CELEX: C1998/312/12
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 14 August 1998 by the Union Européenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1998 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-135/96 between the Union Européenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME), supported by Confédération Générale des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat Réel (CGPME), Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Nationaal Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Koninklijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, Fédération des Artisans, Confederazione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato), Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereinigung der Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-316/98 P)

C 312/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
Regulation. On the other hand, it must presumably, be                1. What should the requirements be for furnishing proof
open to the Commission to bring proceedings in respect of                 of the place where an irregularity or offence was
decisions of the President of the Office directly under                   actually committed in the course of a transport
Article 173. That the Member States should be differently                 operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
situated from the Commission in the matter of challenging                 (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
such decisions seems constitutionally anomalous.                          Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
                                                                          p. 1))? Is a statement from the carnet holder and the
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997, p. 39.                                           testimony of the lorry driver who has effected the
(2) Case 294/83, [1986] ECR 1339.                                         transport for the carnet holder sufficient or must the
(3) Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87, [1989] ECR 1045.                      proof comprise documents which unambiguously show
                                                                          that the competent authorities in the other Member
                                                                          State reached the conclusion that the irregularity or
                                                                          offence was committed on their territory?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht              2. If the Court of Justice takes the view that the actual
München by order of that court of 24 June 1998 in the                     place where the irregularity or offence was commited
case of Holz Geenen GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                      can be proved on the basis of statements of the carnet
                           München                                        holder and the testimony of the lorry driver who
                                                                          effected the transport operation, are the third and
                       (Case C-309/98)                                    fourth subparagraphs of Article 454(3) of Directive
                         (98/C 312/10)                                    (EEC) No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                          they also apply in cases where the charges were
                                                                          recovered in the Member State where the irregularity
                                                                          or offence was detected, even though it has been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          proved that the irregularity or offence was actually
European Communities by order of the Third Senate of
                                                                          commited in another Member State?
the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court, Munich) of
24 June 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 August
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Geenen
GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion München (Principal
Revenue Office, Munich) on the following question:
Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July
1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the           Appeal brought on 14 August 1998 by the Union Euro-
Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 204, 31.7.1997, p. 8) Ð                  peÂenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entrepri-
in this case rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide              ses (UEAPME) against the judgment delivered on 17 June
72 mm high, used in the construction of window frames,               1998 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
consisting of layers of wood glued together with the grain           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
running parallel and with slightly rounded edges Ð                   in Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de
invalid?                                                             l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises
                                                                     (UEAPME), supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des
                                                                     Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel
                                                                     (CGPME), Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Natio-
                                                                     naal Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Konink-
                                                                     lijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans,
                                                                     Confederazione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confar-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof            tigianato), Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereini-
by order of that court of 7 July 1998 in the case of Haupt-          gung der Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV
zollamt Neubrandenburg against Leszek Labis trading                  (BFH), and the Council of the European Union, supported
as Przedsiebiorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans',                     by the Commission of the European Communities
                            PL-Reda                                                        (Case C-316/98 P)
                       (Case C-310/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 312/12)
                         (98/C 312/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1998
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 July 1998, received at the              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Court Registry on 10 August 1998, for a preliminary                  Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-
ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg                    nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),
against Leszek Labis trading as Przedsiebiorstwo                     supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Petites et
Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans', PL-Reda on the                    Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel (CGPME),
following questions:                                                 Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Nationaal Christe-
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/7
lijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Koninklijke Vereni-                    ETUC have sufficient collective representativity, they
ging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans, Confedera-               Ð to the exclusion of all other associations Ð will
zione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato),              always have the right to negotiate the framework
Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereinigung der                     agreements implemented by Community legislative
Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), and                      instrument pursuant to Article 4(2), first paragraph, of
the Council of the European Union, supported by the                     the Agreement on social policy. Such a system is also
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                     in breach of the freedom of association of national
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 associations and their members. Thus, if the
on 14 August 1998 by the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-                 associations which are members of UEAPME Ð or
nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),                    rather the SMUs which belong to members of
represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel Tomasevic, of                 UEAPME Ð wish one day to be involved in the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                        negotiation of European framework agreements, they
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58                     will be compelled to join UNICE so that the latter can
Rue Charles Martel.                                                     represent them,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         Ð infringement of the procedural rules relating to the
                                                                        rights of the defence and the equality of arms in
                                                                        judicial proceedings: in the absence of any relevant
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              evidence, the Court of First Instance cannot call in
    the European Communities of 17 June 1998 in Case                    question the fact that the applicant represents
    T-135/96 between the same parties,                                  undertakings with employees, while denying the
                                                                        applicant an opportunity to address that question
                                                                        (sufficient time being allowed for it to substantiate its
Ð annul Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
                                                                        reply). The approach of the Court of First Instance is
    the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
                                                                        all the more improper in view of the fact that it clearly
    by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC (1) in its entirety, or, in
                                                                        suggested in its questions at the end of the written
    the alternative, with respect solely to its application to
                                                                        procedure that the point at issue was the number of
    SMUs,
                                                                        undertakings represented, not the number of persons
                                                                        employed by those undertakings,
Ð order the Commission to pay all costs, including those
    incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First
    Instance.                                                       Ð breach of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 2(2) of the Agreement on
    social policy concluded between the Member States of
    the European Community with the exception of the
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
    Ireland, annexed to Protocol 14 on social policy,
                                                                    gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 24 July 1998
    annexed to the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                    in the case of Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus
    Community: the Court of First Instance erroneously
                                                                                         Hermann Lampe KG
    assessed the scope of Article 2(2) which, with a view
    to ensuring compliance with the clear and                                              (Case C-322/98)
    unconditional prohibition laid down therein, calls for
                                                                                            (98/C 312/13)
    the participation of an association which is genuinely
    representative of SMUs and authorised by them to
    present their case. Respect for their prerogatives can
    only be ensured by direct recognition of the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    association representing SMUs as having a right of              European Communities by order of the Sixth Chamber of
    action for annulment. The Court of Justice cannot, by           the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Higher Labour Court,
    means of a preliminary ruling Ð in so far as a                  Hamburg) of 24 July 1998, received at the Court Registry
    reference for such a ruling implies that a national             on 20 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    court is confronted with a conflict between legal rules         Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus Hermann Lampe
    after the Directive's transposition Ð express judicial          KG on the following question:
    condemnation of the unlawful situation until after it
    has been created,
                                                                    Is Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) to be interpreted
                                                                    as meaning that, when applying paragraph 1(3) of the
Ð infringement of Article 4 of the Agreement on social              Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Employment Protection)
    policy: the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the          Ð in this case in the version in force until 30 September
    meaning of management and labour'. It reasons that,            1996 Ð part-time female employees are to be regarded as
    provided it is established that UNICE, CEEP and                 comparable with male/female full-time employees in the