You are on page 1of 2

11.8.2001

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel de Pau (First Criminal Chamber) by judgment of that court of 15 May 2001, in the criminal proceedings against

Union

Régionale Syndicale des Petits et Moyens Transporteurs

du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine);

tion du Travail des Transports

Intervener: Inspec-

Jacques Bourrasse — Party claiming civil damages:

preliminary ruling in the case of Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming Partnership, on the following questions:

1.

Do Articles 1 and/or 2 of Council Regulation 3950/92( 1 ) permit the competent body in a Member State to take legal action directly against a producer to recover levy due from that producer (otherwise than pursuant to Article 2 (3) in respect of direct sales)?

2.

If so, in what circumstances may such action be taken?

3.

In particular, may such action be taken where the purchaser to whom milk was delivered was (a) not approved pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regu- lation 536/93( 2 ) and/or (b) has not complied with any of its obligations under Article 7 of that Regulation and/or (c) has not recovered or sought to recover levy from the producers concerned?

(Case C-228/01)

(2001/C 227/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de Pau (First Criminal Chamber) of 15 May 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in

the criminal proceedings against Jacques Bourrasse —

Party

claiming civil damages: Union Régionale Syndicale des Petits et Moyens Transporteurs du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine);

Intervener:

following questions:

Inspection du Travail des Transports, on the ( 1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992,

establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1). ( 2 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ L 57, 10.03.1993, p. 12).

1. Can ‘the hiring of a vehicle without a driver’ as envisaged by Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC( 1 ) be

interpreted as permitting the

lessor, a road haulage

company governed by French law:

— to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary within French territory on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage company governed by Portuguese law

— to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage company governed by Portuguese law, the tacho- graph discs of the drivers employed by that com- pany?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Brescia Regional

Court — Third Civil Chamber — by order of that court

2. Did the hired vehicles have to be registered in Portugal? of 8 May 2001 in case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero

delle Finanze

( 1 ) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 december 1984 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (OJ L 335 of 22.12.1984 p. 72).

(Case C-231/01)

(2001/C 227/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Brescia Regional Court — Third Civil Chamber — of 8 May 2001 received at the Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:

(1) Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary

Partnership supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu- lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive

69/335/EEC( ) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for registration of other company documents for each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 31 May 2001, in the case of Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming

(Case C-230/01)

(2001/C 227/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 31 May 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a

1

C 227/14

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

(2) Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as

tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg (Case C-238/01) on the following question:

subsequently amended? Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be

interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36 and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl. No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this case?

( 1 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against Hans Van Lent

(Case C-232/01)

(2001/C 227/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the

Te

Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001 received at the Court Registry an 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against Hans Van Lent on the following question:

European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank

Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48 of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration

of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in

employer

and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first-

mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract

during his free time, including

weekends and holiday periods?

of employment and also

a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18

Feichtinger,

June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald

Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land

of Salzburg

(Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)

(2001/C 227/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-

Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-247/01)

(2001/C 227/26)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC( 1 ) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by Directive 97/49/EC( 2 ), which was replaced by Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive( ) 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of Directive 79/409/EEC,

3

order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of