CELEX: C2001/061/02
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-437/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht München by order of that court of 11 February 2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division

24.2.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 61/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Community law does not preclude legislation of a Member State
                                                                             laying down that, in tax matters, an action for recovery of a sum
                                                                             paid but not due based on a finding by a national or Community
                          (First Chamber)                                    court that a national rule is not compatible with a superior rule of
                                                                             national law or with a Community rule of law may only relate to the
                      of 28 November 2000                                    period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the
                                                                             judgment establishing such incompatibility.
in Case C-88/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune): Roquette
                                                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Frères SA v Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-
                              Calais (1)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due — National procedural
      rules — Capital duty levied in respect of a merger)
                           (2001/C 61/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
                                                                             gericht München by order of that court of 11 February
                                                                             2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                     s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-88/99: reference to the Court under Article1 177 of                                         (Case C-437/00)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Béthune, (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Roquette                                          (2001/C 61/02)
Frères SA and Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais
— to ascertain whether Community law prohibits national tax
legislation which provides that an action for recovery of a sum              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
paid but not due, based on a judicial decision declaring a rule              European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
of law incompatible with a higher-ranking rule, may relate                   München (Higher Labour Court, Munich) of 11 February 2000,
only to the period following 1 January of the fourth year                    received at the Court Registry on 27 November 2000, for a
preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompati-                  preliminary ruling in the case of Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica
bility — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet                 s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division on the following questions
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón,               concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Brussels
on 28 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                  Convention’; OJ 1990 C 189, p. 2):
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/2                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
1.    In a dispute between an Italian national and a company            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      established under Italian law having its registered office        Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by
      in Italy arising from a contract of employment concluded          judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the
      between them which designates Turin as the place of               case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against
      work, is Munich the place where the employee habitually           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
      carries out his work under the second half-sentence of                  A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy
      Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention where, from the
      outset, the contract of employment is temporarily placed                                  (Case C-451/00)
      on non-active status at the request of the employee and,
      during that period, the employee carries out work, with                                    (2001/C 61/04)
      the consent of the Italian employer, but on the basis of a
      separate contract of employment, for a company estab-
      lished under German law at its registered office in Munich,       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the duration of which the Italian employer assumes            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      the obligation to provide accommodation in Munich or              strativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, of 28 June and
      to bear the costs of such accommodation and to bear the           6 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on 8 December
      costs of two journeys home each year from Munich to               2000, for a the preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda
      the employee’s native country?                                    Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                        interventi nel mereato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for
                                                                        Agricultural Policy on the following questions:
2.    If the first question is answered in the negative, may the
      employee, in a legal dispute with her Italian employer            (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
      arising from the contract of employment, rely, with                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
      reference to the payment of rental costs and travel costs               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
      for the two journeys home each year, on the argument                    (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
      that the court having jurisdiction is that for the place of             meaning that it is possible, in the case of Community
      performance of the obligation in question, pursuant to                  law proceedings and the subsequent compliance of the
      the first half-sentence of Article 5(1) of the Brussels                 Member State to derogate from the time-limits prescribed
      Convention?                                                             for the allocation of quotas and the operation of adjust-
                                                                              ments and levies?
                                                                        If not,
                                                                        (2) Are those provisions of Community law valid, in the light
                                                                              of Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do
                                                                              not provide for derogation from the periods prescribed
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                       for allocation and adjustments in the abovementioned
gericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November                            case of Community law proceedings?
2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros
                               Kolpak
                                                                        (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 is
                          (Case C-438/00)                                   meant (OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12).
                           (2001/C 61/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court) Hamm, Germany, of 15 November
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 Novem-             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher             Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court
Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak on the following question:             of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V.
                                                                               against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren
Is it contrary to Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
                                                                                                (Case C-453/00)
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of the other part — Final Act — if a sports                                            (2001/C 61/05)
association applies to a professional sportsman of Slovak
nationality a rule it has adopted under which clubs may play            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in championship and cup matches only a limited number of                European Communities by a decision of the College van
players who come from third countries not belonging to the              Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
European Communities?                                                   and Industry) of 1 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 11 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Kühne Heitz N.V. v Produktschap voor Pluimvee
                                                                        en Eieren on the following question: