CELEX: C1997/295/21
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 11 July 1997 in the case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Robert Engelbrecht (Case C-262/97)

27 . 9 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                      the basis for enforcement and if it can constitute the
Diisseldorf, by order of that court of 2 July 1997, in the                     basis for enforcement under the law of the State in
      case of Uwe Clees against Hauptzollamt Wuppertal                         which it was drawn up, albeit subject to the condition
                           ( Case C-259/97 )                                   that the court with jurisdiction to enforce it may
                                                                               refuse the creditor's application for enforcement if, as
                              ( 97/C 295/ 19 )                                 a result of objections to the basis for enforcement,
                                                                               there    are   doubts      as  to   whether  enforcement
                                                                               proceedings should be continued ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                             If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :
( Finance Court) Diisseldorf of 2 July 1997, received at the
Court Registry on 18 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling                   2 . Can an application for recognition of a decision or
in the case of Uwe Clees v. Hauptzollamt Wuppertal on
                                                                               authentic instrument submitted to a court having local
the following question:                                                        jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 32 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                               Brussels    Convention      be  rendered inadmissible   or
                                                                               unfounded by reason of the fact that, while appeal
Is Heading No 9705 of the combined nomenclature of                             proceedings ( Article 36 of the Brussels Convention )
Regulation (EEC ) No 2658/87 (*) in the version of Annex I                     are pending, the debtor has left the State in which the
thereto, as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2472/90 ( 2 ),                    proceedings were instituted and his new place of
to be interpreted as meaning that as a rule motor vehicles                     residence is unknown ?
as collectors' pieces of historical interest:
      are required merely to be in their original state —
      without substantial changes to the chassis, steering or
       braking system, engine, etc .,
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidshof,
                                                                           Antwerp by judgment of that court of 11 July 1997 in the
       at least 30 years old, and                                          case of Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen against Robert
                                                                                                       Engelbrecht
                                                                                                   ( Case C-262/97 )
— of a model or type which is no longer in production ?
                                                                                                     ( 97/C 295/21 )
(') OJ L 256 , 7 . 9 . 1987, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ L 247, 10 . 9 . 1990 , p . 1 .                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Arbeidshof
                                                                           ( Higher Labour Court ), Antwerp, of 11 July 1997,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Rijksdienst voor
                                                                           Pensioenen against Robert Engelbrecht on the following
                                                                           questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes­
gerichtshof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in the                  1.   Is the view that a national court which concludes that
          case of Unibank A/S v. Fleming G. Christensen
                                                                                an applicable national provision requiring a migrant
                            ( Case C-260/97 )                                   worker's pension to be reduced ( such as Article 3 ( 1 )
                                                                                and Article 3 ( 8 ) of the Belgian Law of 20 July 1990
                               ( 97/C 295/20 )
                                                                                requiring the amount of the pension received by a
                                                                                migrant worker's spouse to be deducted from that
                                                                                worker's household pension, on the ground that the
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         spouse's pension is a benefit equivalent to a pension)
 European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                         and considers that it is impossible to interpret that
 ( Federal Court of Justice ) of 26 June 1997, which was                        national rule in such a way as to eliminate the
 received at the Court Registry on 18 July 1997, for a                          unexpected adverse effects of the lack of coordination
 preliminary ruling in the case of Unibank A/S v. Fleming                       between social security schemes in the interests of free
 G. Christensen on the following questions :                                    movement of workers or holds that the application of
                                                                                that rule in the case in point constitutes an obstacle to
                                                                                free movement of workers, may not disapply the
 1 . Is a promissory note signed by a debtor without the                        relevant Belgian legislation, compatible with
       involvement of a public official —               such as the             Community law, in particular Articles 5 , 48 and 51
       gceldsbrev under Danish law ( Paragraph         478 ( 1 ) ( 5 ) of       of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
       the Danish Law on the Administration            of Justice ) —           the European Economic Community and, more
       an authentic instrument within the                meaning of             specifically, the principles of free movement of
       Article   50     of the Brussels        Convention,    if that           workers and cooperation in good faith between the
       promissory note expressly specifies that it can serve as                 competent authorities ?
