CELEX: C2002/097/05
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-25/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of Katharina Rinke against Ärtztekammer Hamburg

20.4.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 97/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secção (Fiscal Court
tungsgericht by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of                of First Instance, Lisbon, 3rd Division, 2nd Chamber) of
     Katharina Rinke against Ärtztekammer Hamburg                     27 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 4 Febru-
                                                                       ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recheio Cash
                                                                       & Carry SA against Fazenda Pública and Registo Nacional de
                          (Case C-25/02)
                                                                       Pessoas Colectivas on the following questions:
                          (2002/C 97/05)                               1.    Is it contrary to Community law for a Member State to
                                                                             fix a limitation period, for actions for repayment of taxes
                                                                             levied in breach of Community law, of 90 days reckoned
                                                                             from the expiry of the period for voluntary payment, so
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       that the exercise of the right to reimbursement is made
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-                    excessively difficult?
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a               2.    If so, what is the minimum period that may be considered
preliminary ruling in the case of Katharina Rinke against                    compatible with the rule that exercise of that right must
Ärtztekammer Hamburg (the Hamburg Chamber of Phys-                          not be made excessively difficult?
icians) on the following questions:
                                                                       3.    What are the criteria to be used to fix that period?
1.    Does the requirement laid down in Directives
      86/457/EEC (1) and 93/16/EEC (2), to the effect that
      certain components of the specific training in general
      medical practice — completion of which confers the right
      to use the title ‘general medical practitioner’ — must be
      undertaken full-time, constitute indirect discrimination
      on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      76/207/EEC (3)?                                                  Amministrativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza
                                                                       by orders of 16 January 2002 in the case of Adriano Di
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:                              Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02) against
                                                                       Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero — Direzione
      (a)   How is the incompatibility of Directive 76/207/EEC         Generale per la Politica Commerciale e la Gestione del
            on the one hand with Directives 86/457/EEC and                           Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II
            93/16/EEC on the other to be resolved?
                                                                                          (Case C-37/02 and C-38/02)
      (b) Does the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
            grounds of sex constitute a basic unwritten right
            under Community law that overrides any conflicting                                   (2002/C 97/07)
            rule in secondary legislation?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ L 267, 19.9.1986, p. 26.
                                                                       European Communities by orders of the Tribunale Amminis-
(2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                         trativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza (Regional
                                                                       Administrative Court of the Veneto — Third Chamber) of
                                                                       16 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Adriano Di Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02)
                                                                       against Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero (Ministry of
                                                                       Foreign Trade) — Direzione Generale per la Politica Commer-
                                                                       ciale e la Gestione del Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-              the following questions:
tario de 1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secção
by order of 27 December 2001 in the case of Recheio                    (1) Are Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 31 of Regulation (EC)
Cash & Carry SA against Fazenda Pública and Registo                         No 896/2001 (1) incompatible, in primis, with the Treaty,
                 Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas                              in particular Article 7 (formerly Article 4) thereof, and
                                                                             with the other provisions and principles enshrined in that
                                                                             Treaty with regard to the principle of the division of
                          (Case C-30/02)                                     functions and powers between the Community institu-
                                                                             tions (in particular between the Council and the Commis-
                          (2002/C 97/06)                                     sion)?
                                                                       (2) Are those same Articles of Regulation 896/2001 contrary
                                                                             to the principle that laws should not have retrospective
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       effect and to the related principles of the protection of
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributario de                  legitimate expectations and legal certainty?