You are on page 1of 1

26.4.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/13

ORDER OF THE COURT ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)
(Second Chamber)
of 27 February 2003
of 12 February 2003
in Case C-82/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Cassatie): Agence Maritime Lalemant NV v
in Case C-23/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteurop GIE, Belgisch Inter-
the Cour de cassation): Office national de l’emploi v ventie- en Restitutiebureau and between Malzfabrik Tivo-
Mohamed Alami ( 1) li GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( 1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture —


(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — EEC-Morocco Export refunds — Conditions for payment — Leaving the
Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 — Principle of non- geographical territory of the Community — Definition)
discrimination in the field of social security — Scope —
Unemployment benefit) (2003/C 101/23)

(2003/C 101/22) (Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published


(Language of the case: French) in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published In Case C-82/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
in the European Court Reports) by the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Agence
Maritime Lalemant NV and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteur-
op GIE, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and between
Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitu-
In Case C-23/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
tiebureau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1) of Commission
by the Belgian Cour de cassation for a preliminary ruling in
Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying
the proceedings pending before that court between Office
down common detailed rules for the application of the system
national de l’emploi and Mohamed Alami, on the interpretation
of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317,
of Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement between the
p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/
European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
85 of 23 December 1985 (OJ 1985 L 371, p. 1), the Court
signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), the Court (Second
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
informing the referring court that the Court proposes to give
of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of
the Rules of Procedure, after inviting the persons referred to in
12 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit
any observations they might have in that regard, has made an
On its proper construction, Article 41(1) of the Cooperation order on 27 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
Agreement between the European Economic Community and the follows:
Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of
No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 precludes a host Member State 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the
from refusing to grant a worker of Moroccan nationality resident in application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products,
its territory the benefit of a seniority supplement increasing the basic as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/85 of
amount of unemployment benefit on the sole ground that there is no 23 December 1985 must be interpreted as meaning that the
international agreement providing that account is to be taken of work expression ‘geographical territory of the Community’ refers to a
carried out by that worker in another Member State, even though no physical concept and that the requirement that the product in respect
such condition is imposed on workers who are nationals of that host of which export refunds have been applied for must have left the
Member State. geographical territory of the Community is not satisfied either by
placing the product under customs control or by bringing it within
the customs warehousing procedure.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
(1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.