CELEX: C2002/305/13
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-302/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in the matter of the care of the minor Nils Laurin Effing

C 305/8                     EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.12.2002
                        ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                                           (First Chamber)
                           of 14 October 2002
                                                                                                         of 8 October 2002
in Case C-158/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Circuit Court, County of Cork): Catherine Withers v
                                                                                 in Case C-190/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland
                                                                                 the Giudice di pace de Genova-Voltri): Viacom Outdoor
                                  (MIBI) (1)
                                                                                                Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL ( 1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer
which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law —                                 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
Approximation of laws — Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/
5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in                                                    (2002/C 305/12)
    respect of motor vehicles — Injury caused to passengers)
                              (2002/C 305/11)                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                       (Language of the case: English)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                    in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                 In Case C-190/02: Reference to the Court, under Article 234
In Case C-158/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                                 EC, by the Giudice di Pace of Genoa-Voltri (Italy) for a
by the Circuit Court, County of Cork (Ireland), for a preliminary
                                                                                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                                 court between Viacom Outdoor Srl and Giotto Immobilier
Catherine Withers and Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers
                                                                                 SARL, on the interpretation of Articles 2 EC; 3(1)(a), (b) and
Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), on the interpretation of Council Direc-
                                                                                 (c) EC; 23 EC; 27(a), (b) and (d) EC; 31(1) and (3) EC; 49 EC;
tive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the
                                                                                 50 EC; 81 EC; 82 EC; 86 EC and 87 EC, the Court
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil
                                                                                 (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the
                                                                                 Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability
                                                                                 Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
(OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360), and of Second
                                                                                 8 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor                 The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Giudice di
vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the Court (First Chamber), compo-                 Pace of Genoa-Voltri by order of 9 April 2002 is inadmissible.
sed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann(Rapporte-
ur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, having informed the court of referral that the Court                  (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
proposed to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance
with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, having invited the
persons referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court
of Justice to submit any observations which they might wish to
make in that regard, has made an order on 14 October 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi-                    Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            of 11 July 2002 in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforce-                                 Laurin Effing
ment of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Second
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approxi-
                                                                                                           (Case C-302/02)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles are to be interpreted
as meaning that theydo not precludea Member Statefrom maintaining                                          (2002/C 305/13)
national legislation which does not require compulsory insurance
against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles to cover
personal injuries to passengers carried in a part of the vehicle other than
a large public service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle was designed     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                                 (Republic of Austria) (Supreme Court of Justice) of 11 July
                                                                                 2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2002, for
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                                 a preliminary ruling in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
                                                                                 Laurin Effing on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 305/9
Is Article 12 EC, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation            20 291 540 euros from the amount of aid declared by the
EEC No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 ( 1) on the                Netherlands to the EAGGF in connection with the special
application of social security schemes to employed persons               market support measures relating to classical swine fever in
and their families moving within the Community, to be                    the Netherlands in 1997 and 1998, comprising in particular:
interpreted as precluding a national rule that discriminates
against a Community citizen in receipt of advances on
maintenance payments, where the father liable for maintaining
that citizen is serving a criminal sentence in his Member State          —    a deduction of 11 148 318,18 euros on account of the
of origin (i.e. not in Austria); and, where the child of a German             fact that the Netherlands, by failing correctly to apply the
national is resident in Austria, does denying that child                      denaturing provisions, allegedly impaired the application
entitlement to maintenance payments because his father is                     of the monitoring rules and thereby increased the risk of
serving a criminal sentence, which was handed down in                         evasion of the applicable legislation (flat-rate correction
Austria, in his Member State of origin (and not in Austria)                   of 5 %): even if it is accepted that, when carrying out the
constitute discrimination against that child?                                 denaturing of (parts of) pigs pursuant to Annex III to
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 413/97 (1), the authorities failed to
                                                                              do so in the correct order, it cannot be maintained that,
( 1) OJ L 149 [1971], p. 2.                                                   in such denaturing, the objectives of Annex III (namely to
                                                                              ensure that (parts of) pigs are slaughtered and destroyed
                                                                              instead of coming back onto the market) were dis-
                                                                              regarded;
                                                                         —    a deduction of 6 427 370,45 euros on account of the
                                                                              fact that the Netherlands authorities allegedly miscon-
Action brought on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of                         strued and misapplied the term ‘batch’ within the meaning
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European                        of Regulation (EC) No 413/97: having regard to the
                            Communities                                       wording of that regulation, to the way in which the term
                                                                              ‘batch’ in comparable legislation has been interpreted in
                          (Case C-318/02)                                     the past and to the fact that the interpretation of that
                                                                              term advocated by the Commission (which draws a
                                                                              distinction between different categories of piglets) has
                          (2002/C 305/14)                                     proved unworkable in practice, the Netherlands auth-
                                                                              orities did not misconstrue or misapply the term ‘batch’.
                                                                              In the alternative, the Netherlands Government pleads
                                                                              that the calculation carried out by the Commission to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     determine the amount of the reduction is incorrect in
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  law;
Communities on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and N. Bel, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in The Hague.
                                                                         —    as regards the deduction of 2 750 070,91 euros on
                                                                              account of the fact that the Netherlands authorities
The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court should:                  allegedly failed generally to comply with the checking
                                                                              system and committed other administrative faults (flat-
(1) annul the Commission’s decision No C(2002) 2281 def.                      rate correction of 2 %): the discrepancies established by
      of 26 June 2002 excluding from Community financing                      the Commission between the number of pigs needing,
      certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under                 according to individual veterinary surgeons, to be
      the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                      removed for reasons of wellbeing and the number actually
      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as                       removed within the period of two days do not in any way
      that decision concerns the exclusion from Community                     indicate that the numbers of pigs to be removed, as
      financing of expenditure incurred by the Netherlands                    declared by the individual veterinary surgeons, were
      under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  incorrect. As a result of the long duration of the
      Fund in the financial years 1997 and 1998;                              crisis, virtually all the pigs from the affected areas were
                                                                              ultimately removed and destroyed. Consequently, even if,
                                                                              and in so far as, it is to be accepted that, in some cases,
(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    the declarations of the individual veterinary surgeons
                                                                              were not well-founded, those declarations did not in
                                                                              any way entail any financial prejudice or risk for the
                                                                              Community budget. As regards the export of carcasses to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Germany, the Netherlands Government argues that the
                                                                              checking and monitoring of shipments transported from
The Netherlands Government considers that the decision is                     the Netherlands to the German destruction plants guaran-
unlawful, or at least that it is based on an incorrect determi-               teed that the (parts of) pigs were not unlawfully with-
nation of the facts, inasmuch as it deducts the sum of                        drawn in order to be placed back on the market. The