CELEX: C2000/316/26
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-320/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales), by order of that court of 20 July 2000, in the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent Office Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and 3) Mitie Secure Services Ltd

C 316/14                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
      (third non-life insurance Directive), does not preclude mutual         amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April
      benefit societies engaged solely in insurance business from            1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:
      creating between themselves a body with legal personality and          G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      legal autonomy — such as an association of mutual benefit              teur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      societies — which engages in commercial business, provided             P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and
      that the capital subscribed to that body by those societies does       H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-
      not exceed the value of their free assets and provided that, in        man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      each case, the society’s liability is limited to the value of its      given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in which it has
      capital contribution.                                                  ruled:
2.    Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 73/239, as amended by Directive
      92/49, is sufficiently precise and unconditional to be relied          Where the competent authorities of a Member State apply a provision
      upon before the national courts as against the administrative          of law
      authorities and entails the inapplicability of any rule of national
      law incompatible with it.                                              —      which fixes the amount of the retirement pension awarded to a
                                                                                    married worker,
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                             —      which provides for that pension to be reduced, by the amount of
                                                                                    a pension awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another
                                                                                    Member State, but
                                                                             —      which provides for the application of a derogating clause in
                                                                                    respect of overlapping where the pension paid elsewhere is less
                                                                                    than a certain amount,
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             it is contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                             Article 39 EC) for those authorities to reduce the amount of the
                       of 26 September 2000                                  pension awarded to a migrant worker by the amount of a pension
                                                                             awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State,
in Case C-262/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    when the grant of that latter pension does not involve any increase in
the Arbeidshof, Antwerp (Belgium)): Rijksdienst voor                         the couple’s total income.
               Pensioenen v Robert Engelbrecht (1)
(Social security — Freedom of movement for workers —                         (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
Retirement pension — Increase in respect of dependent
spouse — Articles 12 and 46a of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Overlapping of pensions awarded under the
              legislation of different Member States)
                           (2000/C 316/25)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                             (England & Wales), by order of that court of 20 July 2000,
                                                                             in the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Office Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               3) Mitie Secure Services Ltd
In Case C-262/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                           (Case C-320/00)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeidshof,
Antwerp (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                           (2000/C 316/26)
pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
and Robert Engelbrecht — on the interpretation of Article 48
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Articles 12(2) and 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                      (England & Wales) of 20 July 2000, which was received at the
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                       Court Registry on 22 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
persons and to members of their families moving within the                   the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent Office
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                      Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and 3) Mitie Secure
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as                    Services Ltd, on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/15
1.    Is Article 141 (1) directly applicable in the circumstances        Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
      of this case (as set out in this judgment) so that it can be       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
      relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to           Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,
      enable them to compare their pay with that of men in               Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council
      who are performing work of equal value to that done by             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the applicants?
                                                                         1.    declare that, by granting the seal of quality ‘Markenquali-
2.    Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct
                                                                               tät aus deutschen Landen’ to manufactured goods of a
      effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent
                                                                               certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic
      employer is in a position where he is able to explain
                                                                               of Germany has infringed Article 28 EC;
      why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his
      employees as he does?
                                                                         2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The grant of the quality mark exclusively to German products
                                                                         which meet certain quality standards is likely to impede
                                                                         imports between Member States, whether directly or indirectly,
                                                                         actually or potentially. A designation of quality may not —
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  subject to the provisions on designations of origin and
Münster by order of 21 August 2000 in the case of                        indication as to provenance — be reserved for domestic
     Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt                        products. The designation in question does not fall within the
                                                                         scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92,
                                                                         since it is too remote from the specific subject-matter of that
                         (Case C-324/00)                                 regulation. Even advertising by reference to a quality mark is
                                                                         not allowed to include the geographical origin of the goods, in
                         (2000/C 316/27)                                 this case ‘German’. Even if it is conceded to the Federal
                                                                         Government that the seal of quality does not reflect any
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ‘chauvinistic intentions’, the emphasis on quality in direct
European Communities by order of 21 August 2000 by the                   association with an indication as to provenance — in this case,
Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Münster, which was received at             the domestic origin of the product — none the less constitutes
the Court Registry on 4 September 2000, for a preliminary                at the same time discrimination against equivalent goods of
ruling in the case of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt                 different origin.
Steinfurt on the following question:
Is the requirement of freedom of establishment for nationals
of a Member State in the territory of another Member State
laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty of 10 November 1997
establishing the European Community to be interpreted as
precluding the national rule in Paragraph 8a of the German
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on Corporation Tax)?
                                                                         of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
                                                                         by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v
                                                                         Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke,
                                                                                           Artsana SpA and Fater SpA
                                                                                                  (Case C-327/00)
Action brought on 4 September 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                         (2000/C 316/29)
                         (Case C-325/00)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
                                                                         Tribunal Amministrativo per la Lombardia (Regional Adminis-
                         (2000/C 316/28)                                 trative Court, Lombardy) dated 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000, which was received at the Court
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    Registry on 5 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42,
ties on 4 September 2000 by the Commission of the European               Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the
Communities, represented by J. Christian Schieferer and                  following questions: