CELEX: C2000/316/09
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-456/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Brescia): Centrosteel Srl v Adipol GmbH (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — National legislation providing that commercial agency contracts concluded by persons not entered in the register of agents are void)

4.11.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 316/5
      Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on             Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) precludes national
      the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese              legislation of a Member State which, on grounds relating to the
      Republic, is in principle applicable where the defendant has its      requirements of defence of the national territory, exempts the nationals
      domicile or seat in a Contracting State, even if the plaintiff is     of that Member State, and only them, from the obligation to apply
      domiciled in a non-member country. It would be otherwise only         for an administrative authorisation for any purchase of real estate
      in exceptional cases where an express provision of that               situated within an area of the national territory designated as being
      convention provides that the application of the rule of jurisdic-     of military importance.
      tion which it sets out is dependent on the plaintiff’s domicile
      being in a Contracting State.                                         The position would be different only if it could be demonstrated to
                                                                            the competent national court that, in a particular area, non-
2.    The rules of special jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance    discriminatory treatment of the nationals of all the Member States
      set out in Articles 7 to 12a of that convention do not cover          would expose the military interests of the Member State concerned to
      disputes between a reinsurer and a reinsured in connection with       real, specific and serious risks which could not be countered by less
      a reinsurance contract.                                               restrictive procedures.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.                                                     (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             of 13 July 2000
in Case C-423/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-456/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    the Corte d’Appello di Napoli): by Alfredo Albore(1)                    the Pretore di Brescia): Centrosteel Srl v Adipol GmbH (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital                        (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents
— Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       — National legislation providing that commercial agency
Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)                 contracts concluded by persons not entered in the register of
— Authorisation procedure for the purchase of immovable                                                 agents are void)
property — Areas of military importance — Discrimination
                     on grounds of nationality)
                                                                                                       (2000/C 316/09)
                           (2000/C 316/08)
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (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-456/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Brescia
In Case C-423/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Magistrates’ Court, Brescia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Corte d’Appello                 the proceedings pending before that court between Centrosteel
di Napoli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Srl and Adipol GmbH — on the interpretation of Council
pending before that court by Alfredo Albore — on the                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
interpretation of Articles 6, 52 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now,              nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 46 EC) and                       employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) and of
Article 67 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of                      the provisions in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of Title III of Part
Amsterdam) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                        Three of the EC Treaty concerning, respectively, freedom of
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                 establishment and freedom to provide services — the Court
mann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and F. Macken,              (first chamber) composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamb-
Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                   er, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges, F.G. Jacobs,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                     on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 316/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the                       Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-               18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in
employed commercial agents precludes national legislation which               fruit and vegetables, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
makes the validity of an agency contract conditional upon the                 No 3284/83 of 14 November 1983, must be interpreted as
commercial agent being entered in the appropriate register. The               meaning that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(1) of
national court is bound, when applying provisions of domestic law             that regulation, that is to say where it has made certain rules on
predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those                production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organisation
provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose       binding on producers established in the district who do not belong to
of the Directive, so that those provisions are applied in a manner            that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain non-member
consistent with the result pursued by the Directive.                          producers from the payment of fees, in respect of a given product, in
                                                                              so far as the goods produced by them are intended for industrial
                                                                              processing rather than for the fresh-product market.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-117/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                of 13 July 2000
the Cour de Cassation): Union Nationale Interpro-
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le
Bars v Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole                       in Case C-136/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
          Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) (1)                         the Conseil d’État): Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
                                                                              l’Économie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
                                                                                                             Siena (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — Impo-
sition of fees on non-member producers of fresh products —                    (Turnover tax — Common system of value added tax —
Exemption for non-member producers of products intended                       Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the
        for processing — Lawfulness of the exemption)                         country — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC and
                                                                                   Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC)
                           (2000/C 316/10)
                                                                                                        (2000/C 316/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
(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-117/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour de                           In Case C-136/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État,
pending before that court between Union Nationale Interpro-                   France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le Bars                 before that court between Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
and Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole Fruits                   l’Économie et des Finances and Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) — on the interpretation of                   Siena — on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth
Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council                  Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market                       harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(II),                turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added
p. 437), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3284/83                    tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
of 14 November 1983 (OJ 1983 L 325, p. 1) — the Court                         country (OJ 1979 L 331 p. 11), — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                 composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-
M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                   let, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                       13 July 2000, in which it has ruled: