CELEX: C1998/041/31
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux (First Chamber), by judgment of 13 November 1997, in the case of Yves Tarantik and Direction des Services Fiscaux, Seine-et-Marne (Case C-421/97)

7.2.98                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 41/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November                    Cassatie van BelgieÈ by judgment of that court of
1997 in the case of ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v.                        4 December 1997 in the case of Leathertex Divisione
Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en                               Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
                            Milieubeheer                                                        (Case C-420/97)
                          (Case C-418/97)                                                         (98/C 41/30)
                            (98/C 41/29)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Hof van
                                                                        Cassatie van BelgieÈ (Belgian Court of Cassation) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  4 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                   11 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,                       Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for                 on the following question:
a preliminary ruling in the case of ARCO Chemie
Nederland Ltd v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Minister for                      Are Article 5(1) and Article 2 of the Brussels Convention,
Housing, Planning and the Environment) on the following                 in the version applicable to the present case, to be
questions:                                                              interpreted as meaning that a composite claim founded on
                                                                        different obligations arising from the same contract may
                                                                        be brought before the same court, even though, according
                                                                        to the jurisdictional rules of the State in which the
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that LUWA                      proceedings are brought, one of the contractual
     bottoms (1) undergo an operation listed in Annex II(B)             obligations on which the claim is based is to be performed
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (2) that that substance has                in that State and the other is to be performed in another
     been discarded so as to enable it to be regarded as                EC Member State, having regard to the fact that the court
     waste for the purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?                    before which the proceedings are brought decides, on the
                                                                        basis of the claim brought before it, that neither of the
                                                                        two obligations forming the subject matter of the claim is
                                                                        subordinate to the other and that they are of equal rank?
2. If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does
     the reply to the question whether the use of LUWA-
     bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting
     discarding depend on whether:
     (a) LUWA-bottoms             constitute    waste      under        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         contemporary thinking whereby it is of particular              Grande Instance de Meaux (First Chamber), by judgment
         relevance whether they may be recovered in an                  of 13 November 1997, in the case of Yves Tarantik and
         environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel                    Direction des Services Fiscaux, Seine-et-Marne
         without further processing,
                                                                                                (Case C-421/97)
                                                                                                  (98/C 41/31)
     (b) the use of LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is comparable
         with an accepted method of waste recovery,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 13 November
     (c) the substance used is a main product or a by-                  1997 of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux
         product (residue)?                                             (Regional Court, Meaux), (First Chamber), which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Yves Tarantik v.
(1) The material known as LUWA-bottoms is one of the by-                Direction des Services Fiscaux (Central Tax Office), Seine-
    products of the production process used by the appellant. In        et-Marne, on the following questions:
    addition to propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol the
    production process generates a flow of hydrocarbons
    containing molybdenum. The molybdenum is from catalysts             Considering the date of road authorization of the
    used for the production of the propylene oxide. In a plant          plaintiff's Jaguar car, which has a fiscal horsepower value
    intended for that purpose molybdenum is recovered from the          of 24 hp, bears the registration number 197 AT 77, and
    flow of hydrocarbons whereby the material designated by the         was first put on the road on 11 April 1979, and having
    appellant as LUWA-bottoms is obtained. LUWA-bottoms have
                                                                        regard to the graphical representations and outline of the
    a calorific value of 25 to 28 MJ/kg.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                         developments in taxation submitted by the plaintiff, on
                                                                        the one hand, and by the French tax authorities, on the
                                                                        other, does the system of taxation applied correspond to
                                                                        objective criteria lacking in any discriminatory effect
                                                                        prohibited by Article 95 of the EEC Treaty? In particular:
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/16               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.2.98
Ð Is the progression coefficient existing between the tax                 matters relating exclusively to the fulfilment of
     band covering an imported vehicle of more than 18 hp                 obligations (clause 3) which account for the greater
     and the tax band covering a similar vehicle of 15 to                 part of the consideration payable (inasmuch as the
     16 hp discriminatory or not?                                         value of the immovable property itself amounts to Pta
                                                                          285 000 out of the sum of Pta 1 090 000 representing
                                                                          the total value of the contract)?
