CELEX: C1995/159/38
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State by judgment of that court of 25 October 1994 in the case of P. J. Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de Behandeling van Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant (Case C-131/95)

24 . 6 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 159/19
1 . Is there a prohibition of parallel imports otherwise than          4 . In the event that suspension of the implementation of
     on the basis of an authority given to an agent who is a               the decision is granted, is security still to be lodged to the
     provider of services and consequently by a purchase and               extent of the amount of the duty or does the possibility
     resale transaction ?                                                  exist of limiting it to a partial amount having regard to
                                                                           applicant's overall economic situation ?
2 . Is an independent dealer prohibited from acting as a
     provider of services as a free agent, and at the same time        (!) OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     as a dealer inter alia carrying out parallel imports ?
3 . Is an independent dealer prohibited from selling new               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
     vehicles and, in any case, what is the definition of 'new         Raad van State by judgment of that court of 25 October
     vehicle ' and ' second-hand vehicle '?
                                                                       1994 in the case of P. J. Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de
                                                                       Behandeling van Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge
                                                                       Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie
                                                                                                 Noord-Brabant
                                                                                               ( Case C-131/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                                           ( 95/C 159/38 )
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 31 March 1995 in the
case of Bernd Emil Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            Main — Ost                                 European Communities by a judgment of the Nederlandse
                                                                       Raad van State ( State Council of the Netherlands ) of
                         ( Case C-130/95 )
                                                                       25 October 1994 , which was received at the Court Registry
                           ( 95/C 159/37 )                             on 21 April 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of P. J.
                                                                       Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de Behandeling van
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches                     Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant
Finanzgericht ( Finance Court, Hesse ) of 31 March 1995 ,              ( Administrative Appeals Board for Disputes under
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1 995 ,           Article 41 of the General Law on Assistance ), on the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd Emil Giloy v.            following questions :
Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Frankfurt am
Main — Ost on the following questions :                                1 . In the event that a Member State causes the grant of a
                                                                           benefit following on from an unemployment benefit, as
                                                                           in the case of Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) of the Wet
1 . Are the two conditions set out in the second paragraph                 Inkomensvoorziening           Oudere       en     Gedeeltelijk
     of Article 244 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92               Arbeidsongeschickte Werklose Werknemers ( Law on
     of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                         the Provision of Income for Elderly Unemployed
     Customs Code ( J ) ('the Customs Code '), namely:                     Workers and Unemployed Workers suffering from
                                                                           Partial Incapacity to Work, 'the IOAW'), to depend on
     — good reason to believe that the disputed decision is
                                                                           the requirement that benefit must have been received
          unlawful, or
                                                                           under the statutory unemployment provisions in force in
     — irreparable damage for the person concerned,                        the Member State during the whole period for which
                                                                           benefit was payable, should , as a result of Article 67 of
     completely independent of each other, with the result                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 on the application of
     that suspension of the implementation of a decision is                social security schemes to employed persons, to
     also to be granted where there is no good reason to                   self-employed persons and to members of their families
     believe that the payment order whose implementation is                moving within the Community ( in the consolidated
     sought to be suspended is unlawful but irreparable                    version set out in Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 i 1 )) the
     damage is to be feared for the person concerned ?                     periods during which unemployment benefit was
                                                                           received in another Member State be regarded as periods
     If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :                        of insurance or of employment ?
                                                                       2 . If not, does the fact that, in assessing whether a
2 . Does the presence of the condition mentioned in the                    requirement laid down in Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 3 ) of the
     second indent inevitably preclude a requirement to                    IOAW to the effect that benefit must have been received
     lodge security or is this subject to further conditions and,          during the whole period for which benefit was payable
     if so, which ?                                                        under the statutory provisions on unemployment in
                                                                           force in the competent Member State is satisfied, no
3 . Does the danger of losing one's employment — which                     account is taken of unemployment benefit received in
     may have possibly already materialized on account of                  another Member State constitute discrimination on
     the claim for duty having become due — constitute                     grounds of nationality within the meaning of Article 7 of
     ' serious economic or social difficulties ' even where the            the EEC Treaty (now Article 6 of the EC Treaty )?
     necessary minimum for subsistence is secured as a result
     of domestic legislation, for instance by social                   H OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
     welfare ?