CELEX: C1997/212/27
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-184/97)

12 . 7 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/ 15
                 — with respect to the competent institution of               1.    In view of the fact that the tassa di concessione
                     the Member State in which the second                           governative ( administrative charge ) for entering
                     activity is pursued ?                                          companies in the Register of Companies is unlawful in
                 — with respect to the person employing a                           so far as it infringes Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                     worker pursuing an activity in two                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising
                     Member States ?                                                of capital ( 1 ), is the application to claims for
                                                                                    reimbursement of the three-year limitation period laid
             2 . If so, until when ?                                                down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                                                                    compatible with Community law, or does it constitute
       ( b ) Does Form E 101 have retroactive effect in so far                      failure to apply Directive 69/335/EEC, having regard
             as the periods to which it relates have already                        to the fact that 'so long as a Directive has not been
             come to an end at the time when the form is
                                                                                    properly transposed into national law, individuals are
             issued or produced ?                                                   unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights'?
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 .                                     2 . In the absence of a specific provision in Presidential
                                                                                    Decree 331 /93 governing the limitation period for the
                                                                                    reimbursement of undue payments, do the combined
                                                                                    provisions of Articles 2934 and 2946 of the Civil
                                                                                    Code apply, having regard to the fact that the payment
                                                                                    in question is not due ( Article 2033 of the Civil
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                             Code )?
Nederlanden of 7 May 1997, in the case of A. J. van der
           Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien                    3 . Independently of Questions 1 and 2, do the time limits
                             ( Case C-181/97)                                       laid down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                 ( 97/C 212/25 )
                                                                                    and Article 2946 of the Civil Code, respectively, start
                                                                                    to run from the date of payment or, having regard to
                                                                                    the principle referred to above that ' so long as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive has not been properly transposed into
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                    national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the
 der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                             full extent of their rights', from the date of publication
 7 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 9 May                                 of Presidential Decree 331 /93 in the Gazzetta Ufficiale
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. J. van der                         della Repubblica Italiana ?
 Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien on the
 following question:                                                           (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412.
 In the light of Articles 132 ( 1 ) and 227 of the EC Treaty,
 is Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the sixth Directive to be interpreted
 as meaning that the importation into the Netherlands of a
 ship which was previously in free circulation in the
 Netherlands Antilles is to be regarded as the entry into the
 Community of a product which does not fulfil the                             Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
 conditions of Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty ?                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                                             Germany
                                                                                                         Case C-184/97)
                                                                                                          ( 97/C 212/27)
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
  Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
  16 November           1996 in the case of Società Palazzo                    Communities on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
  Piacentini Srl against Amministrazione Finanziaria dello                     European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                        Stato
                                                                               Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                               ( Case C-l 82/97)                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                   ( 97/C 212/26 )
                                                                               of the Commission's Legal Service, C 254 Wagner Centre,
                                                                               Kirchberg.
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
  European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District
   Court ), Terza Sezione Civile (Third Civil Division),
   Brescia , of 16 November 1996 , received at the Court                        1 . declare that, by failing to establish programmes, in
   Registry on 12 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                           accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/
   case of Societa Piacentini Sri against Amministrazione                             EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
   dello Stato ( State Finance Administration ) on the                                dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
   following questions :                                                              environment of the Community ( 1 ), with quality
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/ 16             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 7. 97
       objectives designed to reduce pollution by the                         (i)      the complainant          was     employed   by     the
       substances in List II of the Annex to the Directive, the                        Respondent;
       Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under the EC Treaty;                                       ( ii ) during her employment, the complainant brought
                                                                                       a claim of sex discrimination against the
                                                                                       Respondent which was compromised;
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
       costs of the proceedings.                                              ( iii ) following the end of her employment, the
                                                                                       complainant has made efforts to find full-time
                                                                                       work, but has been unsuccessful ;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              ( iv ) the Respondent has caused or contributed to the
It is evident from the wording of Article 7 ( 1 ) of the                               complainant's difficulties in finding work by
Directive, in conjunction with Article 1 thereof, that                                 refusing to provide references to potential
Member States were required to establish programmes                                    employers when requested to do so;
with quality objectives designed to reduce water pollution
within a specified period. The German Federal                                 ( v ) the employer's decision to refuse to provide
                                                                                       references   was    taken    after the  end   of    the
Government, on the other hand, wrongly argues that most
of the substances in question were covered by overall                                  complainant's employment;
parameters, and attempts to demonstrate the equivalence
and/or advantages of these national rules vis-a-vis the                        (vi ) the reason, or a principle reason, for the
emission norms for individual substances. Likewise, the                                employer's decision to refuse to provide a
                                                                                       reference to the complainant was that she had
existence of general programmes for water purification, as
                                                                                       previously brought a claim of sex discrimination
cited by the German Federal Government (2 ), cannot be
                                                                                       against the Respondent.
regarded as constituting an adequate implementation of
Article 7 .
                                                                         2.    Does         Council    Directive     76/207/EEC     on     the
                                                                               implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
O OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
( 2 ) Inter alia, the Elbe Action Programme of the 'International
                                                                               men and women as regards access to employment,
      Commission for the Protection of the Elbe ' ( IKSE ) and the             vocational training and promotion, and working
      IKSE's operational plan to the year 2000, the Rhine Action               conditions, require Member States to introduce into
      Programme of the ' International Commission for the                      their national legal systems such measures as are
      Protection of the Rhine ' ( ISKR), and the action programme              necessary to enable persons to pursue a claim by
      anticipating the Danube Convention .                                     judicial process where the circumstances set out under
                                                                               point 1 apply, save that:
                                                                               (i)      the Respondent's decision to refuse to provide a
                                                                                        reference was taken before the termination of the
                                                                                        complainant's employment; but
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment                            ( ii ) the actual refusal or refusals to provide a
 Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 20 November                                 reference took place after the termination of the
 1996, in the case of Mrs B. J. Coote against Granada                                   complainant's employment.
                             Hospitality Ltd
                           ( Case C-185 /97 )                             (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
                              97/C 212/28 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Employment                       Action brought on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of
 Appeal Tribunal of 20 November 1996, which was                           the European Communities against the Federal Republic
 received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1997, for a                                                    of Germany
 preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs B. J. Coote against
 Granada Hospitality Ltd, on the following questions:                                                ( Case C-l 86/97)
                                                                                                       ( 97/C 212/29 )
  1 . Does Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
        1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
        treatment for men and women as regards access to                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
        employment, vocational training and promotion, and                Communities on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of the
        working conditions (^, require Member States to                   European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
        introduce into their national legal systems such                  Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        measures as are necessary to enable a complainant to               address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        pursue a claim by judicial process where the following             Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
        circumstances apply:                                               C 254, Kirchberg.