CELEX: C1998/327/12
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August 1998 in the case of Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer (Case C-314/98)

C 327/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.10.98
    According to the Commission, that comparison does                   preliminary ruling in the case of Schutzverband gegen
    not explain the replanting of 2 446 hectares of vines.              Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei
                                                                        Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG on the following
                                                                        question:
    The Italian authorities' failure to shed any light on
    that point led the Commission to conclude that the                  Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
    area must be considered to have been unlawfully                    1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
    planted, giving rise without any financial aim to                   designations of origin for agricultural products and
    expenditure for the grubbing-up of that same surface                foodstuffs (1) preclude application of a national provision
    area' and it set the adjustment at LIT 31 861 816 140,              which prohibits the misleading use of a simple
    multiplying the number of hectares considered to be                 geographical designation of origin, that is, an indication in
    illegally planted by the value of the average cessation             the case of which there is no link between the
    premium paid for Apulia between 1989 and 1992                       characteristics of the product and its geographical origin?
    pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 (7).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
    The Italian Government maintains that the adjustment
    is unlawful because Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
    87 (8) on the common organisation of the market in
    wine is silent on the question of financial penalties
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
    applicable to individual cases and merely provides, in
                                                                        gericht Köln, by order of that court of 4 August 1998 in
    respect of vines planted or re-planted without
                                                                        proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on
    authorisation, for compulsory distillation of the yield
                                                                                                  Arnold Claasen
    to be used in the preparation of alcohol with an actual
    alcoholic strength by volume of at least 80 %                                                (Case C-313/98)
    (Articles 6(3) and 7(4)).                                                                     (98/C 327/11)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    In any case, the subtraction of the adjustment amount               European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
    from the sum paid for grubbing-up with a premium                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 4 August 1998,
    pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 seems                       received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1998, for a
    unwarranted, since those amounts were paid for the                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
    grubbing-up of existing vines.                                      administrative fine imposed on Arnold Claasen, on the
                                                                        following question (1):
(1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 18.                                        Does the amount of the charge payable under Article 8(1)
(3) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.                        of the Agreement depend solely on the number of
(4) OJ L 337, 4.12.1990, p. 3.                                          axles fitted to the motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
(5) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 43.                                        combination in question, regardless of whether an axle is
(6) OJ L 67, 15.3.1990, p. 21.
                                                                        used or raised during the journey, or are tandem axles/
(7) OJ L 132, 28.5.1988, p. 3.
(8) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.                                           raisable axles to be left out of account in calculating the
                                                                        charge?
                                                                        (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement
                                                                            of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                            certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                            [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 July 1998 in the
case of Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft
e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co.
                                KG                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
                                                                        Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August
                        (Case C-312/98)                                 1998 in the case of Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen
                                                                                      Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer
                          (98/C 327/10)
                                                                                                 (Case C-314/98)
                                                                                                  (98/C 327/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichts-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
hof (Federal Court of Justice) of 2 July 1998, which was                European Communities by judgment of the Netherlandse
received at the Court Registry on 12 August 1998, for a                 Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) of
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 327/9
10 August 1998, received at the Court Registry on                        objective pursued by the national rules concerning the
14 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  issue of blank registration certificates if those rules
Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen Directeur van de                   make it impossible to prove that a vehicle is new? Is
Dienst Wegverkeer on the following questions:                            the answer to that question affected by the fact that a
                                                                         parallel importer may agree with his supplier in
                                                                         another Member State that, following the issue of the
1. For the purposes of applying Council Directive 83/                    foreign certificate of registration, the supplier is to
    189/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC (2),                 seek suspension of the authorisation thus granted and
    to national rules adopted on 9 December 1994, is it                  is to have that suspension lifted when the parallel
    necessary also to take into consideration the                        importer applies for registration in the country of
    amendments introduced after that date by European                    import?
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/10/EC (3), having
    regard to, inter alia, the wording used in the preamble
                                                                    (1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
    to the latter directive?
                                                                    (2) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 75.
                                                                    (3) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
                                                                    (4) Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels omtrent de wijze
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does a                 waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de openbare weg op
    regulation such as the 1995 Regulation (4) fall within              het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebewijs van een voer-
    the scope of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended by                    tuig wordt bepaald (Regulation laying down rules concerning
                                                                        the way in which the date of first authorisation of a vehicle
    Directive 88/182/EEC and Directive 94/10/EEC?
                                                                        for use on the public highway is to be determined for the
                                                                        purposes of entry in its registration certificate) (Staatscourant
                                                                        1994, 241).
3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
    (a) Must the term technical specification' appearing
        in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended
        by Directive 88/182/EEC, be interpreted as meaning
        that it also covers a regulation such as the 1995
        Regulation?                                                 Action brought on 12 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, does such a regulation fall within the scope                                (Case C-315/98)
        of Article 1(5) of the directive as thus amended
        (which defines the term technical regulation')?                                     (98/C 327/13)
4. Where national rules concerning the issue of blank
    registration certificates do not formally differentiate         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    between official importers and parallel importers but           the Court of Justice on 12 August 1998 by the
    in fact make it more difficult for parallel importers to        Commission of the European Communities, represented
    supply vehicles with a blank registration certificate,          by Bernard Mongin and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
    because they can obtain from abroad only vehicles               Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    which are already registered, and those rules make the          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    issue of a blank registration certificate conditional on,       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    inter alia, the relevant vehicle imported from another
    Member State having been registered in that other
    Member State for a period not exceeding two days, do
    those rules constitute a measure having an effect               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports
    which is prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?
                                                                    Ð Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                                                                         and administrative provisions needed to implement
5. If Question 4 must be answered in the affirmative, are                Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
    rules such as those contained in the 1995 Regulation                 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping
    justified by considerations relating to road safety and/             using Community ports and sailing in the waters
    or protection of the environment, particularly on                    under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of
    account of their link with the requirements applicable               international standards for ship safety, pollution
    to vehicles and with the determination of the date                   prevention and shipboard living and working
    from which vehicles become subject to a general                      conditions (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
    obligation to undergo periodic tests?
                                                                         its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;
6. If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, must such
    an obstacle to trade be regarded as proportional to the         Ð Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.