CELEX: C2002/202/13
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-224/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein Oikeus by order of that Court of 14.06.2002 in the case of Heikki Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö

24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 202/11
The restrictions in the directive in fact affect specifically small      income tax prepayment levied in the Member State in question,
and medium-sized undertakings. Restricting working time                  whereas the income tax which a debtor resident in another
would weaken the competitive position of those undertakings,             Member State is obliged to pay in his State of residence is not
since their situation differs from that of the owner of a large          taken into account as a deduction, so that the attachable part
undertaking. It follows from the division of work within a               is greater in the latter case in being determined on the basis of
large undertaking that the persons responsible for driving can           the gross and not the net amount of the pension?
use the whole time permitted by the directive for driving.
The management and development of the business are the
responsibility of different persons, whose working time the
provisions of the directive do not restrict in any way.
Fifth plea in law: failure to comply with the
duty to state reasons                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                         Gela — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari by
Finland considers that by including self-employed drivers in             order of that Court of 19 June 2002 in criminal proceed-
the scope of the directive the Parliament and the Council                  ings against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani
infringed Article 253 EC.
                                                                                                   (Case C-235/02)
According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the
obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC is determined
by the nature of the legislation, decision or other measure. The                                  (2002/C 202/14)
statement of reasons must disclose clearly and unambiguously
the reasoning of the Community institution which has adopted
the measure, so that the reasons for the measure are clear to
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
those concerned by it and the Community court can perform
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gela —
its function of review.
                                                                         Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Gela District
                                                                         Court, Chambers of the Judge in charge of Preliminary
Finland considers that those requirements are not satisfied in           Inquiries) of 19 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on
so far as the directive concerns self-employed drivers.                  26 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings
                                                                         against Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani on the
(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.                                         following questions:
                                                                         1.    Does pet coke fall within the definition of ‘waste’ as
                                                                               provided in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC? (1)
                                                                         2.    Does use of pet coke as a fuel constitute ‘recovery’ within
                                                                               the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein Oikeus                 3.    Does pet coke, when used as a fuel for production
by order of that Court of 14.06.2002 in the case of                            purposes, come within the category of waste which a
Heikki Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen                           Member State may exclude from the application of the
                          Vakuutusyhtiö                                        Community, following the adoption of specific rules in
                                                                               accordance with Article 2 of Directive 75/442/EEC?
                         (Case C-224/02)
                                                                         4.    Does permitting the use of petroleum coke at the place
                         (2002/C 202/13)                                       of production even for combustion processes intended
                                                                               for the generation of electric or thermal energy for
                                                                               purposes unconnected with refining processes, subject to
                                                                               the condition that emissions must be within the limits
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         laid down in the relevant provisions, even where its
European Communities by order of the Korkein Oikeus                            sulphur content exceeds 3 % of mass, constitute a
(Supreme Court) of 14.6.2002, received at the Court Registry                   necessary and sufficient measure to ensure that such
on 17.6.2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Heikki                   waste is recovered without endangering human health
Antero Pusa against Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutus-                        and without the use of processes or methods likely harm
yhtiö on the following question:                                               the environment, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive
                                                                               75/442/EEC?
Does Article 18 of the EC Treaty or any other rule of
Community law preclude national legislation under which, in
an attachment carried out for the purpose of enforcing a                 (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
judgment concerning a money debt, that part of the pension
payable at regular intervals to the debtor which the attachment
may concern is determined by deducting from the pension the