CELEX: C1998/209/36
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring against the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-246/93 between Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-105/98 P)

C 209/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Justice) of 5 March 1998, which was received at the Court            date of birth which results from the first information given
Registry on 9 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the            by the insured person to the social security institution of
case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v.                     the Member State in question or to the employer in that
Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. on                State (in so far as he is under a duty to notify the social
the following questions:                                             security institution)?
(a) Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/
     87 (1) of 2 July 1987 on the protection of
     designations used in marketing of milk and milk
     products, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of
     Council Directive 89/398/EEC (2) of 3 May 1989 on
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                     Gerichtshof by order of that court of 31 March 1998 in
     relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
                                                                     the case of Johann Buchner and 12 others v. Sozialver-
     nutritional uses, to be interpreted as meaning that a
                                                                                      sicherungsanstalt der Bauern
     milk product, in which milk fat has been replaced on
     dietary grounds by vegetable fat, cannot be described                                  (Case C-104/98)
     as cheese?                                                                               (98/C 209/35)
(b) If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative, is it
     significant that the designation dietary cheese                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     (dietary soft cheese) containing vegetable oil for a fat-       European Communities by an order of the Oberster
     modified diet' is complemented by additional                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 31 March 1998,
     descriptive material on the packaging, such as this            which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April
     dietary cheese is rich in polyunsaturated fats¼' or             1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Johann
     this dietary cheese is ideal for a cholesterol-conscious       Buchner and 12 others v. Sozialversicherungsanstalt der
     lifestyle¼'?                                                    Bauern on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 182, 3.7.1987, p. 36.                                       1. Is Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be
(2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 27.                                          interpreted as allowing Member States to determine
                                                                         different pensionable ages only for pension rights
                                                                         which are granted exclusively on the basis of the risk
                                                                         of old age, or is that derogation applicable also to
                                                                         pension rights which are granted only from a specified
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  age but in addition are granted only because of
gericht by order of that court of 17 February 1998 in the                invalidity (incapacity for work)?
case of Ibrahim Kocak against Landesversicherungsanstalt
               Oberfranken und Mittelfranken                         2. Is Article 7(1)(a) and (2) of Directive 79/7/EEC to the
                       (Case C-102/98)                                   interpreted as allowing a Member State to alter a
                                                                         previously existing identical provision on pensionable
                         (98/C 209/34)                                   age (in this case completion of the 55th year for men
                                                                         and women) after the end of the transposition period,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   in such a way that a different pensionable age for men
European Communities by order of the Thirteenth Senate                   and women (in this case completion of the 57th year
of the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of                     for men and the 55th year for women) is now
17 February 1998, received at the Court Registry on                      determined?
9 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Ibrahim      Kocak     against    Landesversicherungsanstalt         (1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
(Regional Insurance Office) Oberfranken und Mittel-
franken on the following question:
Is the law relating to the association between the
European Economic Community and Turkey (in particular
Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey                   Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring
of 12 September 1963, Article 37 of the Additional                   against the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998 by the
Protocol to that agreement of 23 November 1970,                      First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Article 10 of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of                     European Communities in Case T-246/93 between
Association of 19 September 1980 and Article 3(1) of                 Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union
Decision No 3/80 of the Council of Association of                        and the Commission of the European Communities
19 September 1980) to be interpreted as not permitting                                     (Case C-105/98 P)
the legislature of a Member State to adopt rules under                                        (98/C 209/36)
which the applicable date of birth for use in the insurance
number allocated to an insured person and for the grant
of old-age pension is in principle, in the case of Turkish           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 February
migrant workers also Ð without regard to particular                  1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
