
                        (Case C-234/O1)                                transposition laid down in directives. That period expired on
                                                                       1 July 1999 without the Italian Republic having issued the
                        (2001/C 245/09)                                provisions necessary for compliance with the directive cited in
                                                                       the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance            (1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.
Court), Berlin, of 28 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt (District Tax
Office) Neukölln-Nord on the following question:
Is there an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                       Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic
Article 43 EC) where, under Paragraph 50a(4), first sentence,
                                                                       of Germany against the Commission of the European
point (1) and second sentence, of the Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                                                   Communities
(Law on Income Tax) as in force in 1996 (’EStG 1996’), a
Netherlands national who earns in the Federal Republic of
Germany taxable net income of approximately                                                       (Case C-239/01)
DEM 5 000 from self-employed activity in the calendar year is
subject to deduction of tax at source by the person liable to                                     (2001/C 245/11)
pay his fees at the rate of 25 % his (gross) revenue of
approximately DEM 6 000 plus solidarity surcharge, where it
is not possible, by means of an application for a refund or an         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
application for a tax assessment, for him to recover, in whole         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
or in part, the taxes paid?                                            Communities on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and J. Sedemund,
                                                                       acting as Agents.