CELEX: C2000/233/31
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-216/00: Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

C 233/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 2.    If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
hof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case                            can the first indent of the third subparagraph of Artic-
of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction                              le 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1) be interpreted as
               Company Baumanagement GmbH                                       meaning that false information provided in good faith by
                                                                                the refund applicant on the basis of inaccurate data
                          (Case C-208/00)                                       supplied by the manufacturer constitutes in principle a
                                                                                case of force majeure where the applicant could not
                                                                                establish that it was false or could do so only by means
                          (2000/C 233/29)                                       of cheeks at the undertaking in which the goods were
                                                                                manufactured?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 30 March 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
the case of Überseering v NCC Nordic Construction Company
Baumanagement GmbH on the following questions:
1.    Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning
      that it is contrary to the right to freedom of establishment
      of companies if the legal capacity and capacity to bring
      legal proceedings of a company validly incorporated
      under the law of one Member State are determined
      according to the law of another State to which the
      company has moved its actual centre of administration
      and the law of that second State no longer allows the
      company to bring legal proceedings there in respect of
      claims based on contract?                                           Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
2.    If the Court’s answer to that question is yes:
      Does the right to freedom of establishment of companies                                      (Case C-216/00)
      (Articles 43 and 48 EC) mean that a company’s legal
      capacity and capacity to bring legal proceedings must be
      determined according to the law of the State where the
      company is incorporated?                                                                     (2000/C 233/31)
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                   expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for
hof by order of 4 April 2000 in the case of Käserei                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          Hamburg-Jonas
                          (Case C-210/00)                                 The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 233/30)
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
                                                                                Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
European Communities by order of 4 April 2000 by the                            comply fully with Article 3 of European Parliament
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997
at the Court Registry on 26 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling                  amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
in the case of Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co.                         93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures
KG v Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas                      for the award of public service contracts, public supply
on the following questions:                                                     contracts and public works contracts respectively, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 valid in                  the EC Treaty;
      so far as it provides for a penalty even where, through no
      fault of his own, an exporter has applied for an export
      refund exceeding that applicable?                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                                                  (Case C-220/00)
paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
and to communicate those measures immediately to the                                              (2000/C 233/33)
Commission. That period expired on 13 October 1998 wi-
thout the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
into national law.                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Miguel
(1) OJ L 328, 28.11.1997, p. 1.                                          Franga, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Vicenza, First Chamber, by order of that court of 25 May                 —     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
2000, in the case of CISAL di Battistello Venanzio &                           within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                           C. Sas v INAIL                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 98/55/EC (1) of 17 July 1998 amending
                          (Case C-218/00)                                      Directive 93/75/EEC (2) concerning minimum require-
                                                                               ments for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports
                                                                               and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, within the
                          (2000/C 233/32)
                                                                               period prescribed by Article 2(1) of that directive, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                           paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
Vicenza (District Court, Vicenza), First Chamber, of 25 May                    Article 2(1) of the directive; and
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of CISAL di
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v INAIL on the following                   —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
questions:                                                                     the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               those provisions;
‘Does a public not-for-profit insurance body, such as the
INAIL, to which is entrusted, on the basis of sound economic
and business practice, the operation as a monopoly of a                  —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
scheme of insurance against risks deriving from accidents at
work and occupational diseases based on a system of compul-
sory registration, which pays out benefits on a partially
automatic basis (which provides insurance cover for employ-              Pleas in law and main arguments
ees, but not for self-employed persons — as from 1998) even
in the event of non-payment of premiums by the employer,
and calculates the premiums on the basis of the risk categories          The mandatory nature of the provisions of the first paragraph
to which the insured work is assigned, constitute an underta-            of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC
king within the meaning of Article 81 et seq. of the Treaty?             Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the fact      to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                         law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
that the abovementioned public entity calls for the payment of           That period, which is laid down in Article 2 of the directive,
premiums even where the person concerned, a self-employed                expired on 31 December 1998 without Portugal having
person (craftsman), is already insured with a private company            brought into force the necessary provisions.
against the same risks in respect of which he would be covered
through affiliation to the abovementioned body constitute an
                                                                         (1) OJ C 1998 L 215, p. 65.
infringement of Articles 86 and 82 EC?’                                  (2) OJ 1993 L 247, p. 19.