CELEX: C1999/100/31
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-55/99: Action brought on 18 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

C 100/16               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
Court Registry on 17 February 1999, for preliminary                 Do the provisions of Article 73d of the Treaty of 25 March
rulings in the cases of Office National des Pensions v.             1957 establishing the European Community, as amended,
Gioconda Camarotto and Office National des Pensions v.              according to which the prohibition of all restrictions on
Giuseppina Vignone on the following questions:                      movements of capital between Member States is without
                                                                    prejudice to the right of Member States to take measures
                                                                    which are justified on grounds of public policy or public
                                                                    security', allow a Member State, in derogation from the
1. Does Article 95a of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    system of full freedom or the declaration system
     No 1408/71 (1) as amended by Council Regulation
                                                                    applicable to foreign investments within its territory, to
     (EEC) No 1248/92, refer solely to recipients of
                                                                    maintain a system of prior authorisation for such
     pensions where the decision granting the pension was
                                                                    investments as may adversely affect public order, public
     final at the time of the entry into force of the
                                                                    health or public security, it being specified that this
     amendment, or does it relate also to recipients of
                                                                    authorisation is deemed to have been obtained one month
     pensions who before the entry into force of the
                                                                    after receipt of the investment declaration submitted to the
     amendments introduced by the new regulation had
                                                                    Minister unless the latter, within the same period, declares
     already brought proceedings before a national court
                                                                    that the transaction in question has been deferred?
     seeking to obtain precisely the right to the pension by
     contesting the application of the national rules against
     overlapping, a final decision in those proceedings not
     yet having been given at the time of the entry into
     force of the new provisions?
2. If Article 95a applies to all recipients without
     distinction, must the application referred to in               Action brought on 18 February 1999 by the Commission
     Article 95a(4) be made to the competent social                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
     security institution in accordance with the formalities                                (Case C-55/99)
     required by national legislation for the bringing of an
     application for review, or may it be made to the court                                (1999/C 100/31)
     before which the dispute has been brought in
     accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, and
     in the latter case must the period of two years referred
                                                                    An action against the French Republic was brought before
     to in Article 95a(5) and (6) likewise be complied with?
                                                                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
                                                                    Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
    the application of social security schemes to employed          Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
    persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their       national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
    families moving within the Community, (OJ, English Special      acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    Edition 1971, p 416).                                           Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare that, by establishing, in Decree No 96Ð351 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                        19 April 1996 (1), a procedure for the registration of
d'Etat by decision of 6 January 1999 in the case of
                                                                        medical reagents, and by imposing in that decree the
Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris' and
                                                                        obligation to state the registration number on the
Scientology International Reserves Trust v. French
                                                                        external packaging and the notice accompanying each
                            Republic
                                                                        reagent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                         (Case C-54/99)                                 obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;
                        (1999/C 100/30)
                                                                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 6 January 1999 by               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
the French Conseil d'Etat, which was received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Association Eglise de Scientologie de        1. In the Commission's view, the application to all
Paris' and Scientology International Reserves Trust v.                  reagents covered by Decree No 96Ð351 of 19 April
French Republic on the following question:                              1996, without distinction as to the level of the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 100/17
     potential risk to public health involved in the event of       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
     their proving to be unreliable, of a registration              Administratif de Paris by decision of 9 December 1998 in
     procedure which necessitates the compilation of a              the case of Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v. Office
     substantial amount of documentation by the                     National Interprofessionnel des Viandes, de l'EÂlevage et de
     manufacturer, the importer or the distributor and                                  l'Aviculture (OFIVAL)
     which delays the placing of the reagent on the market,
     constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a                                    (Case C-56/99)
     quantitative restriction on imports which, having                                     (1999/C 100/32)
     regard to its disproportionate nature, is not justified
     on grounds of the protection of health and life of
     humans under Article 36 of the EC Treaty.                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by decision of 9 December 1998
                                                                    by the Tribunal Administratif de Paris (Administrative
2. Article 5 of the Decree provides that the
                                                                    Court, Paris), which was received at the Court Registry
     accompanying notice, the primary packaging and the
                                                                    on 19 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     external packaging of each reagent are to state the
                                                                    of Gascogne Limousin Viandes SA v. Office National
     registration with the medicinal products agency. The
                                                                    Interprofessionel des Viandes, de l'EÂlevage et de
     Commission       considers   that that requirement
                                                                    l'Aviculture (OFIVAL) on the following question:
     constitutes an unjustified restriction on intra-
     Community trade within the meaning of Article 30 of
     the EC Treaty.                                                 Do the provisions in Article 40 of the Treaty of 25 March
                                                                    1957 preclude the adoption of aid measures benefiting
(1) JORF of 26.4.1996, p. 6386.                                     products distinguished according to criteria established at
                                                                    national level where those products may be marketed in
                                                                    all of the Community Member States?
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                     of 11 February 1999                            Philippe II, v. Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-86/96, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luft-                (Agents: Anders Jessen, Paul Nemitz, Hans-Jürgen Rabe
fahrt-Unternehmen v. Commission of the European                     and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for annulment of
                        Communities (1)                             Commission Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996
                                                                    concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form
(State aid Ð Air transport Ð Tax measure Ð Action for               of a depreciation facility (OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 42) Ð
                  annulment Ð Inadmissible)                         the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                    Composition), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, R.
                       (1999/C 100/33)
                                                                    García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras,
                                                                    Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
                                                                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in
                (Language of the case: German)                      which it:
In Case T-86/96: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-           1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
Unternehmen, established in Bonn and comprising the
following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co.
Luftverkehrs-KG, established in Oberursel (Germany), Air
Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in                   2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established in                           costs.
Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.
established in Langenhagen (Germany), LTU Lufttransport
Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established in Düsseldorf
(Germany), and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
established in Langenhagen, represented by Gerrit Schohe,