Ð Do the circulars of 28 December 1956, 23 December
     1977, 24 June 1987, 12 January 1988 and
     20 September 1991, as retroactively validated by                3. Is the complex of holiday time-share flats offered to
     Article 35 of the Finance (Amendment) Law of 22 June                 consumers in the town of Denia covered by the first
     1993, have the effect of making the tax discriminatory               indent of Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577/EEC, having
     in regard to owners of vehicles for which type-                      regard to the fact that the premises of Travel Vac, SL
     approval has not been granted in France, that is to say,             are located at 5Ð6o Calle Profesor BeltraÂn BaÂguena,
     vehicles approved on an individual basis?                            Valencia?
                                                                     4. Is the right of renunciation granted to the consumer by
Ð If the answer is yes, can the owner of a standard                       Article 5(1) of the Directive based on a presumption
     vehicle with a power rating in excess of 100 kW rely                 that the exercise of his free will has been affected or
     on that answer in order to plead, by application of the              manipulated as a result of the circumstances referred
     general principles of Community law such as equality                 to in Article 1 of the Directive; if so, to what extent is
     in regard to public charges and the provisions of the                that right of renunciation, as guaranteed by the
     European Convention on Human Rights and the                          Directive, founded on a connection with deceit
     Protocols thereto, that the tax is not payable on the                generally on the part of the vendor, in the form of the
     ground that it is discriminatory and inequitable?                    use by one of the contracting parties of insidious
                                                                          words or machinations which induce the other to
                                                                          enter into a contract which would not otherwise have
                                                                          been concluded' (Article 1269 of the Spanish Civil
                                                                          Code) and, generally, with the freely given consent
                                                                          which necessarily forms part of any contract (Articles
                                                                          1254, 1258, 1261 et seq. of the Spanish Civil Code)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de
Primera Instancia No 22 de Valencia, by order of that
court of 11 November 1997 in the case of Travel Vac, SL              5. Must the notice provided for by Article 5(1) of the
                v. Manuel JoseÂ Antelm Sanchís                            Directive be given expressly, or can it, where
                                                                          appropriate, take the form of specific unequivocal acts
                        (Case C-423/97)                                   such as, in the present case, the non-appearance of the
                                                                          consumer at the time stipulated and agreed for
                          (98/C 41/32)                                    signature of ratification on the Bank's premises, on
                                                                          17 September 1996, three days after signature of the
                                                                          contract appearing on page 76 in the case file, the
                                                                          consumer's position being evidenced and made clear
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          by his appearance in the vendor's premises in Valencia
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de
                                                                          on the same day, 17 September 1996, when he stated
Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 22,
                                                                          orally that it was all off and that the documents
Valencia, of 11 November 1997, which was received at
                                                                          which he had signed were to be returned to him'?
the Court Registry on 15 December 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Travel Vac, SL v. Manuel
JoseÂ Antelm Sanchís on the following questions:
                                                                     6. Are the provisions of Article 7 of the Directive
                                                                          concerning the reimbursement of payments, the return
                                                                          of goods and other effects arising in favour of the
1. Are time-share contracts generally, and the contract at                vendor upon the exercise by the consumer of his right
     issue in the present case (page 76 in the case file) in              of renunciation pursuant to Article 5 compatible with
     particular, to be regarded as falling within the scope of            an agreement to pay compensation for damage caused
     Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 85/577/EEC (1), which                   to the vendor' in the form of a lump sum quantified at
     contains provisions excluding the application of that                25 % of the total price of the transaction, as laid down
     Directive?                                                           in clause 4 of the contract (on the reverse of page 76
                                                                          in the case file)?
2. Even if, by virtue of that Article, the contract at issue         (1) Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
     in the present case, being a time-share contract, is                protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
     excluded from the application of that Directive, could              from business premises (OJ L 372, 13.12.1985, p. 31).
     such exclusion be negated by the fact that the contract
     is not concerned solely with immovable property but
     also involves the provision of services and other