You are on page 1of 2

28.3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 94/11

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third 21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against
Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to (Case C-20/98)
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the (98/C 94/21)
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
expired on 1 July 1995 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( ) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
1 European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Ver-
waltungssenat (Independent Administrative Board)
Salzburg of 21 January 1998, received at the Court
Registry on 26 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmann-
schaft (District Administrative Authority) Salzburg-Umge-
bung on the following question:
Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-19/98)
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
(98/C 94/20) freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson and Eric slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre. distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
The applicant claims that the Court should: the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?

Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,


or communicate, the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to insurance against civil liability in Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
respect of the use of motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the
of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire,
Article 1(4)(2) thereof and the EC Treaty, NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim
(Case C-22/98)
Ð declare that, by not answering the letters of
22 February and 10 October 1994 or the letter of (98/C 94/22)
formal notice of 14 February 1996, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty, and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs. European Communities by judgment of 15 January 1998
of the Hof van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Ghent, which
was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1998,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Openbaar
Ministerie (Public Prosecutor's Department) v. Jean
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia
those relied on in Case C-18/98 (2); the time limit for Interim, on the following questions:
transposition expired on 31 December 1987.

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17. 1. As Community law now stands, can those subject to
(2) See page 10 of this Official Journal. it, be they natural or legal persons, acquire rights
under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member
C 94/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.3.98

States must respect, in the case where the loading and Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
unloading in port areas of, in particular, goods Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela by order of that
imported by sea from one Member State into the court of 13 January 1998 in the case of Dorinda Teresa
territory of another Member State and port work in López Tourís against Instituto Nacional de Empleo and
general are reserved exclusively to registered dockers', Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
the conditions and detailed rules for the recognition of
whom are determined by the King on the advice of the (Case C-25/98)
Joint Committee having responsibility for the port
area in question, whereby binding rates are applied, (98/C 94/24)
even though the work can be carried out by ordinary
(that is to say, non-registered) dock workers?

2. Are registered dockers, as referred to in Article 1 of


the Law of 8 June 1972 and having the exclusive right Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
to carry out dock work within port areas, as defined European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
in greater detail in the relevant legislative provisions, Social (Social Court) No 1, Santiago de Compostela of
to be regarded as entrusted with the operation of 13 January 1998, which was received at the Court
services of general economic interest within the Registry on 29 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
meaning of Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty, and would the case of Dorinda Teresa López Tourís against Instituto
they no longer be able to carry out their special duties Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
if Article 90(1) and the prohibitory provisions of Seguridad Social on the following questions:
Articles 7, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty were to be
applied to them?

1. Must Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71


(in its present version) be interpreted, as regards the
particular facts to which it is to be applied, as
meaning that periods of insurance or of employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad, completed under the legislation of any other Member
Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 12 November State must be taken into account for the purposes of
1997 in the case of Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn v. J. obtaining the unemployment allowance for persons
Heerma and the company, J. Heerma and K. Heerma- over 52 years of age, provided for by Article 215(3) of
Graanstra Real Decreto Legislativo (Royal Legislative Decree) 1/
(Case C-23/98) 1994 of 20 June 1994, which approves the
consolidated version of the Ley General de la
(98/C 94/23) Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), to
the extent to which the right to a retirement pension
may be obtained on the basis of such contributions,
subject to age requirements, in a Member State other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the than that of the competent institution?
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
(Supreme Court), Netherlands, of 12 November 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 January
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn v. J. Heerma and the
company, J. Heerma and K. Heerma-Graanstra on the 2. Can that be the case even though the worker has not
following question: paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions
for less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a
retirement pension in any Member State?
Must Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
meaning that, where a person pursues as his sole economic
activity the letting of an incorporeal asset to the company
of which he is a member, that letting, albeit an economic
activity, must be regarded as not being made
independently, on the ground that the partner must be 3. Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive
deemed to constitute a taxable person together with the the unemployment allowance available for persons of
partnership within the meaning of Article 4(1) aforesaid? more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that,
subject to age requirements, they are entitled to a
retirement pension payable by the Spanish social
security scheme (persons having such an entitlement in
any other Member State being precluded from