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/ 14                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27 . 9 . 97
2 . ( a ) Does the reasoning set out in paragraphs 21 to 31                 where by reason of force majeure goods in transit in
           of the judgment in Case C-165/91 Van Munster v.                  the course of export to third countries are repatriated
           Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen in respect of                        to the Member State of export, or are they limited to
           Question 2 comprehend the phrase ' unforeseen                    those cases where the goods were imported into a
           adverse effects of the lack of coordination between              different third country to that which was originally
           social security schemes'?                                        declared by the exporter to the competent authority ?
     ( b ) In the light of paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of that
           judgment, is point 2 of the operative part of that           2.  In circumstances where :
           judgment to be interpreted as meaning that, where
           it is impossible to interpret an applicable provision
           of national law in such a way as to eliminate the                ( a ) by Commission Decision 96/239/EC ( 2 ) of
           adverse effects of its application in a specific                        27 March 1996 exports of beef from the United
           situation on free movement of workers, the                              Kingdom to third countries were prohibited;
           national court must apply that rule in full , or that
           the national court must disapply that rule of
           national law ?
                                                                            ( b ) bans on the importation of beef from the United
                                                                                   Kingdom were also imposed by a number of third
                                                                                   countries ;
3 . In the light of point 2 of the operative part of the
     judgment in Van Munster v. Rijksdienst voor
     Pensioenen and the case-law of the Court of Justice, is                ( c ) exporters of beef were at the time of the said
     it compatible with Community law, more particularly                           Decision in the process of carrying goods to third
     Article 5 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty, to take the view                         countries;
     that the national court may not disapply express,
     binding provisions of national law in order to
     eliminate the adverse effects :
                                                                            ( d ) the said exporters were forced to repatriate the
                                                                                   beef to the United Kingdom;
     — of the application of the rule of national law to
           migrant workers who have exercised their right to
           free movement,                                                    ( e ) the exporters received advance-paid export refunds
                                                                                   in accordance with Commission Regulations ( EEC )
                                                                                   No 565/80 ( 3 ) and ( EEC ) No 3665/87 as amended
     — of the lack of coordination between social security                         in respect of the export transactions in issue; and
           schemes of different Member States ?
                                                                             ( f) the exporters suffered losses as a result of not
                                                                                   being able to sell the beef on the export markets in
                                                                                   question;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
                                                                             are the exporters entitled to retain all or part of the
Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                     export refund by reason of the general principles of
26 March 1997, in the case of The Queen against
                                                                             Community law and in particular force majeure,
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:
                                                                             legitimate expectations, proportionality or equity ?
                 First City Trading Ltd and another
                           ( Case C-263/97
                             ( 97/C 295/22 )                            3 . If answer to Question 2 is that the exporter is entitled
                                                                             to retain in principle some or all of the export refund
                                                                             in question are the exporters bound to give credit for
                                                                             any revenues derived from the disposal of the beef in
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             the United Kingdom ( for example where the original
 European Communities by an order of the Divisional                          vendor of the beef to the exporter was bound to
 Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 26 March 1997, which                       repossess the beef under a retention of title clause in
 was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a                   the original contract of sale and where the vendor
 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                              repaid all or a portion of the original purchase price )?
 Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:
 First City Trading Ltd and another, on the following
 questions :
                                                                        4.    Are either or both of Commission Decision 96/239/EC
                                                                              or Regulation ( EC ) No 773/96 ( 4 ) unlawful to the
 1 . Do Articles 23 and 33 of Commission Regulation                           extent that they do not provide for exporters in the
      No 3665/87/EEC H as amended apply to the case                           circumstances referred to in Question 2 above being