CELEX: C1998/397/21
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 November 1998 in Case C-360/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem): Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden v. BFI Holding BV (Public service contracts - Meaning of contracting authority - Body governed by public law)

19.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/13
     by the latter State as driving without a licence and            and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine.             Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 29 October 1998, in which it:
2. A national of a non-member country who holds a
     valid Community model driving licence issued by one             1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the
     Member State, who has taken up normal residence in                   prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
     another Member State, but who has not exchanged his                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     driving licence within the one-year period prescribed                Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on
     by the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive               the minimum safety and health requirements for
     80/1263/EEC, is entitled to rely directly on                         improved medical treatment on board vessels, the
     Articles 1(2) and 8(1) of Council Directive 91/439/                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
     EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences in order to                  obligations thereunder.
     challenge the imposition, in the Member State in
     which he has established his new residence, of a term
     of imprisonment or a fine for driving without a                 2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     licence. Community law does not prevent a court of                   costs.
     such a Member State, by reason of the principle that
     forms part of national law in certain Member States of          (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
     the retroactive effect of more favourable provisions of
     criminal law, from applying the aforesaid provisions of
     Directive 91/439/EEC even where the offence took
     place before the date set for compliance with that
     directive.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                         of 10 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-360/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Gerechtshof te Arnhem): Gemeente Arnhem and
                                                                                 Gemeente Rheden v. BFI Holding BV (1)
                                                                     (Public service contracts Ð Meaning of contracting
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         authority Ð Body governed by public law)
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                      (98/C 397/21)
                      of 29 October 1998
in    Case C-410/97: Commission of the European                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
       Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          Failure to transpose Directive 92/29/EEC)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 397/20)
                                                                     In Case C-360/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: French)                      of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of
                                                                     Appeal), Arnhem (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                     Gemeente Arnhem and Gemeente Rheden and BFI
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Holding BV Ð on the interpretation of Articles 1(b) and 6
          published in the European Court Reports)                   of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
                                                                     to the coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                     service contracts (OJ L 209, 1992, p. 1) Ð the Court,
In Case C-410/97: Commission of the European                         composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.
Communities (Agent: Marie Wolfcarius) v. Grand Duchy                 Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann (Rapporteur)
of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicholas Schmit) Ð application                 (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,                de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, R.
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
comply with Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March                  Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
improved medical treatment on board vessels (OJ L 113,               10 November 1998, in which it has ruled:
30.4.1992, p. 19), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive Ð the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn,               1. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council
President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur)                       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
     coordination of procedures for the award of public              Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
     service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that           common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
     the legislature drew a distinction between needs in the         (OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4), and Council Regulation (EEC)
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial         No 2225/86 of 15 July 1986 laying down measures for
     character and needs in the general interest having an           the marketing of sugar produced in the French overseas
     industrial or commercial character.                             departments and for the equalisation of the price
                                                                     conditions with preferential raw sugar (OJ L 194,
                                                                     17.7.1986, p. 7) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber),
2. The term needs in the general interest, not having an            composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
     industrial or commercial character' does not exclude            H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
     needs which are or can be satisfied by private                  N. Fennelli, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
     undertakings as well.                                           given a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has
                                                                     ruled:
3. The status of a body governed by public law is not
     dependent on the relative importance, within its                In an industrial complex that includes:
     business as a whole, of the meeting of needs in the
     general interest not having an industrial or commercial
     character. It is likewise immaterial that commercial            Ð installations which first process sugar beet and extract
     activities may be carried out by a separate legal person             the sugar-bearing liquids, and
     forming part of the same group or concern as it.
                                                                     Ð installations which then convert into white sugar the
4. The second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive                   liquids and syrups in question, which are enriched by
     92/50/EEC must be interperted as meaning that the                    the addition of raw cane sugar from the French
     existence or absence of needs in the general interest                overseas departments,
     not having an industrial or commercial character must
     be appraised objectively, the legal form of the
     provisions in which those needs are mentioned being             the latter installations cannot be regarded, for the
     immaterial in that respect.                                     processing of raw cane sugar from the French overseas
                                                                     departments, either permanently or intermittently, as a
                                                                     production unit' or as a refinery' within the meaning of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                     the third subparagraph of Article 9(4) of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                                                                     common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector,
                                                                     as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1482/85 of
                                                                     23 May 1985.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 12 November 1998
in Case C-269/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Sucreries et
Raffineries d'Erstein SA v. Fonds d'Intervention et de                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre (FIRS) (1)
                                                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EEC)
No 2225/86 Ð Aid for the marketing of cane sugar                                         of 12 November 1998
produced in the French overseas departments Ð Concept                in Case C-352/96: Italian Republic v. Council of the
                           of refinery)                                                   European Union (1)
                         (98/C 397/22)                               (Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EC) No 1522/96 Ð
                                                                     Introduction and administration of certain tariff quotas
                 (Language of the case: French)                                   for imports of rice and broken rice)
                                                                                              (98/C 397/23)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-269/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris                        published in the European Court Reports)
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sucreries et Raffineries
d'Erstein SA and Fonds d'Intervention et de ReÂgularisation          In Case C-352/96: Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto
du MarcheÂ du Sucre Ð on the interpretation of Council               Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo) v. Council of the