CELEX: C1995/268/25
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 11 May 1995 in the case of Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt (Case C-258/95)

No C 268/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            is a law of a Member State which, in laying down the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 11 May 1995 in               procedural rules by which citizens who have a right to the
the case of Julius Fillibeck Sôhne GmbH &c Co KG v.                    reparation of damage conferred on them by Community law
                       Finanzamt Neustadt                              following the failure to implement directives which are not
                         ( Case C-258/95 )                             directly applicable, requires the injured party to bring
                             95/C 268/25 )
                                                                       judicial proceedings subject to a one-year limitation period
                                                                       starting from the date when the aforementioned domestic
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 rules entered into force compatible with the correct
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as construed in
( Federal Finance Court ) — Fifth Senate — of 1 1 May 1 995 ,          the light of the principles laid down in the case-law of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1995 ,             Court of Justice cited in the grounds of this order, where, in
                                                                       contrast, under the domestic law of the Member State in
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Julius Fillibeck Sohne
GmbH & Co KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt on the following                    question actions for the reparation of non-contractual
questions :                                                            damage are normally subject to a five-year prescription
                                                                       period and the action for obtaining social security payments
1 . does the transport service of an employer constitute a             under the statutory system arising out of the full
    service 'effected for consideration' within the meaning            implementation of the Directive ( Directive 80/987/EEC of
    of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/3 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) — that is to    20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
    say, effected for a proportion to be estimated of the              Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
    work performed by the employees — where, pursuant to               event of the insolvency of the employer ) is subject to a
    a collective agreement, the employer carries employees             time-limit of one year, which, however, is a period of
     ( without specially agreed and calculated consideration )         prescription, thereby introducing, for the purposes of the
    from their homes to the workplace where they are more              judicial protection of rights based on Community law, a
    than a specified distance apart, and the work performed            procedural mechanism which differs in the aforementioned
    — which has no actual connection with such transport               respects from ' similar' actions and remedies provided for by
    services — is already to be carried out in return for the          the domestic law of the Member State in question, it being
    agreed money wages as in the case of the other                     pointed out that, in any event, all claims for payments to be
    employees ?                                                        made by the agency which is under a duty under the law to
                                                                       make reparation for the damage are subject at present to a
2 . Does Article 6 ( 2)ofDirective77/388/EECcovertheuse                one-year limitation period under the domestic law of the
    of goods forming part of the assets of the business or a           Member State in question ? Is the national court bound,
    service carried out free of charge even where — as in the          where appropriate , to disapply that limitation period,
    case of the carriage of employees from their homes to the          thereby enabling citizens who have suffered damage to bring
    workplace and back in a vehicle of the undertaking free            an action outside the one-year limitation period and, if so,
    of charge — it does not serve purposes other than those            within the five-year prescription period prescribed for the
    of the business as far as the employer is concerned , but          ordinary action for reparation or within the one-year
    does serve the employees' private purposes and the                 prescription period laid down for obtaining social security
    employees are not charged turnover tax in this respect             payments under the ' basic' system ?
     ( on account of their use free of charge of the transport
    service )?
3 . In the event that question 2 is answered in the
    affirmative : does Article 6 ( 2 ) of Directive 77/338/EEC
    also cover a case where the employer does not carry the
    employees in its own vehicles, but commissions a third             Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
    party ( in the instant case, one of its own employees ) to            European Communities against the French Republic
    effect the transport ?
                                                                                               Case C-265 /95 )
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                                         95/C 268 /27
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
Circondariale di Frosinone by order of that court of 27 June           Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
        1995 in the case of Rosalba Palmisani v. INPS                  Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national official on
                         ( Case C-261/95 )
                                                                       secondment to the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                           ( 95/C 268/26 )                             Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 27 June 1995 of the                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Pretura Circondariale di Frosinone ( Magistrates' Court,               the Court should :
Fronsinone ), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                — declare that, by failing to adopt all the appropriate
Pasalba Palmisani v . INPS on the following question :                     measures necessary in order to prevent acts committed