characteristics of the Turkish register of civil status Ð the        of the European Communities in Case T-246/93 between
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/19
Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union               in Case T-189/97 between ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la
and the Commission of the European Communities was                  SocieÂteÂ francËaise de production and Others and the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Commission of the European Communities was brought
Communities on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring,                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
represented by Hagen Lichtenberg, of the University of              on 15 April 1998 by ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
Bremen, D-28359 Bremen.                                             FrancËaise de Production, Syndicat National de Radio-dif-
                                                                    fusion et de TeÂleÂvision S.N.R.T. Ð C.G.T., Syndicat UnifieÂ
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         de Radio et de TeÂleÂvision S.U.R.T. Ð C.F.D.T., Syndicat
                                                                    National Force OuvrieÁre de Radio-diffusion et de TeÂleÂvi-
(a) set aside the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998             sion and Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel
     by the Court of First Instance in Case T-246/93 (1),           S.N.E.A. Ð C.F.E. Ð C.G.C., represented by HeÂleÁne
                                                                    Masse-Dessen, a lawyer with right of audience before the
(b) award the compensation applied              for   in  the       French Conseil d'EÂtat and Cour de Cassation, with an
     proceedings at first instance (2),                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande Duchesse
(c)  order the respondents to pay the costs.                        Charlotte.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
The appellant contests the dismissal of his action on the           Ð admit their appeal,
ground that the five-year limitation period laid down by
Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice started to        Ð set aside the contested order,
run at the point in time at which he lost his holding as a
result of its forced sale. That view of the law fails to take       Ð declare the action admissible,
account of the fact that
                                                                    Ð declare their action well-founded,
(a) he had lodged appeals before the competent national
     courts against the enforcement and the sale of the
     holding at auction. Consequently, until such time as           Ð consequently, annul Commission Decision 97/238/
     those appeals were finally and absolutely rejected, the             EC (1) of 2 October 1996,
     possibility existed that the appellant might recover
     his farm,                                                      Ð order the Commission to pay the costs and to pay
                                                                         each of the applicant organisations the sum of ECU
(b) the forced sale of the appellant's holding at auction                20 000 in respect of their costs.
     was itself a direct consequence of the damage caused,
     and cannot therefore be regarded as having                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     interrupted the continuing loss of profits suffered by
     the appellant.                                                 The finding that the recognised representatives of workers
                                                                    are not individually concerned by the decision:
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 166, 17.6.1993, p. 11.                                     By giving a definition of the persons individually
                                                                    concerned which was legally incorrect since it did not take
                                                                    account of the specific situation of representatives of
                                                                    workers, as required by the distinctions already made in
                                                                    the case-law, and by misconstruing the circumstances of
                                                                    the present case, the Court of First Instance wrongly held
Appeal brought on 15 April 1998 by ComiteÂ d'Entreprise             that the applicants are not individually concerned by the
de la SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de Production, Syndicat National         contested decision.
de Radio-diffusion et de TeÂleÂvision S.N.R.T. Ð C.G.T.,
Syndicat UnifieÂ de Radio et de TeÂleÂvision S.U.R.T. Ð             The finding that the applicants are not directly concerned
C.F.D.T., Syndicat National Force OuvrieÁre de Radio-dif-           by the contested decision:
fusion et de TeÂleÂvision and Syndicat National de l'Enca-
drement Audiovisuel S.N.E.A. Ð C.F.E. Ð C.G.C. against              All the reasoning, which consists of the assertion that
the order delivered on 18 February 1998 by the Second               there is only a possibility that withdrawal of the aid might
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First                 have consequences since the undertaking's decision affects
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-189/97               those consequences, is based on an incorrect analysis of
between ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de          the decision itself, which implies and dictates those
Production and Others and the Commission of the                     consequences and of the compulsory nature of those
                   European Communities                             considerations and on a purely theoretical analysis of the
                      (Case C-106/98 P)                             economic and social situation.
                         (98/C 209/37)
                                                                    (1) Concerning aid granted by the French State to the audiovisual
                                                                        production company SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de Production, OJ L 95,
An appeal against the order delivered on 18 February                    10.4.1997, p. 19.
1998 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities