CELEX: C2000/302/37
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-315/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-Land

21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/19
4.    In so far as necessary, remit the case to the Court of First         2)   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
      Instance for the procedure to be continued;
                                                                                (a)   Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of
5.    Order the defendants and respondents to bear the costs                          22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of
      of the proceedings.                                                             the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing
                                                                                      agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) also generally
                                                                                      applicable to agreements of the kind described in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       Question 1?
—     Misinterpretation of the concept of ‘direct concern’ within               (b) Is that regulation also applicable if, prior to onward
      the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC:                          selling, the roast coffee purchased is further proces-
      The contested judgment wrongly states that a directive is                       sed for sale as a coffee drink?
      not, before the adoption of national measures and
      independently of them, such as to affect directly the legal          3)   If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
      situation of economic operators. With respect to the
      fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, what matters is                       Is Article 3(d) of Regulation No 1984/83 to be construed
      merely whether the directive as such has a direct effect                  as meaning that agreements of the kind described in
      on the legal situation of an undertaking (without waiting                 Question 1, under which it is the contracting parties’
      until it is transposed by the Member States).                             estimation that the total sales quantity will be supplied
                                                                                within a period of less than five years, are also covered by
—     Incorrect assessment of the effects of the directive on the               the exemption under the regulation or is that the
      appellants’ situation, and hence inadequate reasoning in                  case only if there are also objective grounds for such
      the contested judgment: Directive 98/43 as such already                   expectations?
      constitutes a process which amounts to an expropriation
      (the possibility of advertising for the existing brand               4)   Is Article 85(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
      ceases, so that its value for diversification products falls              as meaning that an agreement of the kind described in
      to zero). This affects the appellants’ legal situation, not               Question 1 is also invalid inasmuch as, in the event of
      merely their ‘factual situation’.                                         premature termination of the agreement, it provides for
                                                                                repayment of a rebate by the seller paid to the purchaser
                                                                                on commencement of the agreement determined by
                                                                                reference to total contractually agreed sales, and do the
                                                                                aforementioned provisions require that there should be
                                                                                no claim for repayment under that head?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Republic of Austria by order of that court of
11 May 2000 in the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard Öster-
reich GesmbH against 1. Eduard Mitsche, 2. Maria Mits-
                        che, 3. Peter Roman                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
                                                                           nanzhof, by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the
                          (Case C-314/00)                                  case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-
                                                                                                          Land
                          (2000/C 302/36)
                                                                                                    (Case C-315/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                                           (2000/C 302/37)
(Supreme Court), Republic of Austria, of 11 May 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 21 August 2000, for a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
preliminary ruling in the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard Öster-             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
reich GesmbH against 1. Eduard Mitsche, 2. Maria Mitsche,                  (Federal Finance Court), of 25 May 2000, received at the Court
3. Peter Roman on the following questions:                                 Registry on 21 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           case of Rudolf Maierhofer against Finanzamt Augsburg-Land
1)    Is Article 85(1) (now Article 81(1) EC) of the EC Treaty             on the following questions:
      also applicable to purchasing agreements under which,
      over a period of several years, the goods agreed to be               1.   Does the term ‘letting of immovable property’ in
      purchased are to be called down and paid for by the                       Article 133(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) cover the pro-
      purchaser at current ‘list price’, albeit there is a stipulation          vision for consideration of a building constructed from
      for delivery of minimum annual quantities in line with                    prefabricated components which is to be removed follow-
      the buyer’s overall requirements, subject to a specified                  ing the termination of the contract and may be re-used
      permissible variation?                                                    on another site?
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
2.    Is it of any significance in that connection whether the                 deadline laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, especially
      lessor makes available to the lessee both the building and               when that Directive makes clear the importance of strict
      the land on which it is erected, or merely the building,                 compliance with these parameters. While the three-tier
      which he has erected on the lessee’s land?                               approach to dealing with noncompliant group water
                                                                               supplies adopted by the Irish authorities offers the
                                                                               prospect of improved compliance in the years to come, it
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                               comes very late by reference to the compliance deadline,
                                                                               is insufficiently grounded in national legislation, and is
                                                                               very far from being implemented at the level of individual
                                                                               local authorities and individual non-compliant water
                                                                               supplies.
                                                                         —     The second major concern of the Commission is that,
                                                                               notwithstanding the new legislation, Ireland’s transpo-
                                                                               sition of Directive 80/778/EEC still fails to properly
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by the Commission                             reflect the binding character of the parameters of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                            Directive in relation to group water supplies.
                         (Case C-316/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 229 of 30.8.1980, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 302/38)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 August 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Richard Wainright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
                                                                         order of that court of 28 July 2000, in the case of Bacardi-
                                                                         Martini S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle
—     declare that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                                       United Football Company Limited
      Articles 7(6) and 19 of Directive 80/778/EEC (1) in failing
      to ensure compliance with microbiological parameters 57
      (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms) of Annex I of                                   (Case C-318/00)
      the Directive 80/778/EEC in respect of certain public
      water supplies and certain group water supplies identified
      in official drinking water reports and in correspondence                                    (2000/C 302/39)
      concerning Ballycroy, and is further in breach of its
      obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and 19 of Directive
      80/778/EEC in failing, in its implementing legislation, to         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      reflect the binding character of the requirements of               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
      Annex I of the Directive in relation to group water                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division of 28 July
      supplies, and is also in breach of its obligations under the       2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 August
      Treaty;                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bacardi-Martini
                                                                         S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle United
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    Football Company Limited, on the following question:
                                                                         1.    Are Articles L. 17 to L.21 of the Code des débits de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                boissons (the so-called ‘Loi Evin’ provisions), Article 8 of
                                                                               Decree no 92-280 of 27 March 1992 and the provisions
                                                                               of the Code de Bonne Conduite of 28 March 1995,
Two major concerns have led the Commission to make this                        contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49
application to the Court against Ireland:                                      EC) insofar as they prevent or restrict (a) the advertising
                                                                               of alcoholic drinks at sporting events taking place in
—     The first concern relates to the prevalence and persistence              Member States other than France when the events are to
      of problems of non-compliance with microbiological                       be televised in France and (b) the broadcasting in France
      parameters in Irish drinking water supplies, notably                     of sporting events taking place in other Member States at
      group water supplies, fifteen years after the compliance                 which there is advertising of alcoholic beverages?