You are on page 1of 2

C 312/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.10.

98

Regulation. On the other hand, it must presumably, be 1. What should the requirements be for furnishing proof
open to the Commission to bring proceedings in respect of of the place where an irregularity or offence was
decisions of the President of the Office directly under actually committed in the course of a transport
Article 173. That the Member States should be differently operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
situated from the Commission in the matter of challenging (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
such decisions seems constitutionally anomalous. Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
p. 1))? Is a statement from the carnet holder and the
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997, p. 39. testimony of the lorry driver who has effected the
(2) Case 294/83, [1986] ECR 1339. transport for the carnet holder sufficient or must the
(3) Joined Cases 193/87 and 194/87, [1989] ECR 1045. proof comprise documents which unambiguously show
that the competent authorities in the other Member
State reached the conclusion that the irregularity or
offence was committed on their territory?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht 2. If the Court of Justice takes the view that the actual
München by order of that court of 24 June 1998 in the place where the irregularity or offence was commited
case of Holz Geenen GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion can be proved on the basis of statements of the carnet
München holder and the testimony of the lorry driver who
effected the transport operation, are the third and
(Case C-309/98) fourth subparagraphs of Article 454(3) of Directive
(98/C 312/10) (EEC) No 2454/93 to be interpreted as meaning that
they also apply in cases where the charges were
recovered in the Member State where the irregularity
or offence was detected, even though it has been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
proved that the irregularity or offence was actually
European Communities by order of the Third Senate of
commited in another Member State?
the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court, Munich) of
24 June 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 August
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Geenen
GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion München (Principal
Revenue Office, Munich) on the following question:

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July


1997 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Appeal brought on 14 August 1998 by the Union Euro-
Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 204, 31.7.1997, p. 8) Ð peÂenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entrepri-
in this case rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide ” ses (UEAPME) against the judgment delivered on 17 June
72 mm high, used in the construction of window frames, 1998 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
consisting of layers of wood glued together with the grain the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
running parallel and with slightly rounded edges Ð in Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de
invalid? l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises
(UEAPME), supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des
Petites et Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel
(CGPME), Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Natio-
naal Christelijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Konink-
lijke Vereniging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans,
Confederazione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confar-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof tigianato), Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereini-
by order of that court of 7 July 1998 in the case of Haupt- gung der Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV
zollamt Neubrandenburg against Leszek Labis trading (BFH), and the Council of the European Union, supported
as Przedsiebiorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans', by the Commission of the European Communities
PL-Reda (Case C-316/98 P)
(Case C-310/98)
(98/C 312/12)
(98/C 312/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1998
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 July 1998, received at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Court Registry on 10 August 1998, for a preliminary Case T-135/96 between the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa-
ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME),
against Leszek Labis trading as Przedsiebiorstwo supported by ConfeÂdeÂration GeÂneÂrale des Petites et
Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans', PL-Reda on the Moyennes Entreprises et du Patronat ReÂel (CGPME),
following questions: Union Professionnelle Artisanale (UPA), Nationaal Christe-
10.10.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 312/7

lijk Middenstandsverbond (NCMV), Koninklijke Vereni- ETUC have sufficient collective representativity, they
ging MKB-Nederland, FeÂdeÂration des Artisans, Confedera- Ð to the exclusion of all other associations Ð will
zione Generale Italiana del Artigianato (Confartigianato), always have the right to negotiate the framework
Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Bundesvereinigung der agreements implemented by Community legislative
Fachverbände des Deutschen Handwerks eV (BFH), and instrument pursuant to Article 4(2), first paragraph, of
the Council of the European Union, supported by the the Agreement on social policy. Such a system is also
Commission of the European Communities, was brought in breach of the freedom of association of national
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities associations and their members. Thus, if the
on 14 August 1998 by the Union EuropeÂenne de l'Artisa- associations which are members of UEAPME Ð or
nat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME), rather the SMUs which belong to members of
represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel Tomasevic, of UEAPME Ð wish one day to be involved in the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in negotiation of European framework agreements, they
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56Ð58 will be compelled to join UNICE so that the latter can
Rue Charles Martel. represent them,

The appellant claims that the Court should: Ð infringement of the procedural rules relating to the
rights of the defence and the equality of arms in
judicial proceedings: in the absence of any relevant
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of evidence, the Court of First Instance cannot call in
the European Communities of 17 June 1998 in Case question the fact that the applicant represents
T-135/96 between the same parties, undertakings with employees, while denying the
applicant an opportunity to address that question
(sufficient time being allowed for it to substantiate its
Ð annul Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
reply). The approach of the Court of First Instance is
the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
all the more improper in view of the fact that it clearly
by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC (1) in its entirety, or, in
suggested in its questions at the end of the written
the alternative, with respect solely to its application to
procedure that the point at issue was the number of
SMUs,
undertakings represented, not the number of persons
employed by those undertakings,
Ð order the Commission to pay all costs, including those
incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First
Instance. Ð breach of the obligation to state reasons.

(1) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4.


Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

Ð Infringement of Article 2(2) of the Agreement on


social policy concluded between the Member States of
the European Community with the exception of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
Ireland, annexed to Protocol 14 on social policy,
gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 24 July 1998
annexed to the Treaty establishing the European
in the case of Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus
Community: the Court of First Instance erroneously
Hermann Lampe KG
assessed the scope of Article 2(2) which, with a view
to ensuring compliance with the clear and (Case C-322/98)
unconditional prohibition laid down therein, calls for
(98/C 312/13)
the participation of an association which is genuinely
representative of SMUs and authorised by them to
present their case. Respect for their prerogatives can
only be ensured by direct recognition of the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
association representing SMUs as having a right of European Communities by order of the Sixth Chamber of
action for annulment. The Court of Justice cannot, by the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Higher Labour Court,
means of a preliminary ruling Ð in so far as a Hamburg) of 24 July 1998, received at the Court Registry
reference for such a ruling implies that a national on 20 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
court is confronted with a conflict between legal rules Bärbel Kachelmann against Bankhaus Hermann Lampe
after the Directive's transposition Ð express judicial KG on the following question:
condemnation of the unlawful situation until after it
has been created,
Is Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) to be interpreted
as meaning that, when applying paragraph 1(3) of the
Ð infringement of Article 4 of the Agreement on social Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Employment Protection)
policy: the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the Ð in this case in the version in force until 30 September
meaning of management and labour'. It reasons that, 1996 Ð part-time female employees are to be regarded as
provided it is established that UNICE, CEEP and comparable with male/female full-time employees in the