CELEX: C1997/142/28
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of 18 March 1997 in the case of Henia Babahenini v. Belgian State (Case C-113/97)

10 . 5 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 142/ 13
     transposing measure merely that those provisions                  ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 25 November 1996,
     remain in force to the extent that they do not conflict           which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March
     with the new national legislation ?                               1997, for a preliminary ruling in the review proceedings
                                                                       brought by the applicant, EvoBus Austria GmbH, against
                                                                       the contracting entity, Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorga­
2 . Do Articles 10 ( 2 ) and 15 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 89/
                                                                       nisations Gesellschaft mbH (NOVOG ), on the following
     398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the                 questions:
     laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs
     intended for particular nutritional uses ( OJ No L 186,
     30 . 6 . 1989, p. 27) authorize a State to continue to
     apply rules which predate the Directive and the                   1 . May an individual derive, from the abovemen­
     measure transposing it ?                                                 tioned (') or other provisions of Directive 92/13/EEC,
                                                                              a specific right to have review proceedings conducted
                                                                              before authorities or courts or tribunals complying
3 . Does the classification, by Council Directive 89/398/                     with Article 2 ( 9 ) of Directive 92/13/EEC which is so
     EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws                       sufficiently precise and specific that, in the event of
     of the Member States, of foodstuffs intended for                         non-transposition by a Member State of the provisions
     particular nutritional uses into nine groups ( referred to               of the Directive in question, an individual may rely on
     in Annex I thereto ), which are to be the subject of                     that provision ?
     specific directives, and into foodstuffs not falling
     within those groups, for which there is no provision
     for such directives, allow a Member State to apply                2 . In conducting a review procedure, must a national
     rules founded on a classification based on a distinction                 court constituted on the lines of the Bundesvergabeamt
     between dietary products and dietetic products or on a                   disregard provisions of national law such as
     distinction between foodstuffs for infants and young                     paragraph 7 (2 ) in conjunction with paragraph 67 ( 1 )
     children and foodstuffs other than those intended for                    of the Bundesvergabegesetz (Federal Procurement
     infants and young children ?                                             Law ) which preclude it from conducting a review
                                                                              procedure even where such review procedure is
4 . Do Articles 10 ( 2 ) and 15 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 89/                intended by the national legislature solely to serve the
     398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the                        purpose of transposing Directive 89/665/EEC (2 )?
     laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs
     intended for particular nutritional uses, which do not
     affect the application of national measures in the event          3 . Must the adjudicating court disregard those or any
     that specific directives as provided for in Article 4 of                 comparable procedural provisions of national law in
     the Directive are not adopted, preclude individuals                      such circumstances, if they impede or prevent a review
     from relying on the provisions of the Directive in                       procedure from being effectively conducted ?
     order to challenge the detailed measures of
     transposition adopted by the Member States and to                 (') Article 1 ( 1 ) to ( 3 ) and Article 2 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 7) to ( 9 ) of
     have them declared inapplicable by the national courts                  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
     to the extent that they conflict with the provisions of                 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
     the Directive ?                                                         provisions relating to the application of Community rules on
                                                                             the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
                                                                             energy, transport and telecommunications sectors ( OT No L 76 ,
5.   Does not the fact that foodstuffs are controlled within                 23 . 3 . 1992 , p. 14 ).
     the framework of Community Directives imply that                  ( 2 ) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
     States must, when carrying out such control, observe                    coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
     the general Community principles, in particular the                     provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
     protection of legitimate expectations ?                                 the award of public supply and public works contracts ( OJ No
                                                                             L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 ).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesvergabeamt, by order of that court of 25 November                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
1996 in the review proceedings brought by the applicant,               Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of 18 March
EvoBus Austria GmbH, against the contracting entity,                         1997 in the case of Henia Babahenini v. Belgian State
Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorganisations Gesellschaft
                                                                                                      Case C-l 13/97
                        mbH (NOVOG )
                        ( Case C-l 11 /97 )                                                           ( 97/C 142/28 )
                          ( 97/C 142/27
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                  Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 18 March 1997,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/ 14           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 20 March                      pension    fund   within    the meaning     of the     Wet
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henia                      betreffende verplichte Deelneming in een Bedrijfspen­
Babahenini v. Belgian State on the following question:                    sioenfonds ( Law on Compulsory Participation in an
                                                                          Industrial Pension Scheme )?
In the light of Article 39 of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the                      4 . Must Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, read
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, approved by                      together, be interpreted as meaning that there is an
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78 ('), may a Member State                     infringement of those provisions where the authorities
refuse to grant disablement benefit ( in this case that                   accord an industrial pension scheme an exclusive right
provided for by the Belgian Law of 27 February 1987 ) to                  which gives rise to a serious restriction of the freedom
a disabled person of Algerian nationality who has not                     to make pension arrangements with a private insurer ?
herself worked in Belgium, where that person resides in
Belgium with her spouse, an Algerian national in receipt
of a Belgian retirement pension ?
(') OJ No L 263 , 27. 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
                                                                     Appeal brought on 22 March 1997 by Union Française de
                                                                     l'Express (UFEX, previously called Syndicat Français de
                                                                     l'Express International, SFEI), DHL International and
                                                                     CRIE against    the judgment delivered on 15 January 1997
                                                                     by the Third     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                          the European    Communities in Case T-77/95 between SFEI
Kantongerecht, Roermond, by judgments of that court of               and Others       and the Commission of the European
18 March 1997 in the case of Brentjens' Handelsonder­                                          Communities
neming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de
                  Handel in Bouwmaterialen                                                 ( Case C-l 19/97 P )
         ( Cases C-l 15/97, C-116/97 and C-117/97)                                            ( 97/C 142/30 )
                          ( 97/C 142/29 )
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities by judgments of the                             of the European Communities in Case T-77/95 between
Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court), Roermond, of 18 March               SFEI and Others and the Commission of the European
1997, which were received at the Court Registry on                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
20 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               22 March 1997 by Union Française de l'Express (UFEX,
Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfs­              previously called Syndicat Français de l'Express Interna­
pensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen on the                tional, SFEI ), established in Roissy CDG ( France ), DHL
following questions:                                                 International, established in Roissy ( France ), and CRIE,
                                                                     established in Asnières ( France ), represented by Eric
                                                                     Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne,
1 . Must Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty be interpreted as         of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service
    meaning that there is an agreement or decision of an             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62
    undertaking or association of undertakings which                Avenue Guillaume .
    restricts competition or affects trade between Member
    States, as those elements are respectively referred to in
    that provision, where social partners within a                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
    particular sector of activity make agreements
    concerning pensions under which a single industrial
    pension scheme is set up for the whole sector, to which         — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
    all workers employed within the sector are in principle              delivered on 15 January 1997 in Case T-77/95 H SFEI
    to be compulsorily affiliated and which is to have the               and Others v. Commission,
    sole right to administer the funds collected for that
    purpose within the sector ?                                     — itself give final judgment in the case in accordance
                                                                         with Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of
2 . Must Articles 3 (g), 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty, read                 Justice,
    together, be interpreted as meaning that there is an
    infringement of those provisions where the authorities
    make participation in a single industrial pension               — in the alternative, in the event of the Court not itself
    scheme, as described in Question 1 , compulsory for                  giving final judgment, refer the matter back to a
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance with a
    undertakings within a particular sector of activity ?
                                                                         different composition,
3 . Must the term 'undertaking', as used in the
    competition provisions (Articles 85 to 94 ) of the EC           — order the Commission to pay the costs or, if it does
    Treaty, be interpreted as including an industrial                    not give final judgment, reserve the costs .